Do You Think A Person Who Kills A Woman Who Is Pregnant Should Be Charged With 2 Homicides?

[Stinky The Clown]

This is a poll question on our local teevee newz station's web site. The first case in our state after passing the 'Viable Fetus Law' is now in court. The results at the original site's poll are quite one-sided. 96/4 right now (6.00 pm EDT)

What do *you* think about this?

[slackmaster]

1. Yes

We've had a fetal murder law in California since the early '70s.

[rinsd]

7. Beat me to it.

[XemaSab]

81. That's how they got Scott Peterson for double homocide

and FWIW, I think it was more than justified.

[ingac70]

2. Depends on how far along she is...

If that fetus could have potentially survived outside of the womb, the perp should definitely get two murder charges.

[Vincardog]

3. Not until you can prove that a "person" exists before birth.

[slackmaster]

5. "Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought."

From the California Penal Code.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199

[doc03]

11. So if he went in and ripped the fetus from her body and

smashed it's head on the sidewalk it would be OK with you since it wouldn't have survived on it's own anyway. I think the SOB should be executed twice.

[Vincardog]

17. That is the rub. It is not UP to ME. Quit projecting I never said it was OK.

When life begins is a question for of philosophy or religion. The OP asked a legal question.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

87. I would personally argue it's a medical question.

The current laws are a conundrum. It's okay to destroy the fetus if it's unwanted or has a high risk of downs, etc, etc. but if a criminal kills it, then it's murder. It's asinine as a legal argument. Probably hard to prosecute and defend in court.

David

[seabeyond]

22. why when arguing sensitive issue are there some put out the most outrageous and suggest it is ok

with another. knowing full well the other person certainly does not think it ok. just seems like a stupid way to debate.

[Vincardog]

24. IT seems to me that they are not interested in a debate, They are interested

in pushing their own point of view.

[seabeyond]

25. i have heard this more than once. comments like, then it is ok to murder a school of children

or whatever in argument. so rape is ok. so child abuse is alright with you. whatever...

but it just seems like such a childlike way to argue.

[SidDithers]

41. ...

Sorry, I misread the order of posts.

Sid

[doc03]

38. My point was if the women wasn't harmed

and someone killed the fetus, just when would you consider that murder. Is there a certain point in time where the fetus is viable so any time prior to that it wouldn't be considered murder? One person said it is question of philosophy or religion. The problem is it depends on who's philosophy or religion it is. Some like pat Robertson carry it to extremes and think it's murder to kill a sperm cell or an egg. Here you have the other extreme the pro-choice people don't want to call it murder at any point in time since it doesn't support their abortion postion.

[seabeyond]

47. thank you.... and very good argument. i do not have the answer

i know for the most part, harm to the fetus would be extended to the woman. assault, abuse to woman, .... not directed to fetus.

[Greyhound]

61. You have expressed, quite eloquently, why it is so important to have a system of justice,

as opposed to the system of revenge that so many long for.

Thanks.
:patriot:

[civildisoBDence]

43. What else do you call a person--yourself, for example--before birth? n/t

[varkam]

57. A fetus. eom

[ScreamingMeemie]

4. Well, I originally clicked on "other" before my brain processed

"viable fetus". If the fetus is viable (which makes it a baby and therefore a human being with rights, IMO)then I have no problem with 2 charges. If the fetus is not viable I might have a problem with it, because I cannot force my beliefs on another person. Again, this is strictly my opinion.

[Quantess]

8. Agreed.

It all depends how far along the pregnancy was.

[Lerkfish]

6. to me, it would require intent.

in other words, the killer would have to know she was pregnant and killed her with the intent of killing both.

for example, a husband or boyfriend who did NOT want the child, then yes.

however, if someone had no knowledge of the unborn child at all, then no.

[varkam]

16. The state doesn't need to prove intent...

when it comes to lesser homicide charges, such as negligent homicide, et cetera. I don't think it is appropriate, as you point out, to charge someone with capital murder unless they intended to murder the child as well.

[silverlib]

9. If the woman has chosen to give birth...

then my response would be yes.

