• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Abortion is NOT murder

Missed AB

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 4, 2010
Messages
1,714
Reaction score
363
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Recently I read a thread which claims the use of "Unborn Child" is intellectually honest. The author does this by doing "A little research" to find links to the commonality of the phrase. There by creating a false validity that it must be proper terminology.

I am wondering on exactly how the strive for proper terminology will accept to not using a legal term in non-legal ways. One way is with murder vs abortion.

Let us explore

Murder - Criminal Law Lawyer Source

is the CRIME of intentionally causing another person's death without legal excuse or justification.


If it is not illegal, then it's not murder.

I give you "unborn child". Will you stop using murder?
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,550
Reaction score
15,754
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The problem enters when you examine "murder" not from a legal perspective, but from a moral perspective. There are many people who sincerely consider any act of deliberate manslaughter, save self-defense, to be murder. There are people who believe that capital punishment and war are State-sanctioned murder. I prefer to use moral terminology myself, because no matter what the issue is, I am not discussing what the law is but what I feel the law should be.

I don't expect pro-lifers to behave any differently. The only thing I ask is that they stay calm and polite and not get so self-righteous about it. If their moral opinions were that much better than mine, they wouldn't be as controversial as they are.
 

Missed AB

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 4, 2010
Messages
1,714
Reaction score
363
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
who sincerely consider any act of deliberate manslaughter, save self-defense, to be murder.
I understand what you are saying, but that is killing and not murder. You or someone else can have strong convictions one way or the other, but it is killing. There is no debate on that.
The problem enters when you examine "murder" not from a legal perspective, but from a moral perspective.
The problem I see it is that it is not possible to have an intelligent conversation when the use of words is arbitrary.

There are many people There are people who believe that capital punishment and war are State-sanctioned murder.
There are many people who believe they were abducted by UFO's, can talk to dead people, or see the future. Again having a grasp on reality and English makes the world of difference in an intelligent debate/discussion.

I prefer to use moral terminology myself, because no matter what the issue is, I am not discussing what the law is but what I feel the law should be.
I prefer to use the words in the most correct sense without bias. Any debate which needs to rely on emotion or the elimination of emotion is evidence that their is a problem with the original position and makes any common ground impossible to define.

To call abortion murder is like saying the doctor gently removed the genetic seed from it's protective pouch.
 

OscarB63

Farts in Elevators
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
26,526
Reaction score
9,462
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
water is not wet
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,431
Reaction score
16,987
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
People should be able to understand your meaning by the context - even if you use the absolute *wrong* phrase or term. . . no one should ever really get their panties in a twist over terms unless someone's being overtly offensive.
 

1069

Banned
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
24,975
Reaction score
5,126
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
People should be able to understand your meaning by the context - even if you use the absolute *wrong* phrase or term. . . no one should ever really get their panties in a twist over terms unless someone's being overtly offensive.

Usually people are being overtly offensive when it comes to online abortion debates, though.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,431
Reaction score
16,987
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Usually people are being overtly offensive when it comes to online abortion debates, though.

Sometimes they are.
Sometimes they aren't.

If they are - then the issue should be their *offensiveness* - which can come in any form. . . not whether or not they call it a zef or a pre-born or whatever.

Terms themselves aren't offensive.
 

molten_dragon

Anti-Hypocrite
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,296
Reaction score
4,918
Location
Southeast Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I dislike the use of 'abortion is murder' for the same reason that I dislike the use of the term 'unborn child'. Both are inaccurate, and generally used as part of an appeal to emotion.
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,550
Reaction score
15,754
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I understand what you are saying, but that is killing and not murder.

That's what you get for using a legal dictionary. The word has meanings beyond the strictest legal definitions. To wit:

Dictionary.com said:
mur·der [mur-der] –noun
1. Law . the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).
2. Slang . something extremely difficult or perilous: That final exam was murder!
3. a group or flock of crows.
–verb (used with object)
4. Law . to kill by an act constituting murder.
5. to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.
6. to spoil or mar by bad performance, representation, pronunciation, etc.: The tenor murdered the aria.
–verb (used without object)
7. to commit murder.

