# Murder or Assault



## Tgace (May 30, 2005)

If a late term, pregnant woman is attacked and the fetus dies, is it murder of the fetus, assault of the mother or both?


----------



## elder999 (May 30, 2005)

Are you asking for an opinion, or the law? Because the law varies from place to place, and in some places it could be murder even in the case of an _embryo_, never mind a fetus. Kind of why I've avoided the whole "when does life begin thing," because even the law is confused on that one.

But I think in the case you specified, it's murder.


----------



## Shu2jack (May 30, 2005)

I say assault on the mother only. If it is murder to accidently kill a fetus in an assault, then in my mind an abortion should be considered murder as well- especially since it is intentionally killing the fetus.


----------



## Franc0 (May 30, 2005)

Hmmm, touchy question indeed. IMO, if an attacker assaults a woman who is obviously pregnant (late term), the the attacker knows there's two lives involved, and thats murder. In some jurisdictions, it could depend on the circumstances. If the death of the child was unintended, that could change it to manslaughter. 

Franco


----------



## Tgace (May 30, 2005)

Opinion only..no knowledge of the standing law required. Person knows the victim is pregnant and assaults her.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 30, 2005)

It's a tough question, especially if you are pro-choice.  If an unborn fetus is not considered alive or a human being, then it's only assault on the mother.  However, it becomes very difficult to defend the position that the unborn fetus IS human life, for the purposes of prosecuting someone for assault, but IS NOT a human life when it comes to abortion.  It is both alive and not alive, at the same time.  Again, tough question.


----------



## Tgace (May 30, 2005)

The issue gets even sticker if the baby lives and is brain damaged, or otherwise handicapped due to the assault. If the mother is otherwise fine but the child is born with damages due to the attack, where does the law fit in? Cant charge assault, attempted murder etc. if you dont consider the unborn child a victim.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 30, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> The issue gets even sticker if the baby lives and is brain damaged, or otherwise handicapped due to the assault. If the mother is otherwise fine but the child is born with damages due to the attack, where does the law fit in. Cant charge assault, attempted murder etc. if you dont consider the unborn child a victim.


Actually, with abortion being legal, the most appropriate charge would be destruction of property, as fetus' are treated as property of the mother until it is born.  So felony destruction of property then.


----------



## Tgace (May 30, 2005)

http://www.courttv.com/news/2003/0326/fetalhomicide_ctv.html
http://womensissues.about.com/cs/parentingfamily/a/aafetalhomicide.htm


----------



## Shu2jack (May 30, 2005)

> The issue gets even sticker if the baby lives and is brain damaged, or otherwise handicapped due to the assault. If the mother is otherwise fine but the child is born with damages due to the attack, where does the law fit in? Cant charge assault, attempted murder etc. if you dont consider the unborn child a victim.


It would still be assault on the mother the attacker would be charged with. I would have to say serious damage done to the fetus is serious damage done to the mother because they are the same creature while the fetus is in the womb. Perhaps imposing stricter penelties for those who harm pregnate woman would work. It would be like giving stricter sentences for a "hate crime", except the reason for imposing a harsher sentence would be because of the greater amount of damage a mother (and fetus) can sustain in assault.

If nothing else, civil court could also become an option, assuming the scumbag has any money to begin with.


----------



## MisterMike (May 30, 2005)

I think it would be murder on 2 accounts. I don't think we can say they are a single person just because they are attached by a cord. One may be dependant on the other, but they are still human beings. It would be like trying to murder one siamese twin, and they share more body parts than a chord.


----------



## Gemini (May 30, 2005)

If that fetus was your unborn child, and you held that unborn fetus in your hands, seeing all the details of the life that will now never be your child, I don't think there will be a question in your mind whether it's murder or not.


