Killing a pregnant woman is not double-murder!

[radcen]

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.

Interesting point. My initial thought was 'no', but then I realized that, according to the linked article, the fetus is part of the woman, and you are speaking about damages to the woman. In light of that I think that would be acceptable.

Presuming you mean civil damages. Criminal damages would be for her, as well, just not anything extra is the point.

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

I didn't write it. There may be an email link in the article. Why don't you go look for one?

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.

Not the 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.

Phfft. Yer just mad because your attempt at derailing the thread was nipped in the bud.

 

[roughdraft274]

Phfft. Yer just mad because your attempt at derailing the thread was nipped in the bud.

Damn, it feels good being so right... :thumbs:

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

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.

Those who make that type of argument show a lack of biology knowledge. It's simply just another human hooked up to another human through the umbilical cord.

They are both separate entities and just because the prenatal human is ''biologically'' dependent on the woman throughout most of the pregnancy doesn't make it a part of the woman in anyway.

If a woman was able to magically attach the umbilical cord to me, that doesn't make me a part of her in anyway.

 

[TheGoverness]

Isn't a fetus a human too, just at a early stage of development?

 

[Absentglare]

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:

WARNING: gruesome details not for the faint of heart below.

In Longmont, CO a woman carved a baby out of a pregnant woman, the baby died, the mother survived; but they couldn't indict the attacker on the charge of murder because it's not, legally, a baby if it's not viable.

No murder charge in Craigslist case baby cut from womb - CNN.com

Absolutely horrific attack.

 

[Paleocon]

I didn't write it. There may be an email link in the article. Why don't you go look for one?

That you posted it indicates you agree with it. So I ask again, what is an unborn baby if not a human?

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

Isn't a fetus a human too, just at a early stage of development?

These are from the books I have.

1. ''The scientific answer is that the embryo is a human from the time of fertilization because of it's human chromosomal constitution. The zygote a developing human.''

Keith L. Moore, T.V.N Persaud, Mark G. Torchia, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 8th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2013. p.327


2. “Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct human individual.”

Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)


3. “A Human begins to exist at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote a new human'' (i.e., an embryo).”

Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.


4. “In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual. … Fertilization takes place in the oviduct … resulting in the formation of a zygote containing a single diploid nucleus. Embryonic development is considered to begin at this point… This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development.

Essentials of Human Embryology, William J. Larsen, (New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998), 1-17.


5. “The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.''

Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3


Yes it is. That's been an established scientific fact for well over 40 years in human embryology, biology, organism life, genetics-DNA etc. Various information was posted across this sub forum for the last decade from human embryology books affirming that a human begins to live at conception. Some pro choicers will deny that though.

 

[radcen]

Damn, it feels good being so right... :thumbs:

Yes, declaring victory on the internet is so valid. It couldn't possibly be a concession that you have nowhere else to go. No, not at all. :lol:

Isn't a fetus a human too, just at a early stage of development?

That you posted it indicates you agree with it. So I ask again, what is an unborn baby if not a human?

Not according to the linked article.

 

[roughdraft274]

Yes, declaring victory on the internet is so valid. It couldn't possibly be a concession that you have nowhere else to go. No, not at all. :lol:

Declaring victory? All I said is that I was right, lol.

There's no need to go anywhere else when the other person in the discussion ****s the bed and can't even try to argue against the point you've made. My very first post still stands. And the best you've mustered up are trollish dodges and dismissals.

 

[Beaudreaux]

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:

Yes Ma'am had the TV on The View today when Hillary was on there talking about how an unborn baby, even one just hours from birth, does not have any Constitutional or legal rights. That would be consistent with the OP position - but not consistent with the law in 38 states regarding a death that occurs regarding a pregnant woman and her unborn baby:

Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws. The states include: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. At least 23 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization"); these are indicated below with an asterisk (*).

[...]

 

[radcen]

Declaring victory? All I said is that I was right, lol.

