NationStates Jolt Archive

I heard on CNN (Or maybe it was Faux) that a guy is being charged with the murder of his girlfriend and her unborn child.

So...The question I'm asking you is, should harming a fetus while commiting another crime be considered a crime? Or is the crime itself sufficient?

I say a fetus should not be treated as a human in legal cases, as it's hypocritical to support abortion (Okay, maybe it's about abortion a little. But that's not the primary point.) and yet still support fetuses being treated as human in criminal cases.

I heard on CNN (Or maybe it was Faux) that a guy is being charged with the murder of his girlfriend and her unborn child.

So...The question I'm asking you is, should harming a fetus while commiting another crime be considered a crime? Or is the crime itself sufficient?

I say a fetus should not be treated as a human in legal cases, as it's hypocritical to support abortion and yet still support fetuses being treated as human in criminal cases.

if this is the case I'm thinking of... wasn't she close to her delivery date?

Maybe there should be some law about terminating potential life that you don't have claim to?

if this is the case I'm thinking of... wasn't she close to her delivery date?

Yeah, I think so.

Maybe there should be some law about terminating potential life that you don't have claim to?

No, I don't think that would work. It would probably lead to some angry conservative mother/father/husband/boyfriend/etc. trying to get a woman brought up on charges by claiming the woman didn't have sole right to the baby or it's not her life to end or something.

it's not hypocritical, at least in my state because the law doesn't come into effect until you are in the end of the second trimester which is way too late for a legal abortion here anyway.

I think it's an okay law, I don't see a problem with it.

except not about abortion

Heh, we'll see how long that lasts. ;)

No, I don't think that would work. It would probably lead to some angry conservative mother/father/husband/boyfriend/etc. trying to get a woman brought up on charges by claiming the woman didn't have sole right to the baby or it's not her life to end or something.

They wouldn't have grounds for that it the law specifically stated that pregnant women have such a claim...right?

it should only be murder if the fetus was developed enough to obviously viable.

less than that and there should be a "harming a fetus" statute.

if the killer has no reason to know that she was pregnant (mostly because it was to early to show), no extra penalty.

I heard on CNN (Or maybe it was Faux) that a guy is being charged with the murder of his girlfriend and her unborn child.

So...The question I'm asking you is, should harming a fetus while commiting another crime be considered a crime? Or is the crime itself sufficient?

I say a fetus should not be treated as a human in legal cases, as it's hypocritical to support abortion (Okay, maybe it's about abortion a little. But that's not the primary point.) and yet still support fetuses being treated as human in criminal cases.
If beating up a woman actually carried an appropriate sentence, it wouldn't be necessary to use bullshit back-door anti-choice "fetal protection" laws to keep the assholes in prison. It is revolting to live in a country where somebody can get put away for a decade for having a bag of pot, but they can't keep a guy in prison for assault for longer than a couple of years.

Maybe there should be some law about terminating potential life that you don't have claim to?

Well where do you draw the line about what's potential life? You can't exactly go about charging men with mass murder every time they jerk off, charging women with murder a few days after they ovulate, things like that.

Yeah, I think so.

then what should he be charged with. Manslaughter, Murder 2, especially if it cannot be proven that the child was a target.

not against it. (In fact I was hoping he would be charged with two counts... the mother and the child since it was close to term.) but it does raise some LEGAL concerns.

If beating up a woman actually carried an appropriate sentence

Are you implying that assaulting a woman should carry a greater sentence than assaulting a man?

I'm guessing I interpreted that wrong, but I thought I'd check.

Well where do you draw the line about what's potential life? You can't exactly go about charging men with mass murder every time they jerk off, charging women with murder a few days after they ovulate, things like that.

I assume the law would take effect about the same time a woman would be considered pregnant, and would limit termination rights to her and only her.

They wouldn't have grounds for that it the law specifically stated that pregnant women have such a claim...right?

I'm sure some great congressional asshole would find a way to make sure that that part didn't get in.

Are you implying that assaulting a woman should carry a greater sentence than assaulting a man?

No.

