Murder or Assault

[evenflow1121]

There will never be a legal principle applied across the board, because that would mean the court would have to decide where does life begin, like the post above says that would be the central issue, it will always come back to that issue. If the court states that life begins at any stage before the birth of the child, then think about what that would do to abortion rights in this country.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

The key here for me is "late term."

The assumption then is that the mother wants to carry the fetus to term. Further, it being late term...I assume third trimester, there is a chance the fetus is viable.

As for "murder," intent needs to be demonstrated. If the man doesn't know the woman is pregnant, it might not meet a state's definition for murder.

The Bible has a law covering this, stipulating that the father of the child be compensated financially for the loss of the child. It didn't deem it a capital crime.


Regards,


Steve

 

[sgtmac_46]

That then begs the question... is the mother worthy of protection against the child? Every woman risks medical harm, up to and including death, to carry and deliver a child. Where is the protection in that line of thought for the already existing person?
Also, about the property comment, do you consider a hand or a foot personal property? Both the mother and child remain 1 physical/biological entity until birth-how do you separate them into two separate sets of legal rights without harming the other? And why would you want to?
My vote would be the mother decides whether she has the status of one entity or two because of the risk that decision carries.
It doesn't matter if its the scenario mentioned above (assualt) or something different...the central question always comes back to when does life begin and who gets to decide that.

Irrelavent argument on the hand or foot comment, as they are irreplaceable in the sense that, once you lose one you can never grow back another one. Again, the child can be replaced so it would be property if it's not life.

What I am suggesting is that we utilize one and only one legal standard. Either the child is alive or it isn't. We can't say "It's not alive if a woman wants an abortion BUT it IS alive if she wants to prosecute someone for murder." If that were the case, the child would be both ALIVE and NOT ALIVE , at the same time, but doesn't make a distinction until the mother decides....kind of a weird legal version of Schrodinger's cat.

 

[evenflow1121]

When and at the time the state by law says that a fetus is a child, the child is obviously considered part of society, if something happens to that unborn fetus by the acts of an assailant, then the state will charge the assailant as the unborn is now considered a member of society (3rd trimester, I am guessing)--seems pretty clear right. Now what about when the child is in the first trimester and A looses it on account of B? You think the courts are going to get in there and decipher and rule that there was actually life or that there isnt, heck no, they will do something as a matter of public policy in order to deter this kind of conduct, but I guarantee the life argument will not be the main argument because that would set up a huge hodge podge of litigation on both sides of the right to life and pro choice movements.

 

[dscott]

Obviously everyone has there own views and this is mine. I would feel that it would be assault with intent to injure (mother) and manslaughter (baby).

 

[sgtmac_46]

When and at the time the state by law says that a fetus is a child, the child is obviously considered part of society, if something happens to that unborn fetus by the acts of an assailant, then the state will charge the assailant as the unborn is now considered a member of society (3rd trimester, I am guessing)--seems pretty clear right. Now what about when the child is in the first trimester and A looses it on account of B? You think the courts are going to get in there and decipher and rule that there was actually life or that there isnt, heck no, they will do something as a matter of public policy in order to deter this kind of conduct, but I guarantee the life argument will not be the main argument because that would set up a huge hodge podge of litigation on both sides of the right to life and pro choice movements.

Then you obviously can't charge the guy with manslaughter or murder, as that necessitates that you make the decision that the fetus is "alive". There is no way around this. You either do or you don't. Because I can guarantee that there isn't a court in the country that can tell a jury to convict or not convict someone on that kind of charge without clear instructions about the definition of "life".

 

[Loki]

It really is a sticky issue like everyone says, but if I'm not mistaken, abortion in the third trimester of pregnancy is illegal (again, could vary from place to place). So though I wouldn't use this as legal advice, I'd say assault and some degree of manslaughter/murder.

 

[sgtmac_46]

It really is a sticky issue like everyone says, but if I'm not mistaken, abortion in the third trimester of pregnancy is illegal (again, could vary from place to place). So though I wouldn't use this as legal advice, I'd say assault and some degree of manslaughter/murder.

I'd say you're on the right track there. Still, there has to be a court willing to define the fetus as alive before it can be considered murdered. I'm wondering what court is going to have the courage to make that determination.