----------



## hwarang (May 30, 2005)

in my oppinion life dont start till you breathe on your onw so it should just be assault on the mother


----------



## jfarnsworth (May 30, 2005)

My opinion will be both. If a woman is attacked then yes she is assaulted and the fetus dies, then yes it has been murdered.
 :asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 30, 2005)

A married couple that has been desperately trying to have a child stops off to get fast food on the way home, where they're going because they've figured out that this happens to be the best night that month for fertility. They are carjacked; the husband's accidentally killed, when he gets thrown out of the car and hits his head. 

After they catch the criminal, the local DA charges him with one count of manslaughter (he hadn't meant to kill the husband) and one of murder, on the grounds that the couple had intended to go home and start a child.

Hint: despite the dreams, "pro-choice," actually means that individual decisions in regard to reproduction and, "when life begins," are respected as much as reasonably possible.


----------



## arnisador (May 30, 2005)

It's murder of both in my mind, but probably the death of a fetus needs special handling in the law. Yes, I know it isn't a fully consistent opinion since I'm pro-choice...but, _choice_ is the key word there.


----------



## MisterMike (May 30, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> A married couple that has been desperately trying to have a child stops off to get fast food on the way home, where they're going because they've figured out that this happens to be the best night that month for fertility. They are carjacked; the husband's accidentally killed, when he gets thrown out of the car and hits his head.
> 
> After they catch the criminal, the local DA charges him with one count of manslaughter (he hadn't meant to kill the husband) and one of murder, on the grounds that the couple had intended to go home and start a child.
> 
> Hint: despite the dreams, "pro-choice," actually means that individual decisions in regard to reproduction and, "when life begins," are respected as much as reasonably possible.



Too far off base..


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 30, 2005)

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.


----------



## evenflow1121 (May 30, 2005)

Its funny in most jurisidictions both civil and criminal law are at odds with this.  While you may be able to bring a criminal cause of action by the state against the death of an unborn child, you may be barred from civil recovery in some jurisdictions because the child has not been born yet, so the theory is that since it was never born, we dont really know if it would have been, or how long would it have lived, what kind of contributions it would have been made, stuff like that.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (May 30, 2005)

From a legal perspective, it depends on the murder statute for the jurisdiction that the assault occurs in.  We read a case involving just this scenario where the suspect only got one charge because the statute hadn't included injury to a fetus as murder.  The state legislature later changed it.  

Personally, I would decide one murder or two based on the intent of the assailant.  If the woman was apparently pregnant at the time of the assault, he should be liable based on the fact that he (or she) is obviously putting the pregnant woman's future child at risk.  I'm not really basing this on the fetus' right to life, which is debatable as all hell, but the fact that the assailant had to know that he was violating the mother's decision.  Not sure if this would end up being a murder charge, but since I can't fall back on a life-of-the-fetus argument, this is about all I can safely see tacking on to the assailant.


----------



## MisterMike (May 30, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (May 30, 2005)

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 (May 30, 2005)

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 (May 30, 2005)

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 (May 31, 2005)

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 (May 31, 2005)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> 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. *)
> 
> ...


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


----------



## Ray (May 31, 2005)

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 (May 31, 2005)

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


----------



## Ray (May 31, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> 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 (May 31, 2005)

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 (May 31, 2005)

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 (May 31, 2005)

Ninth month is a huge difference than first few weeks


----------



## Tgace (May 31, 2005)

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 (May 31, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> 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 (May 31, 2005)

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 (May 31, 2005)

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


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 31, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> 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 (May 31, 2005)

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.
> 
> ...


----------



## 47MartialMan (May 31, 2005)

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


----------



## Cryozombie (May 31, 2005)

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...


----------



## evenflow1121 (May 31, 2005)

47MartialMan said:
			
		

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


The states are given more power to regulate abortions, and obviously what consitutes a late term, and up to what point you can have one, under the US Supreme Court Planned Parenhood of Pittsburg case which in many ways does away with essential elements of Roe v Wade.  They do not set guidelines, but allow the states to set them.


----------



## goshawk (Jun 1, 2005)

To my mind, it's assault of the woman involved only; at least as long as it would still be possible to have an abortion. I can't remember when that is, suddenly. Start of the third term, maybe? Anybody know?

