Should murdering a pregnant woman be double murder?

[boolean]

Since some people seem unable to accept that perhaps a living human exists after a time during a pregnancy, I want to know how you guys feel about the double murder laws that exist in some places. If a pregnant woman is murdered, shouldn't the killer be charged with a single count? After all, baby not out of womb = baby doesn't exist - right?

I'm sincerely not being smug about this. (I know it might -hell, who am I kidding? WILL- come off that way). But I think all of us need to put some honesty into this debate. There are many ways of framing it, and I'm fine with that, but you absolutely cannot deny the simple fact that there is a line somewhere in time from conception to birth where once that line is crossed, you are no longer dealing with a clump of developing cells, but with a human being.

Just so you all know where I stand:
1) I'm 100% for embryonic stem cell research.
2) I'm 100% for contraception, including Plan B and any other so called "abortion pills"
3) I do NOT want abortion to be criminalized. (Believe it or not!)
4) Yes, I'm male. :P
5) No, I don't hate women and I don't want to control women.

The reason I don't want abortion to be a crime is because I know it'll still happen anyway. I understand that shit happens, and replacing abortion with coat hangers is no good for anyone. To me it's a necessary evil more than anything else. But that doesn't mean I'm not right when I say a human is being killed some of the time, and it doesn't make me a woman hater or an un compassionate male hypocrite.

Truth be told this is really the only issue that I struggle a lot with. It's a tough one for me. Everything else, I'm pretty much a rabid liberal, especially economics, war, guns, drugs, etc. Abortion is the only thing I somewhat side with the conservatives on, though for much different reasons. (They prefer to quote the bible...dumbasses).

I ask a simple question: If scientists invented a machine tomorrow that was able to pinpoint the exact second that a fetus turns into a person, who here would accept abortion after that second, and why? I just can't bring myself around to your side. I've tried to do it, but I can't. (And believe me, I'd like to. I've tried. I really hate to side with conservatives on anything...It brings a slight taste of vomit to my mouth.) It just seems fundamentally wrong to me. You're killing a baby, no matter how you slice it. If I'm going to be against war, if I'm going to be against the death penalty, how can I possibly be for abortion? I just feel like I need to be consistent about the whole thing. I hate the killing of life no matter what, when, where, or why that killing is occurring.

[Der Blaue Engel]

1. "You're killing a baby, no matter how you slice it."

Never, ever slice it. That's way too messy.

Sorry, I was going to answer seriously, but I just couldn't help myself when I saw that. :evilgrin:

[Burma Jones]

2. I don't know about Dbl Murder, but certainly an aggravating circumstance

[SteppingRazor]

3. I'm not for these double-murder laws, so....

I guess I don't have the same problem as you :shrug:

[indepat]

13. Surely double murder if the fetus could have lived outside the womb:

to say if would be double murder from the point of conception is utter hogwash as is virtually every conservative, no far-right, pronouncement.

[SteppingRazor]

14. I'm actually not even for that...

mind you, I think killing a woman who is 8 or 9 months pregnant should weigh heavier in the sentencing phase of the murder, but to try it as two counts of murder is to open the door to rights for the unborn, which is the beginning of outlawing abortion.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[REP]

9. That Was Quick!

[Lars39]

5. Why do men do this?

Do you see women "struggling" with the idea of vasectomies...how many potential babies have been 'killed'?
Sorry, but you do have 'control' issues, whether you acknowledge them or not.

[liberalnurse]

6. Asolutely not......

Such a claim is a neo-con tactic to open the door to outlaw abortion.

NO, No and NO.

[Vincardog]

7. Nobody is if FOR ABORTION. If you are against killing babies

why not work to stop WAR?
How do you side with the Fristians on abortion?
Jesus never said a word about abortion or homosexuality.

As to your question the time a fetus becomes a baby has been determined.
It called BIRTH. Before BIRTH the being in question is a fetus prior to that it is a clump of cells.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Vincardog]

26. So now you want to argue about the Partial Birth abortion? You just want

to argue. Why are you posting this?

[Nobody]

44. The felony you're thinking of is called rape.

Rape with a sharp object.

Never mind the fetus, it's the woman who is being assaulted with your illustration. Anyone who sticks a sharp object up my vagina will get hurt and criminally prosecuted for assaulting ME. It doesn't matter whether I'm pregnant or not, how far along, whether I'm a virgin, a married woman, a single woman who likes the guys, a lesbian, a teenager, an elderly postmenopausal woman, or a middle-aged woman.