There's no need to go anywhere else when the other person in the discussion ****s the bed and can't even try to argue against the point you've made. My very first post still stands. And the best you've mustered up are trollish dodges and dismissals.

Your first post stands... in another thread where it is relevant to the topic. Your first post was off-topic. As such, it was worthy dismissal.

 

[radcen]

Yes Ma'am had the TV on The View today when Hillary was on there talking about how an unborn baby, even one just hours from birth, does not have any Constitutional or legal rights. That would be consistent with the OP position - but not consistent with the law in 38 states regarding a death that occurs regarding a pregnant woman and her unborn baby:

I'm surprised it's only 38 states. I would have guessed more.

 

[SocialD]

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:

Is this just a troll post or what?

 

[radcen]

Is this just a troll post or what?

Or what. See post #6.

 

[Chomsky]

Interesting point. My initial thought was 'no', but then I realized that, according to the linked article, the fetus is part of the woman, and you are speaking about damages to the woman. In light of that I think that would be acceptable.

Presuming you mean civil damages. Criminal damages would be for her, as well, just not anything extra is the point.

Fair enough, and happy to see you've been willing to move forward a bit.

But actually I *was* thinking some form additional moderate criminal charges may be appropriate. Perhaps by upping the charge to some aggravated circumstance. I think at the very least the law would see a non-viable fetus as a possession, and the women was not just injured physically in an assault or attempted murder, but she also was in addition deprived of her fetus at best, or her future child at worse.

If I batter you and destroy your car, I get two charges minimum. The battery charge, and the criminal damage to property charge. I believe the same is appropriate here: Battery or attempted murder on the victim, and some appropriate charge for damaging and causing the subsequent loss of the victim's fetus.

I know you've been open-minded, and have moved from your opening position. I wish we saw more of that! But if you don't agree here, I can respect that.

But this is the way I see things from where I'm sitting.

 

[Scrabaholic]

That you posted it indicates you agree with it.

Since when???

 

[roughdraft274]

Your first post stands... in another thread where it is relevant to the topic. Your first post was off-topic. As such, it was worthy dismissal.

If you don't think it's relevant that's only because you don't know what the **** you're talking about apparently.

You: You can't believe A & B without being a hypocrite.

Me: I do believe A & B and here is my logic for doing so without being a hypocrite.

You: Off topic!

 

[lenski7]

Cutting the climber lose will splatter him across the canyon floor.

Don't worry we'll soon be digging up Newton to try him for Accessory to first degree murder, because he stole your damn last mint.

 

[lenski7]

Fair enough, and happy to see you've been willing to move forward a bit.

But actually I *was* thinking some form additional moderate criminal charges may be appropriate. Perhaps by upping the charge to some aggravated circumstance. I think at the very least the law would see a non-viable fetus as a possession, and the women was not just injured physically in an assault or attempted murder, but she also was in addition deprived of her fetus at best, or her future child at worse.

If I batter you and destroy your car, I get two charges minimum. The battery charge, and the criminal damage to property charge. I believe the same is appropriate here: Battery or attempted murder on the victim, and some appropriate charge for damaging and causing the subsequent loss of the victim's fetus.

I know you've been open-minded, and have moved from your opening position. I wish we saw more of that! But if you don't agree here, I can respect that.

But this is the way I see things from where I'm sitting.

Based on this, what do we define as the value of a fetus. I'm just curious what you would think, because the severity of punishment for criminal damage to property depends on the value in question.

 

[Absentglare]

Yes Ma'am had the TV on The View today when Hillary was on there talking about how an unborn baby, even one just hours from birth, does not have any Constitutional or legal rights. That would be consistent with the OP position - but not consistent with the law in 38 states regarding a death that occurs regarding a pregnant woman and her unborn baby:

I don't know where Hillary said an unborn "hours from birth" has no rights- that sounds like bull****.

Further, Colorado does not recognize the killing of a fetus as murder, so there's something wrong with your "facts" there, too :

WARNING: gruesome details not for the faint of heart below.