Merriam Webster said:
murder verb
1: to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice
2: to slaughter wantonly : slay

Dictionary.com's #5 and Merriam Webster's #2 would apply in the eyes of anyone that believes that abortion is "barbarous", "inhuman", or "wanton". "Murder" is a perfectly acceptable term to describe abortion.

The problem I see it is that it is not possible to have an intelligent conversation when the use of words is arbitrary.

It's not arbitrary when the definition of the word in question applies to the fashion in which the word is being used. It's entirely possible to have an intelligent and reasonable conversation with someone who believes that abortion is murder and who insists upon using the word "murder" to describe it-- concede that you support the murder of innocent little precious unborn angel babies. All the emotive nonsense in the world doesn't change the substance of your argument. It is easy to give them ground on semantics, because an "innocent little precious unborn angel baby" doesn't have any more legal rights than an "alien shapeshifting lizard gypsy" and it doesn't possess any of the other qualities that we associate with beings deserving of human rights and other legal protections.

I prefer to use the words in the most correct sense without bias.

The legal definition of "murder" is only most appropriate when discussing what the law is. When discussing what the law should be, the common definition is perfectly acceptable.

Any debate which needs to rely on emotion or the elimination of emotion is evidence that their is a problem with the original position and makes any common ground impossible to define.

Start at the edges and work your way inwards. If you agreed with their premises, you wouldn't be disagreeing with their positions in the first place. You learn just as much from your opponent by establishing where you leave common ground as by establishing where you share it.

To call abortion murder is like saying the doctor gently removed the genetic seed from it's protective pouch.

Another perfectly apt description for the procedure, in the vast majority of the cases. I've seen the tools used to perform a D&C. You can tickle someone with them, if you're a sick bastard.

I've always been fond of the term "suck-kill". If you can't maintain your support for abortion and make arguments in favor of it while calling it "suck-killing an unborn angel baby", you're probably allowing your emotions to cloud your reasoning on the issue as much as the people who use the terminology that bothers you.
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,550
Reaction score
15,754
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
People should be able to understand your meaning by the context - even if you use the absolute *wrong* phrase or term. . . no one should ever really get their panties in a twist over terms unless someone's being overtly offensive.

If they are - then the issue should be their *offensiveness* - which can come in any form. . . not whether or not they call it a zef or a pre-born or whatever.

If they're being deliberately offensive, it shows one of two things: they are either 1) weak in their position and trying to deflect any effective logical argument or 2) supremely confident that their position is ironclad, their delivery is pitch perfect, and that they're preaching to the choir. Either way, the solution is the same-- keep pressing, firmly and insistently, until an opening appears in their armor and then plunge the knife deep. Don't resort to their tactics, and don't allow their tactics to distract you. The terminology absolutely does not matter.

I dislike the use of 'abortion is murder' for the same reason that I dislike the use of the term 'unborn child'. Both are inaccurate, and generally used as part of an appeal to emotion.

If it is a child five minutes after it is born, how is it different five minutes before it is born that makes it not a child? If you accept that the child five minutes post-natal is functionally identical to the child five minutes pre-natal, you have to define some gestational milestone at which it stops being a zef and starts being a child. Once it crosses that boundary, the term "unborn child" is perfectly appropriate.
 

Missed AB

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 4, 2010
Messages
1,714
Reaction score
363
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
If it is a child five minutes after it is born, how is it different five minutes before it is born that makes it not a child? If you accept that the child five minutes post-natal is functionally identical to the child five minutes pre-natal, you have to define some gestational milestone at which it stops being a zef and starts being a child. Once it crosses that boundary, the term "unborn child" is perfectly appropriate.