[liberalnurse]

17. You mislead with your initial post....

Why didn't you just come out and ask is abortion murder?

This post-thread of yours is covert and deceptive flame bait. The U.S Constitution has yet to outlaw legal abortion. Start an abortion thread for cripe-sakes....You are not as sneaky as you believe.

[Control-Z]

25. He did, indeed, mislead. n/t

[Book Lover]

8. I disagree with them

Injuring a woman so that she loses a pregnancy but not her life is simply assault; injuring a woman so that she dies and the fetus she carries does not survive the death of the pregnant woman is still only an murder to the woman. A fetus is not yet a person, and so cannot be murdered.

Science will never be able to invent a machine that indicates when a fetus becomes a person, because that is not a scientific question. It is a legal one.

Also, I would like to point out that your assertion, "But that doesn't mean I'm not right when I say a human is being killed some of the time, and it doesn't make me a woman hater or an un compassionate male hypocrite." is illogical. You assert that you are factually correct simply by your say-so.

One final point. You say, "you absolutely cannot deny the simple fact that there is a line somewhere in time from conception to birth where once that line is crossed, you are no longer dealing with a clump of developing cells, but with a human being." I say to that, "That is slightly correct. That line is birth."

[melnjones]

38. Please see my post #37...

I'm too tired to retype it, but I would like to ask you the same question I asked there regarding repercussions for causing a spontaneous abortion.

[last1standing]

10. Instead of semantics, let's just get to the root of it.

You don't like the idea of abortion but you want it to stay legal. Welcome to the vast majority of human beings on this planet. No one enjoys the idea of having an abortion but sometimes it's the best of bad choices. We can debate whether it's killing a baby or if it's removing tissue for an entire gestation period, but in the end we agree on the end result. As Clinton said, let's make it safe, legal, and rare.

Pro-Choice and Pro-Life are not antonyms.

[xchrom]

11. absolutely not.

[atreides1]

12. Even with a machine, it's still the womans choice, not mine or yours

It's not dependent on when a fetus turns into a person, but when that fetus is viable and can survive
without artificial devices. The Catholic church had set a standard on when that is. They referred to it as "the Quickening", the time when the expectant mother felt the child move.

For fourteen hundred years until late in the nineteenth century, all Catholics, including the popes, took it for granted that the soul is not infused at conception. If the church was wholly opposed to abortion, as it was, it was not on the basis of the conceptus starting as a human being.

From the fifth century, the church accepted without question the primitive embryology of Aristotle. The embryo began as a non-human speck that was progressively animated. This speck had to evolve from vegetative, through animal to spiritual being. Only in its final stage was it a human being. This is why Gratian was able to say: `He is not a murderer who brings about abortion before the soul is in the body.'

If you have no wish to control a woman or her body then why would you interfere in a choice that she has made?

If scientists invented a time machine that could send you back in time before Hitler was born, what would you do? Would you allow the birth with the knowledge that millions will pay with their lives?
Or would you stop it from happening?

[EC]

16. Would there be a difference in the sentencing?

If not, why get into the whole argument in court? They could end up tearing apart the jury and lose the case...

[melnjones]

18. I won't be popular for saying this...

but even as a woman, I think that if the mother is far enough along that the baby could possibly survive if born, then yes, you have committed two murders. Yes, that creates a difficulty of deciding just where to draw that line. I say, in the case of an assault where the mother was planning to carry out the pregnancy term, draw it at five months...*ducks head and runs under table to avoid flaming*

I think we have to take into consideration that to the parents who have planned and waited for this child, it is murder. Their child has been killed.

There is nothing that can make me understand how a baby born one month premature is a baby, but a fetus that is to be born in one month is not.

Yes, I am against late-term, partial-birth abortion unless the mother's life is in danger.

[iverglas]

21. now try this

Well, first try referring to pregnant women as WOMEN, not "mothers". You might find this a refreshing perspective.

I think that if the mother is far enough along that the baby could possibly survive if born, then yes, you have committed two murders

It's an interesting little conundrum, isn't it just?

Let's just imagine that the woman was not assaulted, and carried her pregnancy to term, and the fetus was delivered, and it did not breathe. Dead fetus. Stillbirth. Not born baby.

What if the woman in your scenario was actually going to deliver a fetus that failed to breathe? HOW DO YOU KNOW that this was NOT going to happen?

