Killing a pregnant woman is not double-murder!

[Chomsky]

Actually - your argument only applies during part of pregnancy where the fetus cannot survive without the mother. But after a certain point that probability shifts and instead of becoming an impossibility, it because a strong likelihood.

Rights are ever-shifting as people grow and develop in the US, and I apply that same shifting scale to abortion. I don't support it 100% - and the later a woman is into pregnancy the less I support it and I certain don't support it if a fetus has reached a point where it can survive apart from the mother. On top of that, I add her intent. Since I put a lot of value on her choice to HAVE a child - her view of her pregnancy (whether she intends to carry to full term and have the baby) strongly influences things. If she decides the moment she finds out she's pregnant that she's keeping the child - even if that's day 1 - then anything after that point will be death of both child and mother.

To the bolded:

Yes, that's the conundrum A.S.

The fetus is legally liable to termination, but to an expectant mother happily looking forward to the birth of her child it will appear to be murder in her eyes!

Like so many things abortion, these are tough heartwrenching decisions that are difficult to decipher!

 

[Henrin]

Woman's wishes should be irrelevant. It's either a life worthy of (legal) protection, or it's not. Pick one.

Btw, I know that, legally, you're correct, at least in part.

The state only cares about the woman's wishes. The argument is essentially that an outside party killing the unborn is a violation of her right to choose. They are not saying the unborn is worthy of protection or that it's not worthy of protection, but just that the woman has full say on if it lives or dies.

 

[Chomsky]

I find your use of the term "cut-off" interesting in an abortion forum.

Good catch, but double entendre was completely unintended.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Good catch, but double entendre was completely unintended.

I knew it wasn't intended - it just struck me as a little funny in the context of the discussion.

 

[joG]

An interesting legal situation, where I think I'd draw the line at the point of viability.

In my opinion: We can't have legal abortion, yet also charge murder in the death of a fetus that's of abortable age. Yet there should be some serious charge levied if an individual causes the death of a late-term viable baby.

So I would propose making the cut-off for more serious charges set at the state's age of viability. I'm still not sure if I'd go as far as a murder charge, but it might be appropriate depending upon the criminal intent. Perhaps some lesser charge would be appropriate?

Of course, determining viability might prove difficult other than statistically, when the thing is dead. But that is the way it is applied in case of abortion too.

 

[Chomsky]

Establishing a "point if viability", whatever that may be, would be acceptable... provided it is consistently applied. No option for an abortion as a choice, and criminal charges if someone else unnaturally terminates.

Yeah, that might be a reasonable start, but I wonder if there still needs to be some assistance for the prospective non-viable mother based upon her intent, as Aunt Spiker argued? That's where it gets really sticky!

I'm thinking perhaps some additional criminal charge allowing for harming her fetus (not just her), but obviously it could not be murder charge.

 

[Paleocon]

Killing a pregnant woman is not double-murder! And we have proof.

We'll focus on Myth #1.

Highlights in red mine.

*How* the fetus/baby/whatever is terminated is irrelevant. Doesn't matter if it was at the doing of the mother or someone else. Doesn't matter if it was in an abortion clinic, or during a fiery car crash by a drunk driver. It's either a life worthy of protection... and prosecution if unnaturally terminated... or it's not. This article states unequivocally that it is NOT a person, hence any charges for double-homicide are bogus.

Any logical-thinking person who favors (continued) legalization of abortion would readily agree. Unless they're a hypocrite, of course.

opcorn:

What exactly do you imagine an unborn baby is if not a human? A fish?

 

[radcen]

Of course, determining viability might prove difficult other than statistically, when the thing is dead. But that is the way it is applied in case of abortion too.

Realistically, it would have to be a somewhat arbitrary point. Six months, seven months, whatever.

Yeah, that might be a reasonable start, but I wonder if there still needs to be some assistance for the prospective non-viable mother based upon her intent, as Aunt Spiker argued? That's where it gets really sticky!

I'm thinking perhaps some additional criminal charge allowing for harming her fetus (not just her), but obviously it could not be murder charge.

No. No intent of anyone. It's either a life worthy of legal protection, or it's not.

I see no stickiness whatsoever.