My choice to specify "woman" in this case was to distinguish a born human being (in this case a female human being) from a human fetus.

Sorry if that was unclear from how I phrased it, but really it's all your fault for failing to read my mind.

No.

My choice to specify "woman" in this case was to distinguish a born human being (in this case a female human being) from a human fetus.

Ah. Okay.


Sorry if that was unclear from how I phrased it, but really it's all your fault for failing to read my mind.

I'm sorry, I'll try harder next time.

I heard on CNN (Or maybe it was Faux) that a guy is being charged with the murder of his girlfriend and her unborn child.

So...The question I'm asking you is, should harming a fetus while commiting another crime be considered a crime? Or is the crime itself sufficient?

I say a fetus should not be treated as a human in legal cases, as it's hypocritical to support abortion (Okay, maybe it's about abortion a little. But that's not the primary point.) and yet still support fetuses being treated as human in criminal cases.

I think whether the fetus is considered a human should be determined by the current abortion laws. Logistically, it makes the most sense IMO.

Most states have had laws considering the killing of a fetus murder for a very long time b/c that's how it was at common law, long before abortion was a common medical procedure. But even at common law, it was only after a certain point (I think it was called 'quickening' and has something to do with the development of the fetus, not sure how far along it happened). Even though it is considered 'murder' or 'manslaughter' depending on the intent of the defendant, it is usually a separate criminal statute.

Although it does seem like having such a law on the books would be an anti-abortion precedent, to my knowledge it has never been extended that far. I'm sure many pro-lifers may argue that, but courts haven't really accepted it.

I think that it would be a rather inhumane thing to NOT consider it a murder after a certain point of development, especially in cases where the mother is left alive. I know that many domestic abusers purposefully hit their pregnant partner in the abdomen or do other things to intentionally risk the pregnancy. To the mother who wants to have the baby, how can you not punish the offender as if he killed her child?

Some others were posting that for it to be considered murder, the defendant should have to have actual knowledge that the mother was pregnant. I think this is usually apparent since the fetus has to be a number of months old before the law kicks in. Either way, knowledge and intent is almost always proven by circumstantial evidence in a criminal case. If not, all a defendant would have to say is "I didn't know" and there could never be a prosecution b/c the prosecutor can't submit evidence from a "mind reader" to the jury. That's why it is so hard to prove perjury cases (and why politicians on both sides of the aisle have taken to saying "I forgot" when brought up on charges), b/c the only circumstantial evidence is usually some former testimony (a smart defendant when faced w/ a congressional or special prosecutor subpoena would say "I don't know" from Day One).

Most states have had laws considering the killing of a fetus murder for a very long time b/c that's how it was at common law, long before abortion was a common medical procedure. But even at common law, it was only after a certain point (I think it was called 'quickening' and has something to do with the development of the fetus, not sure how far along it happened). Even though it is considered 'murder' or 'manslaughter' depending on the intent of the defendant, it is usually a separate criminal statute.

The "quickening" was the point at which the mother began to feel movement. Interestingly enough, common law held that abortion was legal up until this point as well. It wasn't until abortion became a relatively safe medical procedure that laws against it started becoming common.

Some others were posting that for it to be considered murder, the defendant should have to have actual knowledge that the mother was pregnant. I think this is usually apparent since the fetus has to be a number of months old before the law kicks in. Either way, knowledge and intent is almost always proven by circumstantial evidence in a criminal case. If not, all a defendant would have to say is "I didn't know" and there could never be a prosecution b/c the prosecutor can't submit evidence from a "mind reader" to the jury. That's why it is so hard to prove perjury cases (and why politicians on both sides of the aisle have taken to saying "I forgot" when brought up on charges), b/c the only circumstantial evidence is usually some former testimony (a smart defendant when faced w/ a congressional or special prosecutor subpoena would say "I don't know" from Day One).

"Not knowing" would still open the defendant up to manslaughter charges.

I think whether the fetus is considered a human should be determined by the current abortion laws. Logistically, it makes the most sense IMO.

Agreed.

It also should be taken into account in sentencing because a pregnant woman won't be able to defend herself as well as a not pregnant one (I would assume) regardless of the status of the fetus/child/whatever.