The gestational mile stone which occurs is birth. The term unborn child is something I can live with. It's like Pre-historic. It denotes the time before the time. For some reason, in the information age, most people do not understand that the gestational term ends with birth and then the fetus becomes a child.

The "Unborn child" really means not yet a child since it is not yet born. Which is the reason it must be qualified as unborn.

As you point out, there is a gray period such as during the birthing process. But just as months have specific start dates and end dates, so do these mile stones. Just as the months have a gray period like as the earth rotates the 24 hours of the date change, so too does the fetus/child status. Just as it is clearly wrong to define the season based on the outside temperature, it is equally wrong to allow fetal development to include time after birth or childhood to include the time prior to birth.
 
Last edited:

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,229
Reaction score
14,235
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Usually people are being overtly offensive when it comes to online abortion debates, though.

Which is not something exclusive to the pro-life side.

As a pro-life individual. I personally believe abortion is murder. It's my goal to have the law reflect it. At this moment, a woman may legally get an abortion and it is not legally murder. However, I believe it is morally murder and should be recognized by the law as murder of an innocent. In many states it is murder for someone to hurt a pregnant woman resulting in a miscarriage. I agree with what Korimyr said.
 

Missed AB

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 4, 2010
Messages
1,714
Reaction score
363
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I personally believe abortion is murder.
Do you understand the difference between opinion and facts? You believe it is murder - but it's not in the legal sense, because murder is a legal term as KTR pointed out in his dictionary.com research.

It's my goal to have the law reflect it.
There are times as you pointed out that it is murder, but not all killings are murder, even if YOU wish they were murders. You can work towards your legal goal of increasing government control. Understand, being premature in calling something a legal term when it's not limits the impact you seek when your goal is reached.

At this moment, a woman may legally get an abortion and it is not legally murder.
What other type of murder is there? If you can see it is NOT murder, then why do you continue to call it murder? Is there a reason the term killing not good enough? Why do you need to wrongly slant wording?

I believe it is morally murder and should be recognized by the law as murder of an innocent.
It doesn't matter what you believe. Belief does not make it so. To prevert the legal tort to reflect what you desire even though as you point out it does not exist that way, only diminishes the power the law holds - the same power you seek to expand. If one day you get your wish, and more abortions are considered murder, how should anyone take it seriously if "murder" is an arbritary term based on other's feelings.

Of course it was "murder" you honor. It took over 1 hour to suck kill that baby...
 

molten_dragon

Anti-Hypocrite
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,296
Reaction score
4,918
Location
Southeast Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
If it is a child five minutes after it is born, how is it different five minutes before it is born that makes it not a child? If you accept that the child five minutes post-natal is functionally identical to the child five minutes pre-natal, you have to define some gestational milestone at which it stops being a zef and starts being a child. Once it crosses that boundary, the term "unborn child" is perfectly appropriate.

I agree with this. I should have been more specific and said that I dislike the term when it is applied to a ZEF at an earlier point in development. I tend to dislike it in general, because many pro-lifers use it to describe a ZEF at any stage of development, not just after it has passed the point of becoming a person.
 

Missed AB

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 4, 2010
Messages
1,714
Reaction score
363
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I agree with this. I should have been more specific and said that I dislike the term when it is applied to a ZEF at an earlier point in development. I tend to dislike it in general, because many pro-lifers use it to describe a ZEF at any stage of development, not just after it has passed the point of becoming a person.
,
I agree that it is an annoying appeal to emotion. I would prefer the term "Pre Child". It seems more poetic. It better shows the contrast of the need to humanize and dehumanize the same body.
 

molten_dragon

Anti-Hypocrite
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,296
Reaction score
4,918
Location
Southeast Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
,
I agree that it is an annoying appeal to emotion. I would prefer the term "Pre Child". It seems more poetic. It better shows the contrast of the need to humanize and dehumanize the same body.