What exactly do you imagine an unborn baby is if not a human? A fish?

Ask the person who wrote the linked article.

 

[Chomsky]

I knew it wasn't intended - it just struck me as a little funny in the context of the discussion.

Ah, and here I though maybe you over-estimated my dry and sublime wit! :2razz:

 

[JayDubya]

Is it? No, not usually considered as such in most jurisdictions.

Should it be? Abso****inglutely.

 

[Chomsky]

Of course, determining viability might prove difficult other than statistically, when the thing is dead. But that is the way it is applied in case of abortion too.

Yes, these things are not done on a specific individual basis, but upon length of term.

 

[pragmatic]

Killing a pregnant woman is not double-murder! And we have proof.

We'll focus on Myth #1.

Highlights in red mine.

*How* the fetus/baby/whatever is terminated is irrelevant. Doesn't matter if it was at the doing of the mother or someone else. Doesn't matter if it was in an abortion clinic, or during a fiery car crash by a drunk driver. It's either a life worthy of protection... and prosecution if unnaturally terminated... or it's not. This article states unequivocally that it is NOT a person, hence any charges for double-homicide are bogus.

Any logical-thinking person who favors (continued) legalization of abortion would readily agree. Unless they're a hypocrite, of course.

opcorn:

Scenario 2:

Two men exchange gunfire at a party. They both miss and each accidently shoot separate women bystanders. The two women are both shot in the abdomen with bullets from a small caliber guns. Both women will recover easily from their wounds. The only difference between the two women is that one of them was 8 months pregnant with a healthy viable child. The unborn child was killed instantly when the mother was shot.

Question: Should both the men in the gunfight be charged identically? In the eyes of the law should the shooter who killed the unborn child be held in any way accountable for the death of that child??




//

 

[CanadaJohn]

Ah, and here I though maybe you over-estimated my dry and sublime wit! :2razz:

Actually, I wouldn't expect you to joke about abortion and/or murder, considering my experience with your posting style.

 

[Chomsky]

No. No intent of anyone. It's either a life worthy of legal protection, or it's not.

I see no stickiness whatsoever.

My comment was not in charges incurred by damage to the fetus/baby, but by damages to the mother.

I'm speaking in terms of a crime against her, that being depriving her of her fetus. Should the fetus be aborted or made non-viable due to physical actions against the mother's wishes, it seems to me an assailant should incur some additional charge or punishment above whatever other crime he or she committed, even if we were to legally think of the non-viable fetus as a mere (but special) possession. This 2nd charge would be due to the mother being injured twice; once to her person, and another to her fetus which is her property.

In her pregnancy, she is in a unique circumstance above that of others in the human condition.

 

[Paleocon]

Ask the person who wrote the linked article.

That person didn't choose to post it here, you did.

 

[Chomsky]

Actually, I wouldn't expect you to joke about abortion and/or murder, considering my experience with your posting style.

Thank you, I appreciate that. :thumbs:

 

[soot]

6 Abortion Myths We Need to Put to Rest Once and For All — Everyday Feminism

Therefore, a fetus is a part of the person housing the pregnancy.

This is an artist's rendering of a fetus at 22 weeks:



46 states allow abortion at this point or ever later in a pregnancy.

The head, arms and legs you see in this image are "part of the person housing the pregnancy".

I guess their the mother's "extra" head, arms and legs?

What? You don't believe me?

I see women walking down the street every day with two heads and four arms.

Don't you?

:roll:

I've heard a lot of idiot arguments in favor of abortion.

And lets not split hairs, we've got more than our share of folks making that brand of idiot argument right here at DP.

But the "it's just "part" of the mother" argument is by far the most idiotic.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Scenario 2:

Two men exchange gunfire at a party. They both miss and each accidently shoot separate women bystanders. The two women are both shot in the abdomen with bullets from a small caliber guns. Both women will recover easily from their wounds. The only difference between the two women is that one of them was 8 months pregnant with a healthy viable child. The unborn child was killed instantly when the mother was shot.

Question: Should both the men in the gunfight be charged identically? In the eyes of the law should the shooter who killed the unborn child be held in any way accountable for the death of that child??




