Murder or Assault

[MisterMike]

1. Nope. The idea that when a pregnant woman is attacked, and loses the baby, there's been a murder is based on, "intent," in exactly the same way: she has not yet delivered, and therefore she only has a POTENTIAL child, so what matters is that she intended to have a child.

2. It's not nearly as far afield as when this hypothetical gets generated--as it typically does--as part of a general strategy for making abortion illegal, or (in this case) establishing the concept that abortion and murder are the same things.

In other words, both examples endow the couple with a sort of, "honorary," child--the one because of their plans, the other because of a pregnancy that has not yet come to term. In fact, the "anti-abortion," argument rests on precisely the same idea used to underpin the, "pro-choice:" that a woman, backed up by society, has made a choice, and that some criminal has taken that choice away from her.

But in any case, these cases only started appearing when various prosecutors, either because of their personal beliefs or because of political pressures, started looking for ways to chip away at Roe v. Wade. That was the explicit, open, avowed point, and to treat these cases as simple theory is to ignore actual reality and history.

No, she intended to have a baby. And depending on the term of the pregnancy, she does have a baby inside of her.

A not too far fetched example: Perhaps some middle eastern guy plans on having 20 kids and intends for each of those to have 20 kids, but his wife's blown up in a suicide bomb attack, can he claim 20 X 20 murders?

So no, planning a baby and then gettin killed tain't the same as carrying a baby and gettin killed.

I like how the Pro Choice folk go right to denying there is a "child" inside. As if not using the term baby somehow makes killing it less of a tragedy.

But this is from the same crowd who thinks at the other end of this life, when you're too old to care for yourself again, you should be murdered then too.

 

[evenflow1121]

I dont really see this as a prochoice prolife thing, and I am prochoice. If a woman is carrying a child and those are the only facts, then can we assume for ****s and giggles that the woman actually wants to have the baby, even if she did not its a criminal issue so it wont matter. You could make an argument that the baby has not been born so we dont really know if it ever will, sure anything can happen, she may still be prone to a miscarriage, she may be allergic to shrimp and eat too much of it at her baby shower and have a miscarriage, the problem is we dont know if this were to happen, we cant really see that far. What we do know is that upon the assault, the assault interrupted her pregnancy, again something we assume she wanted, if that is the case, then you must take the plaintiff or the victim in this case as you found them, a pregnant woman carrying her unborn child. Meaning, that if you go out and kick a pregnant woman and as a result she looses her child you should be charged with murder 2 in the least, because up to that point which is as far as we can see, you were the cause of the miscarriage. It is also good public policy, imagine if everytime someone got into a fight with a pregnant woman and struck her and she lost her baby, fetus, ect all the assailant would be charged with would be assault.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Uh...I think maybe folks need to start reading a little more carefully.

Robert:

"The idea that when a pregnant woman is attacked, and loses the baby, there's been a murder is based on, "intent," in exactly the same way: she has not yet delivered, and therefore she only has a POTENTIAL child, so what matters is that she intended to have a child."

MM:

"No, she intended to have a baby. And depending on the term of the pregnancy, she does have a baby inside of her."


I also think that maybe folks need to stop misrepresenting the other side of arguments they start:

MM:

"I like how the Pro Choice folk go right to denying there is a "child" inside. As if not using the term baby somehow makes killing it less of a tragedy.

But this is from the same crowd who thinks at the other end of this life, when you're too old to care for yourself again, you should be murdered then too."

The actual argument of the pro-choice folk with regard to abortion rights is that because there is no scientific basis whatsoever for deciding whether or not, "there is a, 'child,' inside," and because the only bases for such a decision are religious and philosophical, the State (particularly not one that, at present, is dominated by right-wingers and Protestant fundamentalists--or in the case of China, is dominated by left-wingers and what might be called, 'materialist,' fundamentalists) should not be forcing women into anything.

And while there is no way to be sure what any, "pro-choicer," things about the other end of life, the actual viewpoint is that the State should not be stepping into personal, family and religious choices there either.

I do not know when human life begins, and neither do you. That's why I think I don't get to make these decisions for others. But, drawing upon your personal religious beliefs, and your absolute certainty about a question that cannot be answered except in religious and philosophical terms, you apparently have the idea that it's perfectly OK to force your religious and philosophical beliefs on everybody else.

And I'm the arrogant and presumptuous one?

 

[47MartialMan]

Yee-Ha-Tgace, you opened one here.

Law of the land stuck in the middle of the left verses the right.

Another one for politicians to lie about.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Personally, A life is not a life until it can live on its own, with minimum assistance in my opinion. Now by defintion of late term, this could be said to be addressed. So I will let that stand.

If the Parasite aka fetus is in the early part of the third trimester and the lungs and brain are not fully developed and the "child" could not live without extreme efforts and even then, it would not have a 'Normal' Life, I say it would only be assault on the mother. (* I used the term Parasite, as the Fetus could not survive on its own with out the assistance of the mother, aka, a Parasitic or Symbiotic relationship, not sure of the true symbiotic relationship, not being feamle and having given birth, so I chose Parasitic. No disrespect meant, only trying to convey a point. *)

Why?