How do you KNOW that any particular fetus "could possibly survive"? (What does "could possibly survive" mean, anyway?)

And why would that make a difference?? I'd think that the more important thing would be that the fetus "could possibly" have continued to develop during further gestation if the pregnancy had not been interrupted in, say, the 3rd month, so that there wouldn't even have been a question as to whether it was sufficiently developed enough to survive after delivery.

It's entirely beyond me why only the termination of late-term pregnancies would be considered "homicide". How can assault that prevents a pregnancy from even reaching the stage where the fetus is technically viable be any worse?

There is nothing that can make me understand how a baby born one month premature is a baby, but a fetus that is to be born in one month is not.

I'm going to tell you, and you take a minute to let it sink in, okay?

See the word "born" in your sentence? In the first instance, you are saying "that has been born". In the second, you are saying "that will be born". Do you see it? The difference?

One is born. One is not born. I'm sure that when you think about it, it will all come clear.

[boolean]

22. Since you want to play word games...

Is a baby delivered via an emergency C-section "born"? After all, had a doctor not intervened, that "fetus" would have surely "died". Instead, the C-section allowed it to "live".

BUT WAIT!

It wasn't born yet! It can't possibly be alive! How can you save the "life" of a fetus? It's not born yet! It's not HUMAN yet!

You are being obtuse.

[iverglas]

23. my my

Don't you want to reply to the post I actually replied to *you* in?

Is a baby delivered via an emergency C-section "born"?

Can you imagine that someone would answer this question "no" -- IF the baby has breathed, etc., after having completely proceeded from the body of the woman ... i.e., IS a baby?

After all, had a doctor not intervened, that "fetus" would have surely "died".

And if a doctor did not intervene, many people's fingers and toes would "die" too. Are fingers and toes babies?

The fetus is living tissue, just as fingers and toes are. Being living tissue does not a human being make.

Instead, the C-section allowed it to "live".

No ... the Caesarian section allowed it to BE BORN and to BECOME a human being. Or at least to take a shot at being born and becoming a human being.

It wasn't born yet! It can't possibly be alive!

Oh my goodness. Did someone say that? Did someone say that a fetus is not alive? I'll bet that whoever said that would also say that my fingers and toes aren't alive. (edit: oops, I meant to say "my fingers and toes aren't human". I mean, they are, right? I'm lookin' at 'em, and I don't think they're simian or something.)

Of course, the only person whom I see saying it is you. I'll bet we can all name that fallacy.

It's not born yet! It's not HUMAN yet!

Uh oh. Did someone say that too??? Probably the same stupid person who said that a fetus wasn't alive, and would undoubtedly say that my fingers and toes aren't alive. You do need to have a word with this person, or send him/her over here to get straightened out.

Now wait, don't tell me. Someone must have said that the fetus wasn't BORN yet.

But hark. That one is true.

You are being obtuse.

You do seem fond of saying that sort of thing. I'm sure you know what you're being.

[boolean]

31. I did read your other post...

And it's obvious from that one and this one that there is no changing your mind on this matter. Believe it or not, I do respect that. I don't think we're ever going to agree on this one, though. I just can't say that just because it's not completely outside of the woman's body, breathing on it's own, that there's not a child in there.

[melnjones]

28. Friend...

I understand your frustration. Please see my post #27 above.

[Scout]

63. word games

dude, words have meaning, get it? You use one word, you mean one thing. You use a different word, you mean something else.

Why would one come to a place where one communicates with words, and then pretend to not know what words mean? Why would one accuse another poster, who uses words to make very precise statements about what she/he means, of playing word games?

Say what you mean, mean what you say. Shouldn't be too hard a concept to grasp.

fetus, baby, living, dead, born, unborn, person, human ... these are all words that you should understand by now. If you don't really understand them, please stop posting about that of which you do not know....

[melnjones]

27. I find it amazing...

I love DU. I really do. I do, however, find it absolutely amazing that it is not ok for me to have my own opinion on this issue. It would be different if I was rude about it, if I attacked other people who disagree with me (which I don't), if I was even actively trying to support the promotion of legislation that disagreed with typical Democratic patterns on the issue of choice. I do none of those things. I fully agree that right now abortion needs to be legal, stating only that I would prefer late-term abortions not be legal for ethical reasons. Ethically, I don't like abortion unless it is a case of rape, incest, or the mother's life is in danger. However, I would not talk a friend out of having an abortion based on my ethical convictions. I would drive her to the abortion clinic if she needed a ride there. I understand that my convictions are simply that- mine. I do not judge others for disagreeing, and I realize that this issue is NOT black and white.