From the standpoint of the law, _past_ that point there should be considered two people, and _before_ that only one. It's an imperfect solution, of course, as it draws a definitive line of "personhood" where there probably isn't one, but perfect solutions will be hard to come by in any issue like this. Plus, anything else chips dangerously away at Roe vs. Wade, and I think there's rather enough of that going on right now.

From a purely subjective point of view? If the woman is visibly, obviously pregnant, it's murder and assault both.


----------



## 47MartialMan (Jun 1, 2005)

goshawk said:
			
		

> To my mind, it's assault of the woman involved only; at least as long as it would still be possible to have an abortion. I can't remember when that is, suddenly. Start of the third term, maybe? Anybody know?
> 
> From the standpoint of the law, _past_ that point there should be considered two people, and _before_ that only one. It's an imperfect solution, of course, as it draws a definitive line of "personhood" where there probably isn't one, but perfect solutions will be hard to come by in any issue like this. Plus, anything else chips dangerously away at Roe vs. Wade, and I think there's rather enough of that going on right now.
> 
> From a purely subjective point of view? If the woman is visibly, obviously pregnant, it's murder and assault both.


So the law sets the standard?


----------



## goshawk (Jun 2, 2005)

47MartialMan said:
			
		

> So the law sets the standard?


Something has to. 

I have a firm belief in the rule of law, and thus addressed the question from a legal perspective, thinking more of how it should be dealt with by society as opposed to how I would deal with it myself. Like I said, it's an imperfect solution, as laws generally are. 

Nobody knows exactly when human consciousness begins, though it seems everybody has an opinion. I haven't studied the issue and so don't consider myself qualified to defend an opinion. However, if I recall correctly most medical literature calls abortion dangerous or unnacceptable under most circumstances, past a certain point in the second trimester. It seems to me that if a legislation for this issue is needed (as apparently it is?), that's be a good place to draw the line. 

From a purely emotional, subjective standpoint...I don't know. I think I'd take it case-by-case. i.e. Six weeks pregnant, with no visual cues or other indicators of the woman's pregnancy, I'd say assault only. If, on the other hand, we're talking an obviously pregnant woman, I'd include the murder and want the creep given a life sentence for willfully causing the death of a child. 

I may've misunderstood the question. I automatically assumed Tgace was asking for an opinion on what we as a society should do with regards to the issue, and I responded from that assumption. If I was wrong in that assumption...well, I guess I made an a** of me and mption. =P


----------



## 47MartialMan (Jun 2, 2005)

goshawk said:
			
		

> Something has to.
> 
> I have a firm belief in the rule of law, and thus addressed the question from a legal perspective, thinking more of how it should be dealt with by society as opposed to how I would deal with it myself. Like I said, it's an imperfect solution, as laws generally are.
> 
> ...


Nice post.

However, if we are to understand that law is from the birth of righteous morals, thus such morals are from the birth of religion, then said law is in the name of religion?

Now given that the social order of the era is looking to separate "religion" from "state", which one holds more value?


----------



## goshawk (Jun 2, 2005)

47MartialMan said:
			
		

> Nice post.
> 
> However, if we are to understand that law is from the birth of righteous morals, thus such morals are from the birth of religion, then said law is in the name of religion?
> 
> Now given that the social order of the era is looking to separate "religion" from "state", which one holds more value?


Um, I think I need to do a little conceptual discussion before answering that, hope you don't mind.

First of all, "morals are born out of religion"? That's a pretty sweeping premise, one I'm not entirely certain I can agree with. I'd say rather that morals, human ideals of what is acceptable or "good" and what is unnacceptable or "bad" grew out of our cooperative social structure as an inevitable evolutionary adaptation--much like the altruism gene.

Violence as _morally wrong_ likely grew out of violence as _poor survival strategy._ Religion, leaving out theological discussion ('cause if I didn't we'd be here all night and probably get booted to the Study) is a system for understanding the world and society both. Thus I find it much more likely that religion grew up around and included pre-existing moral codes than the other way around. =P

Whew. That defined...