I see no reason why we can't simply use the proper term for the entity in whatever stage of development it is in. Zygote, Embryo, or Fetus, depending on how developed it is.
 

mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
22,499
Reaction score
4,266
Location
DC Metro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I see no reason why we can't simply use the proper term for the entity in whatever stage of development it is in. Zygote, Embryo, or Fetus, depending on how developed it is.

Well, it's not just an issue of medicine. In law, Unborn child is used more often than any other.
 

Missed AB

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 4, 2010
Messages
1,714
Reaction score
363
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
In law, Unborn child is used more often than any other.
Really? Unborn child is used more frequently than any other legal term? I'll send you 20 dollars to your paypal account if you can prove that one.

Common Legal Words

Unborn child isn't even on the list
 

mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
22,499
Reaction score
4,266
Location
DC Metro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Really? Unborn child is used more frequently than any other legal term? I'll send you 20 dollars to your paypal account if you can prove that one.

Common Legal Words

Unborn child isn't even on the list

You should actually look at the laws as written, not the least of which the Unborn Victims of Violence act.
 

Missed AB

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 4, 2010
Messages
1,714
Reaction score
363
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
You should actually look at the laws as written, not the least of which the Unborn Victims of Violence act.
I would have looked at the laws written if that was what you were discussing. I looked at what you wrote. I am not psychic. I can only read what you write.

My offer still stands. If you can prove that unborn child is one of the most used legal terms, I will send you 20 dollars to your paypal account... You going to back up your claims or just change the subject?
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,550
Reaction score
15,754
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The gestational mile stone which occurs is birth. The term unborn child is something I can live with. It's like Pre-historic. It denotes the time before the time. For some reason, in the information age, most people do not understand that the gestational term ends with birth and then the fetus becomes a child.

The distinction between "fetus" and "child" is a matter of definition. The object is what it is, not what we call it, and the act of naming a thing is the same as the act of defining it. Any argument arising over a difference in moral values is going to, in the end, hinge on a more fundamental disagreement over definitions. Defining a "fetus" as a "child" puts it in the same category as all other "children", subject to the same rules that govern our interaction with "children"; defining a "child" as a "fetus" means removing it from that category. Accepting your opponents' terms forces them to focus on facts, rather than on semantics-- and unnerves them in the process.

As you point out, there is a gray period such as during the birthing process. But just as months have specific start dates and end dates, so do these mile stones. Just as the months have a gray period like as the earth rotates the 24 hours of the date change, so too does the fetus/child status. Just as it is clearly wrong to define the season based on the outside temperature, it is equally wrong to allow fetal development to include time after birth or childhood to include the time prior to birth.

These are all matters of definition. They are all arbitrary assignments of meaning; they mean precisely what we want them to mean, neither more nor less.

They define the seasons differently in the Southern Hemisphere, based on the climate. Our definitions do not work for them, so they changed them to suit.

Do you understand the difference between opinion and facts? You believe it is murder - but it's not in the legal sense, because murder is a legal term as KTR pointed out in his dictionary.com research.

The law is not a thing of facts. It is a thing of definitions; the law is as much a matter of opinion as morality and the definitions of words. He defines abortion as "murder" in the moral sense-- in the sense of his own morals-- and wants the law to change its definition to suit his moral opinions. There is nothing wrong with this; if the situation were reversed, you would be seeking to redefine "murder" such that it did not include abortion. I am seeking to redefine it such that it does not include the infanticide of newborns. Other people are seeking more nuanced redefinitions of the law, such as changing the guidelines which govern the process of abortion.

It doesn't matter what you believe. Belief does not make it so.

It does when it is the belief of 268 Representatives and 51 Senators, or when it is the belief of 5 Supreme Court Justices. It does when it is the belief of enough people that it changes the minds of those officials. The law is nothing more than the opinions of people with enough power to enforce them.
 

mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
22,499
Reaction score
4,266
Location
DC Metro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I would have looked at the laws written if that was what you were discussing. I looked at what you wrote. I am not psychic. I can only read what you write.