Part of the reason I'm not a huge proponent of abortion is because I believe, in some ways, the systematic use of it is also sexist. Please let me explain before you get all upset...see, men and women both participate in causing a pregnancy. Men and women both have the opportunity to use protection (of course the exception to all this is rape), and yet when an unwanted pregnancy occurs, who has to deal with it? Primarily, if not totally, the woman. I don't agree with pro-lifers that having an abortion will scar you for life, but regardless, it is still a surgical procedure, and like any major surgical procedure it causes physical and emotional stress of some sort. The women are the ones who deal with this, who bear the full effect of lack of proper planning before having sex. No man will ever have an abortion. Even worse, I think about women who have more than one abortion. It is taxing physically, emotionally, and FINANCIALLY, and who has to deal with it? The woman. The man may or may not be there to support her.

So, if I'm going to spend time advocating for some sort of legislation related to women and pregnancy, I advocate for improved access to birth control of various types, including Plan B. The way the Repubs have tried to inhibit access to Plan B is appalling. In my opinion, this kind of advocating is the most beneficial to the greatest number of women, and is also least divisive along party lines.

When I state my opinion that I'm not a huge abortion fan, I always expect to receive sarcastic, demeaning responses like the one you gave. No, I'm not terribly upset, and definitely not surprised. I do hope, however, that you can consider and respect that I am a liberal Democrat feminist female, I have spent a great deal of time deciding what I think on a very controversial subject, and I will not bash you for not holding the same opinion that I do. Please extend to me the same courtesy of respectfully disagreeing.

[iverglas]

39. well gee

Part of the reason I'm not a huge proponent of abortion is because I believe, in some ways, the systematic use of it is also sexist. Please let me explain before you get all upset...see, men and women both participate in causing a pregnancy.

Shouldn't you oughta be proposing a law or something? I mean, if women are the only ones getting pregnant, surely that's a violation of due process or equal protection or some damned thing.

Bleeding dogs. Did you ever hear an activist for the rights of African-Americans, or GLBT people, or people with disabilities, saying that their rights should be VIOLATED because they had the misfortune of being born "other"? Wah, it isn't fair! Only we are historically oppressed / only we are attracted to people of our own sex / only we use mobility aids! So we should be prohibited by law from taking the measures that we consider to be the best of dealing with our disadvantages!

Only we can get pregnant, so only we should be denied the ability to exercise the fundamental human right of control over our bodies. Yeah, say it, sister!

So, if I'm going to spend time advocating for some sort of legislation related to women and pregnancy, I advocate for improved access to birth control of various types, including Plan B.

And the two are mutually exclusive?

And even if you don't have time for all of it, you have time to hang around internet boards expressing your distaste for women who don't happen to share your analysis of their problems and your ideas for how to solve them? ... whatever those ideas might be, I dunno. Improved access to birth control really doesn't do a damned thing for women with unwanted pregnancies, you might have noticed.

Oh, and if you're so concerned about the financial toll that abortion takes on women, try lobbying for universal non-discriminatory health care. I've got it. It's good.

When I state my opinion that I'm not a huge abortion fan, I always expect to receive sarcastic, demeaning responses like the one you gave.

And when you call women who have abortions murderers -- and that is what you did, all your pin-dancing notwitstanding -- you have some gall referring to what someone else says as "demeaning".

I do hope, however, that you can consider and respect that I am a liberal Democrat feminist female, ...

My friend, I'm not a liberal or a Democrat, and you're not a feminist. So I'm not taking your point.

... I have spent a great deal of time deciding what I think on a very controversial subject, ...

And neither I nor any woman whose reproductive rights are in jeopardy gives a shit about how long and hard you may have thought about the best way to violate all our rights.

... and I will not bash you for not holding the same opinion that I do.

Bully for you. If you feel "bashed" for not holding the same opinion that I do, you might need to think a little about how it isn't really all about you, and work less hard to miss the point.

Please extend to me the same courtesy of respectfully disagreeing.

Such fine words. The day when I respectfully disagree with anyone who chooses to engage in anti-choice discourse in public is the day when you may lock me away, because I'll have become a danger to myself and others.