[Maine-ah]

79. that's how I feel about it too.

[wtmusic]

10. In other words...is a fetus alive or not?

(pass the seasoning salt, someone?)

:popcorn:

[ecstatic]

13. It doesn't matter. Only the pregnant woman has the right to

choose if the pregnancy will continue.

[wtmusic]

14. So if the woman does it it's a "discontinued pregnancy",

someone else does it it's "murder".

Interesting.

[bryant69]

18. That is an interesting distinction.

And one that will certainly produce an interesting and informed discussion.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[ecstatic]

23. If the termination occurs within the pre-viable timeframe

then absolutely. Are you pro-choice?

[wtmusic]

26. Here's one for you.

A doctor performs an in vitro fertilization but accidentally drops the test tube, killing the fertilized embryo.

Manslaughter?

[ecstatic]

30. No

as the embryo was not yet inserted into the woman, thus becoming the woman's property.

I think a mother has the right to terminate a pregnancy for whatever reason up to the point of viability; and at any point for health reasons. I don't think it's murder because the fetus is dependent upon the woman's body to survive.

That right, however, is not extended to the boyfriend, husband, or any random person who decides s/he wants to kill the fetus, the mother, or both. When an outsider makes the choice for the woman, it is always murder.

[wtmusic]

32. Makes sense to me

but who owns the fetus outside the woman? I thought it was already hers.

[Zynx]

42. Well, do you only charge a guy who rips a fetus out of a woman and ends its existence

with assault on the woman or is it a more serious crime?

[ecstatic]

12. Of course. This has nothing to do with abortion laws, either. nt

[varkam]

15. What matters is personhood.

Personhood, though, is an extremely difficult concept. It's fairly clear to me that a fertilized cell is not a human being, but it is also clear to me that a fetus five minutes prior to delivery is a person - so the question is, at what point does a fetus become a person? If a fetus is terminated prior to that line, then that is not murder or killing, IMO, as it is not a person. After that line, though, is a different story.

But the problem is identifying exactly where that line is. Here's a thought experiment: suppose that I place a single grain of sand on a table. Would you call that a pile of sand? Of course not. Suppose further that I place another grain of sand on the table. Would you call it a pile yet? Suppose yet again that I continue to add grains of sand until the entire table is covered in this mountain of sand - surely you would call that a pile of sand...but at what point do you start to do so?

For me, the trick is in identifying what makes us unique as human beings. The way I see things, what makes us unique as a species is our brain (or, specifically, our frontal lobe). If there is any such measure of personhood, then I think it has to be a cognitive one. The problem is, though, is that we don't have any way to measure the cognitive ability of a developing fetus - and so the law has taken to placing that line at the point of viability (the ability to survive independent of the environment in the womb).

So for right now, I think that's where the line is placed (rightly or wrongly) though I suspect that line will shift as newer technologies are developed.

Bottom line - I do think that additional charges should result so long as the fetus is viable.

[wtmusic]

19. Amen.

:thumbsup:

[Vincardog]

21. How is that any different than post #3 above?

[varkam]

31. Well, post #3 is a one-liner.

I was exploring the issue a bit :hi:

[Guaranteed]

50. Yeah, for the purpose of double murder. On the other hand,

the woman's right to do what she wishes with her womb overrides any rights the fetus may have, pre-viability, and to some extent post-viability, person or not.


On edit: As far as what makes us unique as human beings, that would be our ability to reason. However- a newborn baby doesn't have that ability. Are they not a person?

Google a guy named Michael Tooley for some interesting arguments in this area. No one takes what he is saying seriously, but he's making an important point.

[varkam]

55. A response

Yeah, for the purpose of double murder. On the other hand, the woman's right to do what she wishes with her womb overrides any rights the fetus may have, pre-viability, and to some extent post-viability, person or not.

Insofar as abortion is concerned, a woman's right to choose diminishes as the pregnancy progresses. If a woman wants an abortion during the first few weeks, fine and dandy. If a woman wants an abortion just prior to delivery, she's out of luck (unless there is a significant risk to her health).