My offer still stands. If you can prove that unborn child is one of the most used legal terms, I will send you 20 dollars to your paypal account... You going to back up your claims or just change the subject?

I actually already have, I've posted laws and excerpts of laws that show just that. It's not my fault that you are late to the party, go back and read through the threads.
 

Missed AB

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 4, 2010
Messages
1,714
Reaction score
363
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I actually already have, I've posted laws and excerpts of laws that show just that. It's not my fault that you are late to the party, go back and read through the threads.

Again you have shown nothing.

You claimed "Unborn child" to be the most used legal term. Stop deflecting.

Put up or shut up. Here's 20 dollars to your paypal account if you can back up your claim that "Unborn child" is the most commonly used legal term.

How much do you write here for ego? Now you can't you can't back up your claim for money?

I will assume you accept that you are wrong in your claim.
 

mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
22,499
Reaction score
4,266
Location
DC Metro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Again you have shown nothing.

You claimed "Unborn child" to be the most used legal term. Stop deflecting.

Put up or shut up. Here's 20 dollars to your paypal account if you can back up your claim that "Unborn child" is the most commonly used legal term.

How much do you write here for ego? Now you can't you can't back up your claim for money?

I will assume you accept that you are wrong in your claim.

Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 -- Laci and Conner's Law

Alabama: Legislation taking effect July 1, 2006 (HB 19) amended Section 13A-6-1 of the Code of Alabama to include "an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability" as a "person" and "human being" for purposes of the state laws dealing with murder, manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, and assault.

Alaska: Alaska Statutes 11.41 (as amended by Senate Bill 20, enacted June 16, 2006) establishes the crimes of "murder of an unborn child," "manslaughter of an unborn child," "criminally negligent homicide of an unborn child," and "assault of an unborn child." Alaska Statutes 11.81.900(b) defines "unborn child" as "a member of species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

Arizona: The "unborn child in the womb at any stage of its development" is fully covered by the state's murder and manslaughter statutes. For purposes of establishing the level of punishment, a victim who is "an unborn child shall be treated like a minor who is under twelve years of age." Senate Bill 1052, signed into law on April 25, 2005, amending the following sections of the Arizona Revised Statutes: 13-604, 13-604.01, 13-703, 13-1102, 13-1103, 13-1104, 13-1105, 13-4062, 31-412, 41-1604.11 and 41-1604.13.

Georgia: Legislation taking effect July 1, 2006 (SB 77) recognizes an "unborn child" (defined as "a member of the species homo sapiens at any stage of development who is carried in the womb") as a victim of the offenses of feticide, voluntary manslaughter of an unborn child, assault of an unborn child, and battery of an unborn child. (Official Code of Georgia Annotated, Sections 16-5-20, 16-5-28, 16-5-29, 16-5-80)

Illinois: The killing of an "unborn child" at any stage of pre-natal development is intentional homicide, voluntary manslaughter, or involuntary manslaughter or reckless homicide. Ill. Comp. Stat. ch. 720, §§5/9-1.2, 5/9-2.1, 5/9-3.2 (1993). Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 720 § 5/12-3.1. A person commits battery of an unborn child if he intentionally or knowingly without legal justification and by any means causes bodily harm to an unborn child. Read with Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 720 § 5/12-4.4.

Kansas: Under "Alexa's Law," signed into law on May 9, 2007, as part of HB 2062, effective July 1, 2007, an "unborn child," meaning "a living individual organism of the species homo sapiens, in utero, at any stage of gestation from fertilization to birth," is defined as a "person" and a "human being" for the purposes of the Kansas statutes against first degree murder, second degree murder, capital murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, vehicular homicide, and numerous battery offenses.

Kentucky: Since February, 2004, Kentucky law establishes a crime of "fetal homicide" in the first, second, third, and fourth degrees. The law covers an "unborn child," defined as "a member of the species homo sapiens in utero from conception onward, without regard to age, health, or condition of dependency."