I will remain politically active for the party that, where I'm at, represents the best hope of women having access to decent housing and good childcare and educational and employment opportunites so that they have the resources to make the reproductive and other decisions that are best for them, and support all efforts to equip girls and women with the personal resources that will enable them to make the best choices in all aspects of their life, one of which is taking measures to avoid unwanted pregnancies, including by avoiding destructive relationships and escaping them when they occur.

But I will NOT tell any girl or woman what the best choice is for her if she does become pregnant, particularly in our present very imperfect world. My ethics just don't allow for trying to make other people do what I want in matters that are none of my business.

I do not judge others for disagreeing

Nah. As long as they do as you say, you don't care what they think.

Ick.

[Lux]

42. Taxing? Try Carrying a Pregnancy to Term

As a woman who's given birth to several children, I'll tell you what's taxing. Being pregnant for nine months and going through labor for several hours. My children are grown, but my body is still suffering the after-effects of pregnancy and delivery. And I had "normal" pregnancies and deliveries. Women who have perilous pregnancies and deliveries face even worse consequences.

Then after the kids are born, parents never stop worrying about them. I'm still worrying about my children, their spouses, and my grandchidren, long after my kids have reached adulthood. I went from one financial crisis to another while they were growing up because I finally got the courage to leave their abusive father and had to raise my kids on my own.

Let's get real--abortion, especially one performed in the early stages of pregnancy--is a walk in the park compared to carrying a pregnancy to term.

Don't get me wrong. Deciding to have an abortion is difficult. I've never known a woman who didn't think long and hard about this decision. I know a lot of pro-choice people; I've yet to meet one who's a "fan" or "proponent" of abortion. I am a proponent of abortion remaining legal with the fewest restrictions possible, thus remaining safe. The more restrictions on abortion, the less safe it becomes.

I agree that the ideal situation is one in which women have access to birth control and education about using it, men take their share of responsibility for avoiding unwanted pregnancy, and fundies keep their noses out of the decision.

I hope you don't consider my response sarcastic. My goal is to bring some real-life perspective to the debate.

[melnjones]

45. Please don't misunderstand...

I am not in any way saying that having an abortion is MORE taxing than carrying a pregnancy to term!!! Absolutely not. The point I'm trying to make is that the BEST option, by far, is assuring good access to contraceptives. I would hope that men would respect their girlfriends/wives enough to ensure that she didn't need to go through even an abortion if they weren't planning on having children, but many men don't think about that b/c they don't have to worry about the consequences in the same way that women do. Some men refuse to allow condoms, etc, or help their girlfriend pay for contraceptives. The point I'm trying to make is simply that I would rather focus my time and energy on better access to contraceptives than on the issue of abortion itself, especially since it IS legal. I fully support legalized early-term abortion, and even though I have personal and ethical issues with late-term abortion, I don't make a big deal out of the fact that it is legal (just being honest with my personal opinion, not trying to start a flame war).

[iamjoy]

57. That's Why We Have Courts

I agree with the poster who said if the fetus/baby could have survived outside the womb, the perpetrator could be charged with two murders.

You ask:
How do you KNOW that any particular fetus "could possibly survive"? (What does "could possibly survive" mean, anyway?)

That is what lawyers and expert witnesses and juries are for. First, the prosecution would decide whether or not to pursue the double murder. Then, they would have to find expert witnesses to testify that the fetus/baby was viable. Of course, the defense is going to call its own witnesses to counter. And the jury will have to make a decision.

Of course, the poor are screwed because their public defender can't afford an expert witness, but the poor always get screwed. Better to be rich and guilty than poor and innocent.

OTOH - It seems a little pointless to me charging some one with two murders - isn't one sufficient to put them away for life or get them the death penalty? Don't you think the jury is going to be equally outraged by the sentiment of a pregnant woman being murdered, regardless of the legal definition of the fetus/baby?

[HockeyMom]

19. How far do you take it?

A woman is raped and murdered. Are they going to do an autopsy to see if she had a fertilized egg? Prove every woman of childbearing age murdered didn't have a 3 day old embryo so they could prosecute two? What about a woman who was on her way to have an abortion?

If this sounds crazy, just look at what they are trying to do in Ohio; prosecute a woman for crossing state lines for an abortion.

Brought to you by the religiously insane. What purpose does it serve? The end result of a death sentence for murder is the same whether one person is killed or a 100. Dead is dead.

[melnjones]

29. You are right that

trying to figure out where to draw the line is really difficult. Not black and white at all.

