General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsShould murderers be charged with two counts of murder if they murder a pregnant woman?
I was reading up on a story about my mom's friend who was murdered by her ex-husband back in the early 80's. The guy came to her home on Halloween wearing a big bad wolf mask and basically mutilated her with a machete, he also cut the baby out and mutilated it too. Here's some more detailed descriptions https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/alt.true-crime/ttj5gdZFVMk I used to be able to find actual scanned news articles about it on google, but they seem to be gone now.
Anyway, the guy was charged with two counts of murder. My first reaction is not to have any issue with him being charged with murder for her and the baby, but then I think of the possible issues with charging someone with murder for killing an unborn baby. What prevents that from being used to charge women with murder if they abort a fetus? Obviously their are differences between someone purposely killing a wanted a baby and a women getting an abortion, but how often does the law seem to lack common sense? Such as making it so an 18yr old has to register as a sex offender for having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend...or in rarer cases, convicting people on sodomy laws. And we know that certain people will exploit anything to get their victory... Just wondering what everyone's thoughts are on cases like these.
*My mom and father were supposed to go over to the victims house the night of the murder. I was just born, so chances are I would have been there too. My mom was actually married to the victim's husband(no the killer ex-husband) before she married my father (kinda weird, aye?) I grew around around him and the little girl who was hiding behind the couch during it all. As a result of this, my mom never answered the doors on Halloween up until the early 2000's.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)octothorpe
(962 posts)I do recall reading debates about it before. Like at what point in the pregnancy would be considered murder and if you consider it murder at that point,then what prevents some anti-abortion zealot from trying to charge women who get an abortion at that point with murder.
In an ideal world, I'd think it be as simple as "if the mother wanted the baby, then it's murder"... Without having to worry about someone trying to exploit it.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the decision. She explained why women have the right to choose.
There is no contradiction between giving women the right to choose and prohibiting that same choice to someone other than the pregnant woman.
The pregnant woman takes a risk to carry a child to term. She is the only one who faces the risk of pregnancy and childbirth and the challenge of possibly raising that child alone. She cannot be forced to sacrifice her life for the fetus. No third person faces that risk. That is why no third person has the right to make the decision as to whether the pregnant woman should carry the fetus to term and give birth or not.
octothorpe
(962 posts)I don't think abortion even has anything to do with this really, and the only reason why it has any relation is because of how some will (and have) try to use it against a woman's right to choose. To me, I think it should all be based on the woman's choice. If they wanted the baby then it's murder, if not, then it's not murder. However, I see the problems that can cause. Basically you can't say it's murder in this case and then claim it's not in another case based simply on the mother's feelings (well, I can, but I don't think the law can). The user Farpoint said that feelings can't rule legal precedence, I think she/he is right.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)one takes precedence over the other.
So, yes, you can say it's murder when a third party kills a fetus within a pregnant woman and still say that the mother's right to choose takes precedent over the life of the fetus.
You say: "Basically you can't say it's murder in this case and then claim it's not in another case based simply on the mother's feelings (well, I can, but I don't think the law can)."
The language "simply on the mother's feelings" betrays an anti-choice bias against the mother's right to choose. A pregnant woman may very much want to carry her child to term. Her feelings may want a child, but her knowledge that the risk that she and/or the child will not survive or will not be healthy if she does may cause her to resist her desire to have the baby and choose to have an abortion. It is a very personal thing. That is why it is the mother's choice.
For example, a woman may discover that she is pregnant when she is several months, say three months into her pregnancy. When she thinks back, she realizes that, not knowing she was pregnant, she took a medication that is highly likely to cause her child to have a serious disability. This might happen with certain prescribbed psychotropic medications, for example. She may choose to have an abortion because she does not want to condemn her child to life with a serious disability.
Another mother may, to the contrary, decide to take her chances and try to carry the baby to term. That is a painful choice. Only the mother has the right and responsibility to make that choice. Only she knows what she can deal with.
One woman would feel terrible guilt and remorse if she had an abortion under that circumstance. Another would feel less guilt and remorse about an abortion than she would if she had a severely disabled child and was reminded every time she looked at or cared for her child that she (or her medication) had caused the disability. So that is why it is an individual choice.