Agreed.

It also should be taken into account in sentencing because a pregnant woman won't be able to defend herself as well as a not pregnant one (I would assume) regardless of the status of the fetus/child/whatever.

Not necessarilly true, but usually true. Some few women are barely slowed down by pregnancy.

To me, if a fetus cannot survive on it's own, it's not alive anyway, it's just a bundle of cells with potential. Being human is more than merely potential.

Not at all.

well, fetuseses are obviously not persons, so if there should be additional punishment, it shouldn't duplicate punishments that are meted out for harming things that actually count, like people or dogs.

actually, i'm thinking the bible might actually be right about something for once - some number of shekels as determined by the judge and/or jury seems fair.

actually, i'm thinking the bible might actually be right about something for once - some number of shekels as determined by the judge and/or jury seems fair.

Seconded.

The ironic thing is that the religious right would explode over such a law.

The ironic thing is that the religious right would explode over such a law.

you know, that by itself actually makes me want to see it enshrined into law.

you know, that by itself actually makes me want to see it enshrined into law.

Only if they literally explode.

Otherwise they would just be annoying.

Only if they literally explode.

well, they are supposedly literalists...

What if I were to kill a fetus in self defense?




"It was coming right at me!"

What if I were to kill a fetus in self defense?




"It was coming right at me!"

LOL.

"Hat killed those 23 babies in self-defense."

"If he hadn't of killed them, they'd have killed him."

"Babies in those numbers are like piranhas."

LOL.

"Hat killed those 23 babies in self-defense."

"If he hadn't of killed them, they'd have killed him."

"Babies in those numbers are like piranhas."

FREE HAT!!

In my opinion, a fetus is a human being once it has a functioning brain. So, a few weeks after the start of the third trimester.

I don't know what to think of it, but I'm leaning towards no.

If someone intentionally kills a fetus, whether the mother is killed or not, it's murder to me. Whether the mother could legall kill it doesn't really matter much to me, since her rights are being violated in the worst way.

Maybe there should be some law about terminating potential life that you don't have claim to?

i think this law would be a lot worse.

say i was to be involved in a car accident and the guy driving the other car for some reason lost his testicles in the crash would that make be responsible for the loss of "potential life"

anyway back to the thread. i seem to remember the Scott Peterson case involving some thing along the lines of this. he was the guy that was charged with killing his pregnant wife. this law was created by the pro-life advocates i believe as one step closer to stopping abortions.

If someone intentionally kills a fetus, whether the mother is killed or not, it's murder to me. Whether the mother could legall kill it doesn't really matter much to me, since her rights are being violated in the worst way.


I don't think you're human unless you have fully developed thumbs.

Sorry, Thumbless Pete.

If someone intentionally kills a fetus, whether the mother is killed or not, it's murder to me.

no it isn't, as you almost certainly do not really believe fetuses are persons. not unless you are insane, anyways.

no it isn't, as you almost certainly do not really believe fetuses are persons. not unless you are insane, anyways.

In a legal sense, I'd like to see a viable fetus defined as a person. Boxes of shirts, hammocks, corporations, etc. can all be given legal personhood, for example - I think it makes sense, when all the elements of murder are in place, for a killer of a fetus to be charged with it.

I don't think you're human unless you have fully developed thumbs.

Sorry, Thumbless Pete.

Ouch. :( It's the 2000 census all over again.

Even assuming that a fetus is not a person, I think it'd still be reasonable to have an additional charge. Not a murder or assault charge, mind you, but the assailant would be infringing on the woman's right to reproductive choice. We'd probably have to invent a new charge for this.

I heard on CNN (Or maybe it was Faux) that a guy is being charged with the murder of his girlfriend and her unborn child.

So...The question I'm asking you is, should harming a fetus while commiting another crime be considered a crime? Or is the crime itself sufficient?

I say a fetus should not be treated as a human in legal cases, as it's hypocritical to support abortion (Okay, maybe it's about abortion a little. But that's not the primary point.) and yet still support fetuses being treated as human in criminal cases.