//

In many if not most jurisdictions, both men would be charged with attempted murder along with several other lesser charges. The unwilling taking of the life of the unborn child from the mother to be is considered an attempt on the life of the mother, usually nothing more, and does not depend on where in the term the unborn's development lies.

 

[Removable Mind]

Scenario 2:

Two men exchange gunfire at a party. They both miss and each accidently shoot separate women bystanders. The two women are both shot in the abdomen with bullets from a small caliber guns. Both women will recover easily from their wounds. The only difference between the two women is that one of them was 8 months pregnant with a healthy viable child. The unborn child was killed instantly when the mother was shot.

Question: Should both the men in the gunfight be charged identically? In the eyes of the law should the shooter who killed the unborn child be held in any way accountable for the death of that child??




//

The Unborn Victim Act (Federal Law) makes it a felony to cause the death of a yet to be born, regardless of the stage of development, under certain circumstances, and most states also have related laws that might also apply.

In your scenario...the charge would be most likely charged with assault with a deadly weapon - related to the two women - and a manslaughter/murder charge of a yet to be born.

 

[Removable Mind]

In many if not most jurisdictions, both men would be charged with attempted murder along with several other lesser charges. The unwilling taking of the life of the unborn child from the mother to be is considered an attempt on the life of the mother, usually nothing more, and does not depend on where in the term the unborn's development lies.

Not true in the US...see my post #44.

 

[joG]

Realistically, it would have to be a somewhat arbitrary point. Six months, seven months, whatever.



No. No intent of anyone. It's either a life worthy of legal protection, or it's not.

I see no stickiness whatsoever.



Ask the person who wrote the linked article.

Why shouldn't the date of a killing be statistically and arbitrarily set, when the convenience of a girl is at stake?

 

[roughdraft274]

That's great... and soooo irrelevant to this thread topic.

Not if you start throwing around bull**** insults like hypocrite.

I can at the same time think that someone who kills a pregnant woman be charged with double murder and that abortion should be legal while 100% maintaining a logical argument.

But I'm going to guess that you aren't interested in an actual mature discussion judging by your posts.

 

[joG]

This is an artist's rendering of a fetus at 22 weeks:

View attachment 67199850

46 states allow abortion at this point or ever later in a pregnancy.

The head, arms and legs you see in this image are "part of the person housing the pregnancy".

I guess their the mother's "extra" head, arms and legs?

What? You don't believe me?

I see women walking down the street every day with two heads and four arms.

Don't you?

:roll:

I've heard a lot of idiot arguments in favor of abortion.

And lets not split hairs, we've got more than our share of folks making that brand of idiot argument right here at DP.

But the "it's just "part" of the mother" argument is by far the most idiotic.

It's a question of ethics, I guess.

 

[Removable Mind]

This is an artist's rendering of a fetus at 22 weeks:

View attachment 67199850

46 states allow abortion at this point or ever later in a pregnancy.

The head, arms and legs you see in this image are "part of the person housing the pregnancy".

I guess their the mother's "extra" head, arms and legs?

What? You don't believe me?

I see women walking down the street every day with two heads and four arms.

Don't you?

:roll:

I've heard a lot of idiot arguments in favor of abortion.

And lets not split hairs, we've got more than our share of folks making that brand of idiot argument right here at DP.

But the "it's just "part" of the mother" argument is by far the most idiotic.

No stage of the yet to be born is like an appendage of the woman, but it is, however, dependent on the use of a woman's body to develop/survive.

 

[Scrabaholic]

I'd also have to do some research, but I believe there are similar laws here in Canada that support a pregnancy as a second life in a murder case.

Please do post that, because as far as I am aware, that is impossible here in Canada.

ETA: Now that I think about it, it could happen if the child dies after being born alive, as per our Criminal Code:

223. (1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not

(a) it has breathed;

(b) it has an independent circulation; or

(c) the navel string is severed.

Killing child

(2) A person commits homicide when he causes injury to a child before or during its birth as a result of which the child dies after becoming a human being.

223. When child becomes human being | Criminal Code of Canada

However, I do not believe a second murder charge could be applied if the fetus dies in utero.