The mother's right to choose takes precedence over the rights of others concerning the fetus. That the mother has the right to choose does not give others the right to make her choice for her. There is no conflict between saying that you can decide to homeschool your child, but your neighbor cannot decide to kidnap your child and homeschool him or her. The state does require that the child be educated but does not require that the child attend a particular school.
We value one right over the other all the time. A property owner has certain rights as to a property he or she owns that a renter on that property does not have. There are so many examples of rights that are superior making other rights inferior.
octothorpe
(962 posts)I'm not certain if you think my intent was to say other, but I thought I made that much clear. My initial thought is that this guy took away her right to choose by killing the fetus that she wanted. I was just wrestling with myself if it's okay to charge someone with murder in that case, and also how charging someone with murder opens up holes for women to be charged with murder (which is wouldn't be an issue if, as redqueen put it, people didn't treat women's bodies and free will as a subject that is up for debate)
I was just looking for other perspectives. I don't have any other motives here. I'm not trying to make any points or anything like that.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)Pelican
(1,156 posts)... especially between the two camps.
NotThisTime
(3,657 posts)Can be as early as 22 weeks or 24 weeks
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)octothorpe
(962 posts)Would you still feel that way if there wasn't a risk of it be used to limit rights of those who want an abortion?
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)But, the reality is that it is one of the anti-choice's favorite camel noses, and it is used to limit people's rights. And barring those factors, what would be the point?
octothorpe
(962 posts)I just put myself in the situation. Imagine you or your significant other is pregnant and the whole idea of having a baby is basically what you're living for now. Then eight months in someone comes and purposely causes harm to the baby (which I guess is key here too), maybe it doesn't end with the murder of the mother, but just some forceful blows to the stomach that terminates pregnancy. To me, that would be devastating like losing an infant. I know I personally would want more than a typical assault charge or whatever. I know others may feel different, but that's how I'd feel. It gets a bit more murky for me once we get into earlier stages in the pregnancy.
Of course that's my view in an ideal world where it wouldn't be used by anti-abortion zealots to charge women with murder. I find that rather frustrating.
And there may some hypocritical thought processes in there on my part.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)that we don't let family and friends charge or judge defendants. Our justice system was set up on a few fundamental principles, one being the presumption of innocence. It's an important distinction and one that (IIRC) we started.
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" - William Blackstone
Apophis
(1,407 posts)cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)octothorpe
(962 posts)I could have sworn I read the daughter heard the baby crying. I don't know, maybe that's why it was considered it murder? Since he basically delivered the baby and then killed it. It's really gruesome.
*I'm not being 'cold' by avoiding the use of names, I just don't want my mom to ever do a search of the names and see me talking about it on the internet. I don't think she'd care, but I'd rather play it safe.
mercuryblues
(14,491 posts)It is slippery slope territory.
There are fetal homicide laws in 38 states. Those laws are most likely to be used against the pregnant woman herself.
A woman in Iowa, fainted and fell down the stairs. Worried about her fetus, she went to the ER. There she confided in a nurse that she had months before she had considered abortion and adoption , before deciding to keep the baby. The nurse called police and she was arrested for attempted fetal homicide.
A woman in SC was arrested after she gave had a premature delivery that resulted in a stillbirth. Despite no evidence, she was arrested and charged with chemical endangerment during pregnancy.
An Indianapolis woman attempted suicide, when she found out that her baby's father was already married. She survived, her fetus was born and died 4 days later. She spent a month in a psychiatric and got her life back together. Just in time for the state to charge her with murder and attempted feticide. She faces life in prison.
octothorpe
(962 posts)It's ridiculous how people can exploit the law like this for their political agenda.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Volaris
(10,260 posts)posit: a woman is pregnant, and while driving, is hit by a drunk driver, and suffers injuries leading to the termination of the pregnancy. Now, that drunk driver could likley be charged with the death of an innocent victim (manslaughter, homicide, etc), but I would argue that there isn't a prosecuting attorney in the country that would want to try that case in open court if that woman were on her way to an appointment with an abortion provider.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)If it did not involve the issue of abortion, yes they should be charged with both. The problem is in that type of situation can be hard to prove intent in some cases. With a drunk driver I think it's pretty clear, with someone like Scott Peterson (who murdered his pregnant wife) it's pretty clear as well.
octothorpe
(962 posts)murder. So I understand some of the reluctance to say it should result in a murder charge for the fetus, but there really should be something more that can be charged when someone purposely kills a wanted pregnancy.
