Murder or Assault
- Thread starter Tgace
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 9,930
- Reaction score
- 1,452
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.
But I think in the case you specified, it's murder.
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
Purple Belt
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
Franco
sgtmac_46
Senior Master
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2004
- Messages
- 4,753
- Reaction score
- 189
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.
OP
Tgace
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2003
- Messages
- 7,766
- Reaction score
- 409
- Thread Starter
- #7
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.
OP
Tgace
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2003
- Messages
- 7,766
- Reaction score
- 409
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.
M
MisterMike
Guest
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.
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.
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:
:asian:
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
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.
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.
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.
M
MisterMike
Guest
rmcrobertson said:
Too far off base..
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
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.
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
2nd Black Belt
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
Master of Arts
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.
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.