As far as what makes us unique as human beings, that would be our ability to reason. However- a newborn baby doesn't have that ability. Are they not a person?

Ability is not what we should be concerned with - rather, capacity.

[Guaranteed]

77. And mine

In my opinion, a woman may at any time choose not to allow a fetus to feed off of her body and live in her womb. Even viability- even personhood- can not subordinate that right. No person has any right to feed off of the body of another- that is not a right that people have. And it, further, makes no difference what her level of responsibility was in creating the pregnancy. Her right remains- we do not "punish" people with those means.

However, what you might argue here is that, once a fetus becomes viable- and this is what I meant in my previous post- the manner by which a woman might have an abortion could become justiciable, although very complicated. She still retains her right to terminate the fetus' living quarters- however, if the fetus can live on its own, it could be that she will have a responsibility to carry out that termination in a way that is least damaging to the fetus' chance for life. On the other hand, the woman should not be forced to take on extraordinary bodily burdens herself in maintaining the fetus' health, either. Those two interests need to be balanced, once the point of viability has been reached, but the woman still may not be forced to keep that fetus inside of her.


As to your second point, even capacity for reason, as opposed to present ability, creates problems as a benchmark for human value. Countless grown people have very little to no capacity for reason- those with severe dementia or brain damage, for example, while still non-vegetative, or some developmentally disabled- yet we still believe that taking such a life would be taking that of a person, and would, of course, be wrong. Some people probably have less capacity to reason that many animals- dolphins, chimpanzees, etc.

I've played with these ideas in my mind for awhile, and gave it some more thought today. It seems to me that our culture's rules surrounding the taking of human life can be most accurately described simply in terms of a social contract between those who can reason. Of course, for the sake of consistency in principle, that contract between those who can reason protects those who can not reason, as well- once they have passed some line defining them as human.

But now we have returned to square one- where is that line?

[Ghost in the Machine]

65. Would you consider a person who was brain damaged or brain dead

as no longer being a person? If they no longer have cognitive ability, are they still a person?

I personally think that "life" begins with the first heartbeat of a fetus...

[varkam]

71. Brain damaged? Yes. Brain dead? No.

That's how death is termed - brain death. You can restart a heart that has stopped, but you can't restart a brain that's stopped firing. I would say, for example, that Terry Schiavo died when she had that heart attack all those years ago that starved her brain of oxygen. Since then, she's essentially been an animated corpse.

Having a heart that beats is not something that is unique to us, though. All animals have a heart.

[seabeyond]

20. i dont think you can/ if advocate abortion not murder, .... then it isnt murder. n/t

[skater314159]

27. It depends on the circumstances...

... if it is a case of someone assulting the woman - yes.

... if it is a case of domestic abuse - yes.

... if it is the case of a woman seeking an abortion, and a freak accident occurs and she dies of medical complications that are not the fault of the doctor or negligence on the part of the medical staff - no.

I'm saying if someone wants to kill the woman then yes, because they should know they are killing her child too. If they are killing the woman BECAUSE she is pregnant, then it is a definite yes. If they are trying to use this as some end-run to outlaw or restrict access to abortion or family planning, then no.

But then I don't think many answers are just black and white.

[lightningandsnow]

34. I agree, pretty much,

Good points.

[hyphenate]

28. IMHO

It depends on how viable the fetus was. A fetus at 20 weeks is less likely to survive outside the womb than a 28 week old, and while the difference might be small, it makes a whole lot of difference gestation wise. It's how I've always looked at the issue in general, but technology is moving at such an incredible pace that pretty soon a fetus might eventually be able to survive at that 20 week level. Again, this is from my own opinion, and isn't a real scientific or legal one.

[New Dawn]

29. No.

Homicide is the killing of another human. I do not think that fetuses qualify as other humans.

I also think that the type of laws that allow for prosecuting people like that were intended to be a small step towards ultimately eliminating abortion rights.

[RC]

35. BINGO! We have a the winna!

[HuffleClaw]

37. that's been the plan all along

and they've been quite honest about it too

[slackmaster]

44. I disagree

It is possible to define murder as the unlawful killing of a human being or of a fetus. That is exactly what we did in California.