Louisiana: The killing of an "unborn child" is first degree feticide, second degree feticide, or third degree feticide. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§14:32.5 - 14.32.8, read with §§14:2(1), (7), (11) (West 1997).

Michigan: The killing of an "unborn quick child" is manslaughter under Mich. Stat. Ann. § 28.555. The Supreme Court of Michigan interpreted this statute to apply to only those unborn children who are viable. Larkin v. Cahalan, 208 N.W.2d 176 (Mich. 1973). However, a separate Michigan law, effective Jan. 1, 1999, provides felony penalties for actions that intentionally, or in wanton or willful disregard for consequences, cause a "miscarriage or stillbirth," or cause "aggravated physical injury to an embryo or fetus."(M.C.L. 750.90a through 750.90f)

Minnesota: Since 1986 the killing of an "unborn child" at any stage of pre-natal development is murder (first, second, or third degree) or manslaughter, (first or second degree). It is also a felony to cause the death of an "unborn child" during the commission of a felony. Minn. Stat. Ann. §§609.266, 609.2661- 609.2665, 609.268(1) (West 1987). The death of an "unborn child" through operation of a motor vehicle is criminal vehicular operation. Minn. Stat. Ann. §609.21 (West 1999).

Mississippi: Under a law enacted May 6, 2004, and effective July 1, 2004, for purposes of enumerated state laws dealing with various types of homicide and certain other violent crimes, "the term 'human being' includes an unborn child at every stage of gestation from conception until live birth and the term 'unborn child' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." (SB 2869)

Missouri: The killing of an "unborn child" at any stage of pre-natal development is involuntary manslaughter or first degree murder. Mo. Ann. Stat. §§1.205, 565.024, 565.020 (Vernon Supp. 1999), State v. Knapp, 843 S.W.2d 345 (Mo. 1992), State v. Holcomb, 956 S.W.2d 286 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997).

Nebraska: The killing of an "unborn child" at any stage of pre-natal development is murder in the first degree, second degree, or manslaughter. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-391 to § 28-394. (2002) In addition, "The Assault of an Unborn Child Act," effective April 13, 2006, provides that a criminal attacker who causes "serious bodily injury" to an unborn child commits the offense of "assault on an unborn child" in the first, second, or third degree. "Unborn child" is defined as "an individual member of the species Homo sapiens at any stage of development in utero." (LB 57, 2006)

North Dakota: Since 1987 the killing of an "unborn child" at any stage of pre-natal development is murder, felony murder, manslaughter, or negligent homicide. N.D. Cent. Code §§12.1-17.1-01 to 12.1-17.1-04 (1997).

Oklahoma: House Bill 1686, signed into law on May 20, 2005, recognizes "an unborn child" as a victim under state laws against murder, manslaughter, and certain other acts of violence. The law defines "unborn child" as "the unborn offspring of human beings from the moment of conception, through pregnancy, and until live birth including the human conceptus, zygote, morula, blastocyst, embryo and fetus." Following upon the law enacted in 2005, Senate Bill 1742, signed into law May 23, 2006, ensures that Oklahoma’s recognition of the unborn child as a separate victim applies uniformly across all of Oklahoma’s homicide statutes.

Pennsylvania: An individual commits criminal homicide in the first, second, or third-degree, or voluntary manslaughter of an "unborn child" if the individual intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or negligently causes the death of an unborn child. 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. §§ 2601 to 2609 (1997) "Unborn child" and "fetus." Each term shall mean an individual organism of the species Homo sapiens from fertilization until live birth." On December 27, 2006, in the case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Bullock (J-43-2006), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court unanimously rejected an array of constitutional challenges to the law, including claims based on Roe v. Wade and equal protection doctrine.