Volaris
(10,260 posts)I'm open to discussion.
FarPoint
(12,209 posts)This will be a tool to eliminate " A woman's right to choose ". It is a trick question.
octothorpe
(962 posts)It's not meant to be a tick question. I just find it to a be a difficult question. Like I said, I find it regretful that we have to consider the fact that some would use it to take away choice. If we could get past that, I personally would have no issue with someone being charged with murder if they kill a late-term wanted pregnancy on purpose.
FarPoint
(12,209 posts)Feelings can not rule legal precedence....There can be no wiggle room on this issue... This is an impermeable border. Sometime you just have to take a hit.
octothorpe
(962 posts)I dunno, I've been in a situation of losing a wanted baby and I know what's like. It was devastating for me and even more for the mother. She went into a depression and we ended up growing further apart (she is fine now, she moved on, got married and had some kids) I can only imagine it must be worse for someone who basically had it taken from them unwillingly. There should at least be something extra or a special charge for situations like these. Although, even that raises questions on proving if the assaulter knew the woman was pregnant. Would it matter how far along in the pregnancy?
FarPoint
(12,209 posts)To apply such and experience to law is not the answer to healing oneself.
I will always rule for the woman's right to choose and protect that right. Your rationale has flaws and consequences for all women by opening the door of fetal murder.
octothorpe
(962 posts)Just to be clear, my goal wasn't to "make a point" or anything. That's why it might seem I was all over the place and sometimes even arguing against myself. I was just looking for other thoughts and opinions on the situation.
surrealAmerican
(11,340 posts)... because it sounds like the baby was "born" and murdered separately.
octothorpe
(962 posts)Although, I don't know for sure if the baby was heard crying. I don't recall reading that in any official documents, at least not recently. But because of the closeness of this case to my family, I've heard stories about it for years and I recall being told that. But either way, it's still an interesting/hard question about if it's considered murder just because the baby was cut out moments before killing it vs being stabbed while still in the womb. At least it's difficult for me to come up with a simple answer without questioning my logic. (I often time have debates with myself in my head)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Sounds like someone worked very hard to make it up.
octothorpe
(962 posts)*on edit* unless you're referring specifically about the baby crying. In that case, I don't know how true that is.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)" Obviously their are differences between someone purposely killing a wanted a baby and a women getting an abortion, but how often does the law seem to lack common sense? "
The difference is that a woman has the right to choose to have a baby or not because of the stress and hardship that pregnancy and having a child can impose on her physically and mentally. Pregnancy and childbirth can be very difficult. They can pose serious physical and emotional threats to the mother.
So it is only the woman who should have the right to choose. It is her life that can be endangered by the fetus. That is why the woman has the right to choose, but a stranger or even the husband should have no right to choose or to interfere in her right to choose.
Only the woman can make the decision as to whether she can deal with her pregnancy. Our society does not offer much help to the woman who decides to have a baby and then cannot carry the baby to term safely. Nor does society offer much help to the woman who has a child she cannot care for either for financial or physical reasons. It's the woman's right to choose.
Nine
(1,741 posts)So much so that I am hesitant to even reply, but here goes.