I also think that the type of laws that allow for prosecuting people like that were intended to be a small step towards ultimately eliminating abortion rights.

In 35 years of having a fetal murder law in place, we haven't fallen into the abyss yet.

[ismnotwasm]

80. Thank you

That's about what I think as well

[lightningandsnow]

33. I don't know...

I think the problem with it is that it produces kind of a slippery slope. For example, laws such as that have been used to prosectute desperate women who try and perform their own abortions, charging them with murder. I think designating a fetus as a person is really dangerous in terms of the right to choose.

[Old and In the Way]

36. So, should a woman who has a miscarriage be charged with manslaughter?

Truly, one could make the case if the woman was doing ANYTHING that might have contributed to the miscarriage, that she has some culpability in the death of the fetus. Manslaughter, 1st, or 2nd degree murder?

If we wish to confirm rights of born humans to fetuses, should women be forced to have daily pregnancy checks so we can establish the potential personhood exists?

What seems like a fair proposition when establishing criminal culpability, might also introduce yet more unintended, but logical consequences to the discussion.

[hulklogan]

48. Furthermore, if a woman drinks during pregnancy, should she be charged with

assault?

It's a very slippery slope, this fetus-is-a-person idea.

[truebrit71]

39. Nope. Charge them with illegally causing the termination of a pregnancy or something...

...but if it's in the womb it is not a "person"...

[Zynx]

40. I'm a coward, I'm not touching this one.

I think I can justify the law by saying that the woman should be the only one with the right to terminate a pregnancy.

[rebecca_herman]

45. Other

Yes if it's viable. If the fetus isn't viable I would say it should just be considered an assault on the woman to kill her fetus against her wishes.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

46. no. one person.

[pitohui]

49. no i don't think so

i'm tired of the whole idea that your first killing isn't such a big deal if it's "only" a woman (especially your wife or g/f) but suddenly it becomes a horrendous terrible thing if there's a fetus in the oven-- after all there's a 50/50 chance the fetus would have turned out to be male!

what happened to the radical idea that women are people? we are just bottles for a baby and are considered of little value otherwise and the law itself is happy to rub it in

woman not PG - manslaughter charge, crime of passion, the guy gets out in a short period if he's charged at all (example, the "to do" list killer here in the new orleans area is STILL not in prison, it's just delay delay delay even after shooting his wife in the face on video)

too bad she was too old to get PG without unnatural intervention, if she'd had a bun in the oven the guy might be in prison now

i would like to think if i'm killed, then my killer would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law even tho i'm too old to get PG

fat chance of that happening or of my life being considered of any value, after all, i'm "only" a woman, not a man or a fetus

bitter, hell yes i'm bitter and proud of it

[MrSlayer]

51. Yes. You are killing the mother and the baby.

That's two people.

[Scout]

78. No, it's one person--a pregnant woman n/t

[goodgd_yall]

52. Other

I think it's necessary for the accused to have known the woman was pregnant in order for that person to be charged with a second homocide. Then I believe there has to be a determination on what the age of the fetus would be. I'd leave that up to argument.

I've seen instances where a person was charged with 2 homicides and the accused didn't even know the woman was pregnant. That is wrong.

[Canuckistanian]

53. No, plain and simply, no.

At what point does a fetus (or blastocyst or zygote) become a 'person' in law?

Could someone who possibly caused a woman to miscarry be charged with this crime?

Could the woman herself be charged with manslaughter for not exercising due diligence in her pregnancy?

And of course, anyone who terminated a pregnancy (such as a doctor performing an abortion) could logically be charged with TWO murders if the woman died during the procedure.

There are SO many "natural extensions" to such a law that the fundies would LOVE to see this go through.

They would have their "anti-abortion law" without a Supreme Court ruling.

[Laurier]

66. Agreed.

Plain and simply, no.

[OhioChick]

54. Yes nt

[zorahopkins]

56. A Person Kills A Woman

A person kills a woman who is pregnant.

So, the person kills one person.

Why should the person ever be charged with two homicides???

?????????