I see the separation of state from religion as simply a way of separating morality from religion once more; a way of maintaining a just and ethical society while still allowing for the ethnically and religiously diverse societies the world has developed thanks to the ease of travel we now enjoy. A non-denominational system of right and wrong is an absolute necessity if we want to remain a non-persecuting and tolerant society rather than an oppressive theocracy. 

Now,I_ think_ what you're asking is whether law or morality is more important (correct me if I'm wrong, here). And I'm really unsure how to answer that question. I mean, more important how? To whom? More important to society, more important to individuals, more important to martial artists...? Society _must_ follow the rule of law; to do otherwise is to invite a) anarchy and b) the imposition of the majority's ideals upon the minority. Therefore, from a purely practical, best-for-the-nation perspective, it's better that law be followed and the devil himself be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Hell, better that he's _released_ if the prosecution couldn't hack it, than to dismantle those laws "just once" because you "just know" he's guilty.

Individually, I'd like to think that I would trust myself to know what is right and go with it, regardless of the law. If I saw someone being raped, I'd do my best to take the rapist apart. Perhaps by the laws of that area, I'd be in the wrong--but for myself, I know what was right in that instance. Better to spend time in jail than to walk on by without doing something. But that's just me.

So, after that ridiculously long reply...could you clarify your question a bit? 

Jeez, I think the chatterbug bit me, injected its venom, then decided to possess my keyboard tonight. I'm not usually this long-winded. ::blinks::


----------



## 47MartialMan (Jun 2, 2005)

goshawk said:
			
		

> Um, I think I need to do a little conceptual discussion before answering that, hope you don't mind.
> 
> First of all, "morals are born out of religion"? That's a pretty sweeping premise, one I'm not entirely certain I can agree with. I'd say rather that morals, human ideals of what is acceptable or "good" and what is unnacceptable or "bad" grew out of our cooperative social structure as an inevitable evolutionary adaptation--much like the altruism gene.
> 
> ...


Thank you for yuor post. I was posting in ponderance for a detail reply-I got it.

I think you may have covered all angles-unless someone esle has anything to add.


----------



## goshawk (Jun 2, 2005)

47MartialMan said:
			
		

> Thank you for yuor post.


No worries. Evidently I felt like babbling last night. =P

Cheers.


----------



## hwarang (Jun 2, 2005)

I got one that will really confuse you all... Who cares? how many of you have lost fetuses? .... well if you havent then you have no say in the matter, the moment one of you becomes pregnant then loses her kid or hits a prengant woman in the stomach, then you'll have a say


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jun 2, 2005)

If the mother was planning to carry the child to term - assault on her, and loss (homicide?) of the child.

If she was not planning to carry the child to term - assault on her.

~or~

Again, this is where we "horrible" and "moral-less" pro-choicers have to defer, once again, to the mother's (and father's) wishes, beliefs, and intent.  

You'd think respecting individual beliefs and rights were some anti-American thing.  Oh well.


----------



## Flatlander (Jun 2, 2005)

hwarang said:
			
		

> I got one that will really confuse you all... Who cares? how many of you have lost fetuses? .... well if you havent then you have no say in the matter, the moment one of you becomes pregnant then loses her kid or hits a prengant woman in the stomach, then you'll have a say


Well, I disagree.  In the Study, we examine issues and debate our positions.  It seems to me that, irrespective of one's sex, religeon, or experience, they are entitled to an opinion.  This is the place to make your case; an area where anyone who chooses can put their opinion up for scrutiny, and perhaps refine or re-examine their position.