In Longmont, CO a woman carved a baby out of a pregnant woman, the baby died, the mother survived; but they couldn't indict the attacker on the charge of murder because it's not, legally, a baby if it's not viable.

No murder charge in Craigslist case baby cut from womb - CNN.com

Absolutely horrific attack.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

A person who causes a pregnant woman to lose her child is violating her reproductive rights above and beyond the original offense; that person can and should be charged with extra offenses for having done so. The fact that these charges are equated with homicide is an error in the moral reasoning behind the laws-- because the laws themselves were not intended to protect pregnant women, but rather to provide a back-door into the Constitutional protection for womens' reproductive rights.

 

[Chomsky]

Based on this, what do we define as the value of a fetus. I'm just curious what you would think, because the severity of punishment for criminal damage to property depends on the value in question.

I believe the value of a fetus is higher than any we normally associate with ordinary and real "property". So I would make a specific charge for these types of crimes that would be higher than ordinary property, but fall short of manslaughter. It would be a special category, by necessity.

My personal feeling is: The non-procedural killing of a fetus against the mother's wishes *is* akin to manslaughter in magnitude, but then we have the legal quandary Radcen and his article brought forth: "How can the destruction of a fetus be manslaughter or murder on one hand, but be legally abortable on the other"?

That's a very difficult question to legally reconcile, if you want the maintain the sanctity of a desired pregnancy while accepting the legality of an aborted pregnancy. The only way I can see this reconciled legally, is if a fetus is legally reduced to the level of personal property, which I personally feel sets the value of a developing human being a bit short.

So to succinctly answer your question, I'd set the criminality value at: "Higher than ordinary property, but lower than manslaughter".

 

[CanadaJohn]

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.

There was a law proposed in the Canadian Parliament, which is perhaps what I was remembering, back in the late 2000's, but I haven't found any reference to it since. There are, however, several States that have such laws.

 

[radcen]

Fair enough, and happy to see you've been willing to move forward a bit.

But actually I *was* thinking some form additional moderate criminal charges may be appropriate. Perhaps by upping the charge to some aggravated circumstance. I think at the very least the law would see a non-viable fetus as a possession, and the women was not just injured physically in an assault or attempted murder, but she also was in addition deprived of her fetus at best, or her future child at worse.

If I batter you and destroy your car, I get two charges minimum. The battery charge, and the criminal damage to property charge. I believe the same is appropriate here: Battery or attempted murder on the victim, and some appropriate charge for damaging and causing the subsequent loss of the victim's fetus.

I know you've been open-minded, and have moved from your opening position. I wish we saw more of that! But if you don't agree here, I can respect that.

But this is the way I see things from where I'm sitting.

re: criminal charges

Two scenarios...

1) Drunk driver hits a pregnant woman in a car. Fetus is terminated, woman is battered, but will be fine otherwise.

2) Drunk driver hits a non-pregnant woman in a car. Woman is battered, loses an arm, but will be fine otherwise.

In scenario #2, does the drunk driver get additional charges because she loses an arm? (I honestly don't know the answer to that.) Or, are the charges the same whether an arm is lost or not?

According to the linked article, the fetus is merely a part of her, not unlike an arm. Criminally, charges should be no different in either scenario. (Possible point of viability notwithstanding)

re: civil liability

Using the two same scenarios, does she deserve civil damages? Maybe. Probably. Your previous point is well-taken, and again, according to the linked article, this would be appropriate. You could argue loss, possibly literally economically. If she's a left-handed calligrapher and loses her left arm, she literally loses her livelihood. There could be literal losses regarding a fetus, as well. At a minimum she did lose a part of her.

 

[Beaudreaux]

I don't know where Hillary said an unborn "hours from birth" has no rights- that sounds like bull****.

Further, Colorado does not recognize the killing of a fetus as murder, so there's something wrong with your "facts" there, too :

Then watch this and see if it's Bull****... Within the first 25 freaking seconds - I'll expect an apology.