If a baby aborts for no reason, does the father then have the right to press charges against the mother for assualt and or murder on his child because she could not carry it to term? I think that would be rediculous, yet, one could argue that point, as something unknown with the mother caused the 'Child' aka Fetus to be terminated. What about the father's rights with this Fetus/'Child'? It may not be murder per se but I could see the arguement for for Man Slaughter.

So, now let me ask the follow up questions? Is smoking, and assault on the unborn fetus? Is drinking alcohol an assault also? What about second hand smoke, and would it be the Mother for being there, or the people smoking outside the door, or the company who allowed the people to smoke outside to be at fault?

Now as to the only results if you were to hold the 'child' in your hands: No disrespect meant to anyone. Death is tragic, wheter it be someone old or someone in their prime, or the young. For the young it is even more tragic for the survivors becuase one sees all the potential. It is tragic, no doubt, but there are accidents, and there are the above issues to consider as well for possible causes, but this thread is about assault on the mother, and the late term fetus dies. So, I state again, was the fetus normally healthy and could survive with minimal help and be brought home once normal weight had been obtained, or was the development, not far enough along to allow for a normal life? If you limit it to assault to the mother only, I see the above issues, coming into play, for smoking has cyanide, which is an assault, just as alcohol is an assualt on the system and developing system of the fetus. So, would these count as assaults as well?

 

[47MartialMan]

Personally, A life is not a life until it can live on its own, with minimum assistance in my opinion. Now by defintion of late term, this could be said to be addressed. So I will let that stand.

If the Parasite aka fetus is in the early part of the third trimester and the lungs and brain are not fully developed and the "child" could not live without extreme efforts and even then, it would not have a 'Normal' Life, I say it would only be assault on the mother. (* I used the term Parasite, as the Fetus could not survive on its own with out the assistance of the mother, aka, a Parasitic or Symbiotic relationship, not sure of the true symbiotic relationship, not being feamle and having given birth, so I chose Parasitic. No disrespect meant, only trying to convey a point. *)

Why?

If a baby aborts for no reason, does the father then have the right to press charges against the mother for assualt and or murder on his child because she could not carry it to term? I think that would be rediculous, yet, one could argue that point, as something unknown with the mother caused the 'Child' aka Fetus to be terminated. What about the father's rights with this Fetus/'Child'? It may not be murder per se but I could see the arguement for for Man Slaughter.

So, now let me ask the follow up questions? Is smoking, and assault on the unborn fetus? Is drinking alcohol an assault also? What about second hand smoke, and would it be the Mother for being there, or the people smoking outside the door, or the company who allowed the people to smoke outside to be at fault?

Now as to the only results if you were to hold the 'child' in your hands: No disrespect meant to anyone. Death is tragic, wheter it be someone old or someone in their prime, or the young. For the young it is even more tragic for the survivors becuase one sees all the potential. It is tragic, no doubt, but there are accidents, and there are the above issues to consider as well for possible causes, but this thread is about assault on the mother, and the late term fetus dies. So, I state again, was the fetus normally healthy and could survive with minimal help and be brought home once normal weight had been obtained, or was the development, not far enough along to allow for a normal life? If you limit it to assault to the mother only, I see the above issues, coming into play, for smoking has cyanide, which is an assault, just as alcohol is an assualt on the system and developing system of the fetus. So, would these count as assaults as well?

Nicely written. Nicely pointed. Instead of 5 stars-:asian::asian::asian::asian::asian:

 

[Ray]

I like the posts that have been put up so far. I have couple questions:

If the contention that a fetus may spontaneously abort is a reason for excluding murder {of the fetus} as a charge, can we say {by analogy} that killing a person with some affliction that causes them a greater chance of dying {sooner than expected} is also not murder?

If I intend to give one of my possesions to someone, that is my choice. If someone breaks in and steals it {even that person I intend to give it to}, then is it still theft? Is that an analogous comparison to the "murder/assault" question?

Thanks

 

[Tgace]

Equates life to property a bit there doesn't it?

 

[Ray]

Equates life to property a bit there doesn't it?

I'm not trying to, but you're right - it seems to. But that wasn't the purpose of the question - just trying to come up with an analogous situation to reason from.

 

[ginshun]

Thats touchy. I have to go with assault on the woman only.

Perhaps you could argue for murder if it was proven that the attacker knew the woman and attacked with the intent of killing the unborn child, but in a random mugging, I don't think that the guy should be charged with murder for the killing of an unborn child.

 

[Tgace]

This is a photo of Tracy Marciniak Seavers, holding the body of her son Zachariah. The photo was taken at Zachariah's funeral. Tracy was seriously injured, and Zachariah was killed, by an assault during the ninth month of the pregnancy. Do you think this photograph shows one victim, or two? It really easy to talk about concepts, philosophy and all that...reality is a lot more gruesome.

 

[47MartialMan]

Ninth month is a huge difference than first few weeks

 

[Tgace]

I agree..however the Pro-Choice "purists" dont believe in making any concession before birth...so that picture is really a dead "fetus" not a dead "baby".