I think current law, at least in some states, is to go by "viability." If the fetus past the date of viability, it counts as two murders. Before the date of viability, it counts as one murder. That seems like a sensible way to handle it. Your story, whether fictional or not, is absolutely dreadful.
octothorpe
(962 posts)Like I said, this was actually my parent's very close friend. That's why I was reading about it. Just last week I saw an actual newspaper scans on google, but I think they're gone now... There is this document though http://law.justia.com/cases/california/cal4th/17/468.html
Nine
(1,741 posts)I don't think you have any connection to this case. I think you went looking for the most extreme example of true-crime murder where a pregnant woman and fetus were killed in order to push an anti-choice political agenda. I think you invented a personal relationship with the case to hide your true motives and to make this seem like a commonplace crime instead of an extreme outlier.
octothorpe
(962 posts)What agenda do you believe I'm pushing and where have I EVER shown any signs of having such an agenda? Are you basing this solely on the fact you do not know me personally? You're not basing it on any of my posts here EVER, because I have always been pro-choice. So please explain where you're getting your theory from?
Also, even if your assumption that I didn't have personal connection to it were true, and I simply came in and said "I was reading about some murder case and blah blah blah", what part of anything that I said was even close to being anti-choice? This murder itself is gruesome and extreme, but women (many pregnant) are victims of violence more than you may wish to admit.
If you can point out any specifics that I said that's making you come to conclusion, then point them out so that I can clarify (or even so you can point out how I'm wrong)
But I'm really curious as to how you can so confidently insist that the victim was not my mother's close friend. I'm kinda annoyed by that more than anything. I've never once stirred any shit up on this site. I've never once purposely told any miss truths. I never once defended the agenda you're accusing me of attempting to defend. Yet you come out and call me a liar based on nothing?
99Forever
(14,524 posts)MadrasT
(7,237 posts)They would be guilty of a crime but that crime is not "murder"
no_hypocrisy
(45,774 posts)The fetus is still in utero. If the fetus is born alive and then dies because of the stress of the murder of its mother, then yes.
Dash87
(3,220 posts)StopTheNeoCons
(889 posts)No
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
City Lights
(25,171 posts)TheKentuckian
(24,943 posts)A woman has a right to choose then violent repression of that ability to choose should be a serious crime in and of its self and one that isn't concerned about murder so it avoids mucking around with abortion other than to use the same fundamental logic of the right to choose.
If murder is insisted on as the option, I would either be forced to say a flat no or cut off at viability outside the mother for such charges and at least severely curtailing the legality of an abortion during the same time frame.
Only a person can be murdered and a person has their own rights and protections.
LiberalFighter
(50,501 posts)If the termination of the pregnancy is forced or if the pregnancy is forced by a third party. And that should include any judge attempting it unless the standard is reached.
redqueen
(115,096 posts)In those places, anyone who causes the death of a pregnant woman can be charged with two counts of homicide, manslaughter, etc.
This has nothing to do with abortion laws, as these laws were obviously meant to deal with wanted pregnancies.
Women have the right to choose, and if they choose to carry the pregnancy to term, then anyone causing the death of that fetus should be held accountable.
Of course we are seeing the efforts of those who hate women all over the country, using these laws against the spirit with which they were intended, to prosecute women for such heinous crimes as falling down the stairs.
It's bullshit, and if people didn't treat women's bodies and free will as a subject that is up for debate we wouldn't see any confusion about this at all.
Alas...
octothorpe
(962 posts)Particularly the "It's bullshit, and if people didn't treat women's bodies and free will as a subject that is up for debate we wouldn't see any confusion about this at all. "
I think that pretty much sums it up.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)I'm not in agreement with the idea that certain victims mean more than others. I know it's more horrible to murder an old person than a middle aged adult person, worse to murder a child than a young adult. I get that but think legally it should not be a different crime. Maybe go to the penalty. Likewise a pregnant woman is one person, maybe the penalty should be affected, but not the charge.
ileus
(15,396 posts)The first murder charge should be sufficient enough to assure the perp never sees the outside of prison again.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)Only exception being if the woman were actually and literally in the process of giving birth. Unborn = not born = can't be murdered.
LiberalFighter
(50,501 posts)There is nothing wrong with creating legislation that includes additional criminal charges such as increasing the felony charges when coupled with the criminal knowing the woman was pregnant. Or should know that the woman was pregnant. They could also increase the charges if they desecrate the body as described above. Or the stage of the pregnancy could also include increased charges.