South Carolina: S. 1084, signed into law and effective on June 2, 2006, recognizes a "child in utero" who is enjured or killed during an act of criminal violence as a separate victim of a separate offense. The term "child in utero" is defined as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

South Dakota: The killing of an "unborn child" at any stage of pre-natal development is fetal homicide, manslaughter, or vehicular homicide. S.D. Codified Laws Ann. §22-16-1, 22-16-1.1, 22-16-15(5), 22-16-20, and 22-16-41, read with §§ 22-1-2(31), 22-1-2(50A) (Supp. 1997).

Texas: Under a law signed June 20, 2003, and effective September 1, 2003, the protections of the entire criminal code extend to "an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth." The law does not apply to "conduct committed by the mother of the unborn child" or to "a lawful medical procedure performed by a physican or other licensed health care provider with the requisite consent." (SB 319, Prenatal Protection Act)

Utah: The killing of an "unborn child" at any stage of pre-natal development is treated as any other homicide. Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-201 et seq. (Supp. 1998)and UT SB 178 (2002). See Utah Supreme Court decision in State of Utah v. MacGuire (January 23, 2004).

Wisconsin: Since 1998 the killing of an "unborn child" at any stage of pre-natal development is first-degree intentional homicide, first-degree reckless homicide, second-degree intentional homicide, second-degree reckless homicide, homicide by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, homicide by intoxicated use of vehicle or firearm, or homicide by negligent operation of vehicle. Wis. Stat. Ann. §§939.75, 939.24, 939.25, 940.01, 940.02, 940.05, 940.06, 940.08, 940.09, 940.10 (West 1998).

Arkansas: The killing of an "unborn child" of twelve weeks or greater gestation is capital murder, murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree, manslaughter, or negligent homicide. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 5-1-102(13)(b)(i)(a), read with Ark. Stat. Ann. §§ 5-10-101 to 5-10-105. (A separate Arkansas law makes it a battery to cause injury to a woman during a Class A misdemeanor to cause her to undergo a miscarriage or stillbirth, or to cause injury under conditions manifesting extreme indifference to human life and that results in a miscarriage or stillbirth. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 5-13-201 (a)(5)(a)).

Florida: The unlawful killing of an "unborn quick child" is murder in the same degree as if committed against the mother. [Fla. Stat. Ann. § 782.09 (West 2005)]. Other provisions cover the killing of an "unborn quick child" as manslaughter [Fla. Stat. Ann § 782.09 (West 2005)], vehicular homicide [Fla. Stat. Ann. § 782.071 (West 1999)], and DUI manslaughter [Fla. Stat. Ann. § 316.193 (West 2005)]. Under Fla. Stat. Ann. §§ 316.193 and 782.09, the term "unborn quick child" is the same as the term "viable fetus," which is defined in the following way: "... a fetus is viable when it becomes capable of meaningful life outside the womb through standard medical measures." [Fla. Stat. Ann § 782.071 (West 2005)].

Massachusetts: The killing of an unborn child after viability is vehicular homicide. Commonwealth v. Cass, 467 N.E.2d 1324 (Mass. 1984). The killing of an unborn child after viability is involuntary manslaughter. Commonwealth v. Lawrence, 536 N.E.2d 571 (Mass. 1989).

Nevada: The killing of an "unborn quick child" is manslaughter. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.210 (1997.

Rhode Island: The killing of an "unborn quick child" is manslaughter. The statute defines "quick child" to mean a viable child. R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-23-5 (1994).

Tennessee: The killing of an unborn child after viability is first-degree murder, second-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, vehicular homicide, and reckless homicide. Tenn. Code Ann. §39-13-201, 39-13-202, 39-13-210, 39-13-211, 39-13-213, 39-13-214, 39-13-215 (1997 & Supp. 1998).

Washington: The killing of an "unborn quick child" is manslaughter. Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 9A.32.060(1)(b) (West Supp. 1999).

New York: Under New York statutory law, the killing of an "unborn child" after twenty-four weeks of pregnancy is homicide. N.Y. Pen. Law § 125.00 (McKinney 1998).
 
Top Bottom