 

[47MartialMan]

I agree..however the Pro-Choice "purists" dont believe in making any concession before birth...so that picture is really a dead "fetus" not a dead "baby".

Yeah, it was going to be a pro-life/prochoice, chicken before the egg.

 

[Tgace]

That object in the photo was like the equivalent of an appendix or a gall bladder, or something. Medical waste...:shrug:

How can that viewpoint be sustained???

 

[Tgace]

http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/September-October-2003/argument_rosen_sepoct03.html

 

[Rich Parsons]

That object in the photo was like the equivalent of an appendix or a gall bladder, or something. Medical waste...:shrug:

Tom,

I agree that the death of any child is a waste. I agree that parents suffer form that death. Not to trivialize anything here, but I know one of the reasons for large families in the past was because many of the children would not make it to adulthood from sickness or accident or injury, and they were needed to work the family farm or business. This has not stopped people from living their lives for all of history so far. By no means am I condoning the actions of the asault nor woudl I wish it on anyone. And per my previous post and arguement, one would say that it might be murder, since that 'Fetus' may have survived on its' own.

Pictures are brought in to court to make people feel more connected, juries are made up of those who can be swayed by their feelings. Why do I make this statement? I have been to numerous jury duties, and never been chosen. Usually the defense, will use one of the excuses to get rid of me and or any other 'Engineer' on the thought process that we will use logic and not feelings to make a decision.

Personally I think Feelings are important in decision making, but doing what is right, Legal, Moral, etcetera is also very important, otherwise those feelings would have people taking the law into their own hands, and then the 'Prospective' Father would have killed the attacker, and then a family member or friend of the Attacker would then kill the father, ..., .

Was the attack right? NO way! Was it tragic? Yes?

Referring to the picture the way you did, is not right, in my opinion, to the respect of those involved, and others. If you truly have an issue, with the way the Law handled this case, then get involved, and do something. Just Like Amber's parents did, and try to change the system.

With respect to the loss of the potential Life.

:asian:

 

[Tgace]

The issue boils down to "is that a baby"? Was it a human being? The argument gets harder to sustain when you actually see it. Which brings up the question of why pro-choice proponents get offended when pro-life protesters use pictures of aborted fetuses. If its part of the mothers body would a photo of a heart or kidney cause such consternation? I guess my point is that there should be a point "pre birth" where the unborn recieve some sort of protection or due process as a "human being". I agree with much of this statement...

http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/September-October-2003/argument_rosen_sepoct03.html

The truth is that many Americans who believe that life begins at conception also believe that it would be cruel to punish women who perform abortions on themselves or seek illegal abortions from doctors. The Texas law in Roe was designed to deter doctors from performing abortions and therefore make abortions more difficult to obtain. This position may not satisfy a canon lawyer—it may not be consistent, in other words, with a devotion to fetal life in all circumstances—but it is a perfectly rational way of balancing a commitment to fetal life with other moral concerns such as compassion for vulnerable women, and it is a balance that many of our citizens and most of our states continue to embrace.

Along the same lines, the same states that declare fetuses to be persons from conception also emphasize that, before viability, a fetus's interest in potential life is not weighty enough to override a woman's right to choose an early-term abortion. This confirms Dworkin's insight that the language of fetal "personhood" is shorthand for complicated moral judgments that weigh the interests of the fetus differently in different circumstances.

The states and Congress have done a better job than the Supreme Court at respecting a range of views about personhood in a pluralistic society. But some state courts and legislatures have displayed more humility than others. The most aggressive state courts, such as the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, have resorted to simplistic syllogisms: Human beings are legal persons; fetuses are human; therefore, fetuses are legal persons in all areas of law. Other state courts, such as the Supreme Court of South Carolina, have concluded that the legal personhood of fetuses should be regarded as identical in the civil and criminal contexts. By contrast, more modest courts, such as the North Carolina Supreme Court, have wisely avoided insisting on a single definition of personhood. Far from reflecting "the fundamental disorganization that characterizes the doctrine of legal personhood," as one commentator has observed, the willingness to adopt definitions of legal personhood that allow citizens to disagree about when life begins should be a model for the U.S. Supreme Court as it struggles to clarify the law of reproduction.

The political battles about early-term abortions are, for all practical purposes, over. Society has reached a relatively settled consensus that early-term abortions must be protected and late-term abortions may be restricted, and nothing the courts say or do has changed these views over the past two decades. The great legal issues that will confront the courts in the next generation involve questions raised by new reproductive technologies. What would the principle of legal personhood mean, for example, if applied to a fertilized embryo, a form of potential human life removed from the woman's body before viability? Imagine a woman who creates five embryos for fertility treatment, implants one, and waives her rights over the others. If a doctor then destroys the embryos in the course of research, has he committed a civil or criminal offense?

 

[47MartialMan]

So does it vary from state to state? or is it Supreme court finalization?

 

[Cryozombie]

So lemme be clear on what I am hearing here...

If someone I know is pregnant, and I dont like the idea...

I can give them somthing that will make them lose the baby intentionally, but its not murder?

Ok, Gotcha! Where did I put my chemistry set...