----------



## hwarang (Jun 2, 2005)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> Well, I disagree. In the Study, we examine issues and debate our positions. It seems to me that, irrespective of one's sex, religeon, or experience, they are entitled to an opinion. This is the place to make your case; an area where anyone who chooses can put their opinion up for scrutiny, and perhaps refine or re-examine their position.


yes, i guess that sounds right im sorry maybe i shouldnt get all into it like that forgive me for my stoopid post just understand where im coming from if it hasnt happened to you then you cant exactly know what you would or would not want.. certainly your idea of it would change if you were the man who attacked the woman (i think that would be a very bad thing, and you would  be a baad person if you did this) then you would be singing quite a different tune if you didnt know she was pregnant..   Im not trying to be mean or anything, just playing the devils advocate and going for underdog


----------



## Tgace (Jun 2, 2005)

Going "for" someone who attacks a woman...pregnant or not?? Odd position.


----------



## hwarang (Jun 2, 2005)

Its not really going "for" them, its just trying to see the others point of view, if you cant understand something you cant judge it friend


----------



## Tgace (Jun 2, 2005)

Thats called "moral relativism" i.e. how can you "judge" somebody since its just an issue of them not thinking they are wrong and you thinking you are. What makes me right and them wrong? How can you judge? Thats why we have Law, it makes those decisions easier...


----------



## evenflow1121 (Jun 3, 2005)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> If the mother was planning to carry the child to term - assault on her, and loss (homicide?) of the child.
> 
> If she was not planning to carry the child to term - assault on her.
> 
> ...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 3, 2005)

evenflow1121 said:
			
		

> Feisty Mouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## evenflow1121 (Jun 3, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> So the mother decides whether it's a child or not for purposes of prosecution? That's a slippery slope if I ever saw one. I think there are two choices. Either A) It's a living child both ways or B) It's property, and then the charge would be felony destruction of property.


The state brings the charges in criminal court not the mother, but there are gray areas to everything, what happens if the mother was on the way to an abortion clinic when this happenned? Given that scenario should the state still bring a murder 2 in the least case against the assailant? The issue becomes more complicated, if it is a living child both ways, then abortion would not be legal in this country. If you recognize an unborn as a living child throughout all stages of pregnancy, its safe to say the anti abortion side would use that argument, and it prob would be a very strong one in a court of law. The mere fact that the state would recognize an unborn child as living in all stages of the pregnancy (it obviously does recognize its life at the latter stage) would prob strike down abortion law if that ever happenned. 

The mother can never decide, its a criminal case, or it would be, but an incident like that could become very complicated in a court of law.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 4, 2005)

evenflow1121 said:
			
		

> The state brings the charges in criminal court not the mother, but there are gray areas to everything, what happens if the mother was on the way to an abortion clinic when this happenned? Given that scenario should the state still bring a murder 2 in the least case against the assailant? The issue becomes more complicated, if it is a living child both ways, then abortion would not be legal in this country. If you recognize an unborn as a living child throughout all stages of pregnancy, its safe to say the anti abortion side would use that argument, and it prob would be a very strong one in a court of law. The mere fact that the state would recognize an unborn child as living in all stages of the pregnancy (it obviously does recognize its life at the latter stage) would prob strike down abortion law if that ever happenned.
> 
> The mother can never decide, its a criminal case, or it would be, but an incident like that could become very complicated in a court of law.


The more important issue is, why is the woman's mindset relavent to whether or not the child is a human life.  Moreover, how can a child be both alive and not alive at the same time, it's pure schizophrenia. The law can not have the issue both ways.  Either the child is a living human being, worthy of protection from EVERYONE (including it's own mother) or it is property, in which case the fetus should be treated as property which, if lost, is considered like any other owned property of the mother and the subject is charged as if they destroyed a valued object or killed the neighbors dog.  There is only two ways to go philosophically with this, and the mothers mindset is irrelavent.  What we need is a legal principle that applies across the board.


----------



## drdoolittle (Jun 4, 2005)

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.


----------



## evenflow1121 (Jun 4, 2005)

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 (Jun 6, 2005)

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 (Jun 6, 2005)

drdoolittle said:
			
		

> 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 (Jun 6, 2005)

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 (Jun 6, 2005)

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 (Jun 6, 2005)

evenflow1121 said:
			
		

> 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 (Jun 18, 2005)

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 (Jun 18, 2005)

Loki said:
			
		

> 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.


----------