[Warren DeMontague]

58. I don't think these laws have diddly shit to do with stopping violent crime.

They're about reproductive choice, pure and simple.

And anyway, isn't killing ONE person bad enough? Maybe what we should be doing is putting ALL the violent criminals away for good, instead of filling up our prisons with non-violent drug offenders. Right now we let murderers and rapists out so we can make room for pot smokers.

[ileus]

59. without a doubt...no question.

[avenger64]

60. This is tough to say, but you can't allow this type ...

... of victory for the right. It's one step down a slippery slope to no choice.

[Greyhound]

62. Psst. We're already at the bottom of the slope.

We live in a police state and the most pathetic thing is that most are just fine with it, and many don't even care, yet.

[Quantess]

69. Nooo.... I beg to differ.

I am absolutely 100% pro-choice. I am adamantly pro-choice!
You could even call me pro-abortion in some hypothetical scenarios, such as: pregnant 14 year olds, aborting three of the sextuplets, ectopic pregnancies, drug addicted mothers or fetal alcohol syndrome, cases where the woman's health is in danger, etc... I would recommend abortion and add my opinion that continuing with the pregnancy would be the wrong choice.

However, I do feel that when a pregnant woman and her near-term fetus are both murdered, there should be extra punishment for the convicted murderer.

Slippery slopes are too vague to be of any practical use. Medical Marijuana is considered a "slippery slope" to some people, for example.

[Alexander]

63. Depends. Is she 9 months pregnant or two weeks pregnant?

There's a difference.

[boston bean]

64. depends on how far along she is. can the baby survive outside the womb, is the main point, I think.

[spoony]

68. The problem with that standard

is that preemies are born all the time and live by the interference of medical care. They could not live by themselves, but few would say they aren't persons. What is their status? Does it make all the difference that they're outside the womb? If so why? There are just so many complicated issues to this.

[Quantess]

73. "viable"

if you don't understand what it means, Google it.

[spoony]

76. "comprehension"

I am well aware of the term and its meanings, and my post was not meant to nor did it claim to work within the confines thereof. It was about personhood, not viability. Now if you have nothing meaningful to add perhaps you'll be good enough to totter off and correct someone else on things they didn't say.

[Ilsa]

67. No. One is enough. and there is no guarantee

that a pregnancy will tur into a birthed person. Or that the woman didn't intend to terminate the pregnancy anyway.

[Raksha]

70. I had to choose "Other" because to my mind it depends

on how far along the mother is. In the 9th month, definitely--and probably in the last trimester. Sharon Tate was in her 9th month when she was murdered, and all the newspapers reporting on it made a point of mentioning that the baby she was carrying also died. I don't recall however whether the murder of the fetus was a separate charge when the killers were tried.

[MurrayDelph]

72. If the mother thinks it is a baby

then it's a baby.

[Balbus]

74. Absolutely.

[shireen]

75. other

if the fetus has a good chance of surviving if it had been born prematurely at the time of murder, yes, that's 2 murders.

[Richard Steele]

82. No. I hold an exteremely ORTHODOX, JUDEO-CHRISTIAN opinion of the unborn child.

I believe that there is such a thing as a "soul",
and I believe that the soul enters the body at the
moment the newborn child draws its first breath.

The Old Testament makes it clear that an unborn child
was not considered to be a "person".
If the Radical Fundies spent half as time READING their
frickin' bibles as they do WAVING them, they'd know that.

[gollygee]

83. Why isn't killing a woman considered a bad enough crime on its own?

If someone kills a woman, or a man, or a child, that's enough for life without parole. If the woman is pregnant and that was a reason for killing, the judge can take that into account in sentencing. This is anti-abortion posturing and completely unnecessary.

[Ordr]

84. Case-by-case.

Let a jury decide.

[lonestarnot]

85. Rot in a box for the rest of his/her natural life.

[Bluebear]

86. AHA!!! Well what about ABORTOIN then!!!!111

I think that is the question that they are dishonestly trying to get at.

[Der Blaue Engel]

88. No, and I'm apalled at the number of DUers who do

I guess nothing should surprise me anymore. I should stop expecting to find sanity and allies here.