I think in criminal cases it should depend a lot on the intent. For instance, accidentally inducing a miscarriage while fighting a woman you didn't know was pregnant should be different than killing a pregnant woman and making sure the fetus dies too.

I think in criminal cases it should depend a lot on the intent. For instance, accidentally inducing a miscarriage while fighting a woman you didn't know was pregnant should be different than killing a pregnant woman and making sure the fetus dies too.

Intent probably shouldn't matter if the baby is viable though, I think. Sort of like, if three friends and I decide to rob a bank, and friend #1 kills a clerk, I'm charged with murder even though I never had intent to kill - felony/murder rule and all that. If you kill a pregnant woman, all the consequences belong to you, regardless whether you had any intent to kill the fetus. Hopefully any future law will be similar to that.

only if the mother had not consented to it. otherwise that would make abortions illegal again.

The multiple meanings of "human" irritate me here. I understand that some think embryos/foetuses are fully-fledged people, and others (like me) think they are not.

But I assume nobody's calling their species into question?
Or have I missed something obvious, again?

It's disgusting to think that 18 people on this forum believe that killing a fetus is not a crime.

The multiple meanings of "human" irritate me here. I understand that some think embryos/foetuses are fully-fledged people, and others (like me) think they are not.

But I assume nobody's calling their species into question?
Or have I missed something obvious, again?

i don't think it's calling their species into question (they obviously have the same DNA as a full grown adult). it's just that they aren't in any way independent life forms and they have not developed all features associated with the independent life forms of their species. before anyone jumps on that, it does not therefore follow that people born deformed and/or incapable of independent life ought to be culled. they never had the potential, a foetus does. i think. i mean i'm not fully in favour of abortion so i don't know the rationalisions off pat, i'm just pro-choice.

no it isn't, as you almost certainly do not really believe fetuses are persons. not unless you are insane, anyways.

Depends on how developed the fetus is. Unless you think that killing babies is also not murder, there is no way, without having absolutely no regard for human life, that you can think that killing a viable developed fetus is not murder.

@IR: Ah, righto.


Also: *Disgusts Hydesland* :p

@IR: Ah, righto.


Also: *Disgusts Hydesland* :p

it's probably more accurate to say that foetuses have not achieved 'personhood' rather than to claim they are not yet human cuz the latter just leads to confusion as you have noted. although then someone needs to define personhood. i guess the definition lies somewhere around my other post, but i'll leave it to someone smarter to define it better.

Also: *Disgusts Hydesland* :p

Ok, well my next door neighbour is pregnant right now, so you don't mind if I invite her over and put poison in her coffee, killing the fetus right?

Even if absolutely nothing else, harming a foetus could at least be easily considered a crime in that it's destruction of the woman's property, if you don't consider it a person. I don't, but it's obviously alive, and if we have laws against harming people's pets, the least we can do is have laws against harming people's foetuses.

Ok, well my next door neighbour is pregnant right now, so you don't mind if I invite her over and put poison in her coffee, killing the fetus right?

No?

Any laws developed to deal with this issue would have to start with the basic assumption that a woman's reporductive rights are sacrosanct. From this follows the idea that anybody who intentionally or inadverdently interferes with those rights should be held accountable by the law.

In this way, we see the crime is committed against the woman, not the fetus. Therefore, the legal status of the fetus is irrelevant.

Depends on how developed the fetus is. Unless you think that killing babies is also not murder, there is no way, without having absolutely no regard for human life, that you can think that killing a viable developed fetus is not murder.

well, in certain limited contexts infanticide is both morally permissible and actually praiseworthy. but more importantly, a fetus simply does not have personhood and cannot have such until it is born and is a separate entity.

Even if absolutely nothing else, harming a foetus could at least be easily considered a crime in that it's destruction of the woman's property, if you don't consider it a person.

nah. the harm that is done is done to the woman herself. we don't need to get all metaphorical about it.

anyway back to the thread. i seem to remember the Scott Peterson case involving some thing along the lines of this. he was the guy that was charged with killing his pregnant wife. this law was created by the pro-life advocates i believe as one step closer to stopping abortions.

Sorry to dash the conspiracy theory, but feticide was a crime before the Scott Peterson case. I felt bad about using my firm's lexis-nexis to research when it became a crime in Ca, but I was able to find a law review reference to it having been a crime as early as 1998, five years before Laci Peterson went missing. Also, a few earlier posts discussed feticide at common law and the fact that it being a crime hasn't made much of a difference in the abortion jurisprudence, and sorry I don't have any sources for it (but if somebody challenges me enough to make me mad, I might go researching)

Cal. Penal Code § 187(a), (b) (West 1988 & Supp. 1997) ("Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.")


Here is the law review article it came from, it's actually pretty interesting (although I admit I didn't read the entire thing).

http://www.nesl.edu/lawrev/vol32/2/LEONARD.HTM#N_263_

well, in certain limited contexts infanticide is both morally permissible and actually praiseworthy. but more importantly, a fetus simply does not have personhood and cannot have such until it is born and is a separate entity.


At least you're consistent. But this is not consentual remember, so at the very least murdering someone elses fetus should be the same as murdering their pets.

Btw, most definitions of personhood start inside the womb, there is no reason to believe that being born has any connection with personhood.

It should be considered a crime because the mother apparently wanted to grow it into a child, and you prevented her from doing so, so basically it's property damage. Though I might consider it murder during the third trimester.

Yeah, it should be a crime, because if you kill a baby before it's baptized, its soul goes to hell. :p

P.S. j/k. Again.

Sorry to dash the conspiracy theory, but feticide was a crime before the Scott Peterson case. I felt bad about using my firm's lexis-nexis to research when it became a crime in Ca, but I was able to find a law review reference to it having been a crime as early as 1998, five years before Laci Peterson went missing. Also, a few earlier posts discussed feticide at common law and the fact that it being a crime hasn't made much of a difference in the abortion jurisprudence, and sorry I don't have any sources for it (but if somebody challenges me enough to make me mad, I might go researching)

Cal. Penal Code § 187(a), (b) (West 1988 & Supp. 1997) ("Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.")


Here is the law review article it came from, it's actually pretty interesting (although I admit I didn't read the entire thing).

http://www.nesl.edu/lawrev/vol32/2/LEONARD.HTM#N_263_

There is also this case from 1988:

A jury in 1988 found [William] Dennis guilty of using a machete with an 18-inch
blade to slay his ex-wife, Doreen Rae Erbert, and her 8-month fetus at
their San Jose home. Prosecutors argued at trial that Dennis, now 47,
had plotted to kill his ex-wife and her husband as revenge for the 1980
death of his 4-year-old son, who drowned in Erbert's swimming pool.

The jury convicted Dennis of 1st degree murder for Doreen Erbert's death,
and of 2nd degree murder for the killing of the fetus. Dennis
conceded he was the assailant who donned a Halloween mask and went
to the nearby home of Erbert. After his ex-wife told him to leave,
Dennis struck her repeatedly with a heavy blade. Jurors said they
did not have enough proof that Dennis knew his former wife was pregnant
to convict him of 1st degree murder of the fetus.
I know this case well because Doreen Erbert was my second cousin.

at the very least murdering someone elses fetus should be the same as murdering their pets.

why?

Btw, most definitions of personhood start inside the womb, there is no reason to believe that being born has any connection with personhood.

most definitions are wrong

birth marks the best clear dividing line we can draw between non-personhood and personhood. nothing else comes close in clarity, distinctness, and physical importance.

At least you're consistent. But this is not consentual remember, so at the very least murdering someone elses fetus should be the same as murdering their pets.

Btw, most definitions of personhood start inside the womb, there is no reason to believe that being born has any connection with personhood.

Yeah there is. Birth is the only clear-cut line we've been given.

Yeah there is. Birth is the only clear-cut line we've been given.

yeah, and when people start celebrating their "mass neuron linkage" day or "probably would have been viable" day each year, then maybe we can talk. but right now, everybody i know seems to think that their birthday marks some sort of important time from which they measure the events of their lives.