[iverglas]

20. "fetal homicide" laws

... in addition to making as much sense as "jumbo shrimp" pizza ... are violations of the guarantee of the equal protection of the law in by the US constitution.

(Equal protection, and more, is also guaranteed by the Canadian constitution, but nobody who matters has been idiotic or scummy enough up here to propose such scummy idiocy, let alone legislate it.)

A physician who terminates a pregnancy by performing an abortion has committed no criminal offence.

An individual who terminates a pregnancy by doing something to a pregnant woman that causes a spontaneous abortion has committed the most serious crime in the pantheon of crimes, homicide.

Go figure.

Can't? That would be because it passeth all figuring.


After all, baby fetus not out of womb = baby doesn't exist - right?

Got it in one.

If a fetus were a human being, human groups would have treated fetuses like human beings since time immemorial. No human group has ever done that.

Abortion is the only thing I somewhat side with the conservatives on, though for much different reasons. (They prefer to quote the bible...dumbasses).

Whereas you quote ... yourself, have I got it right?

If scientists invented a machine tomorrow that was able to pinpoint the exact second that a fetus turns into a person ...

Well, that should be round about when they pinpoint the exact spot on the yardstick where short turns into tall, and the exact spot on the thermometer where cold turns into hot, and the exact spot on the scale of 1 to 10 where ugliness turns into beauty ...

"Beauty", "tall", "cold", "human being" -- they're called concepts. Maybe you've heard of them. And they are what they are because of what we say they are -- via things called definitions, which you may also have heard of.

It is entirely obvious from everything the human race has ever done that the concept "human being" refers to something that is alive, human and born. It's so obvious that only someone covering his/her eyes and ears and going wah-wah could claim to have missed it.

Those characteristics sometimes present some difficulty: what is "alive"? for instance. What is born? At what point in the death process is something "dead"? and at what point in the birth process is something "born"? As in all processes, arbitrary lines must sometimes be drawn so that people know what they may and may not do. Signs on bridges don't say "big heavy trucks prohibited", they say "trucks over 3 tonnes prohibited", even though a truck weighing 3.1 tonne might pass completely safely.

Here's how the Criminal Code of Canada deals with the particular process in question here, birth, for the purpose of the homicide provision:

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec222.html

Criminal Code
PART VIII: OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON AND REPUTATION
Homicide

222. (1) A person commits homicide when, directly or indirectly, by any means, he causes the death of a human being. ...

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec223.html

Criminal Code
PART VIII: OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON AND REPUTATION
Homicide

223. (1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not

(a) it has breathed;
(b) it has an independent circulation; or
(c) the navel string is severed.

(2) A person commits homicide when he causes injury to a child before or during its birth as a result of which the child dies after becoming a human being.

Subsection 223(1) errs on the side of caution, since it is still protecting a fetus that is not yet a human being (if it hasn't breathed, it may never breathe, e.g., and will therefore never actually have been a human being, because the process of birth is only completed when a fetus does meet the criteria in a, b, and c and is alive). I'm not best pleased by this overreaching, but it's a fairly minor point.

Sooner or later, someone in the US will succeed in having these "fetal homicide" abominations in some US state laws struck down as violations of constitutional rights. It can't be too soon, for me.

The equal protection argument has failed in some cases in state courts, which of course doesn't make it a bad argument.

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/homicide_killing_unborn_child.htm
(my emphasis)

... The record was unclear as to whether either the victim or the defendant knew she was pregnant at the time she was assaulted. In rejecting the defendant's equal protection argument based on Roe v. Wade the court reasoned that the defendant who assaulted a pregnant woman causing the death of the fetus destroyed the fetus without the consent of the woman. This was not the same as the woman who elected to have her pregnancy terminated by one legally authorized to perform the act. In the case of abortion, the woman's choice and the doctor's actions were based on the woman's constitutionally protected right to privacy. This right encompassed the woman's decision whether to terminate or continue the pregnancy without interference from the state, at least until such time as the state's important interest in protecting the potentiality of human life predominated over the right to privacy, which is usually at viability. Roe v. Wade ... protects the woman's right of choice; it does not protect, much less confer on an assailant, a third-party, the unilateral right to destroy the fetus.

Last first: utter straw. I don't know of anyone who has said or would suggest that anyone has any right to destroy a woman's fetus. What bullshit. The act that causes a spontaneous abortion will always be a criminal offence: no one has the "right" to assault anyone, pregnant women included.

The counter-argument based on the woman's right to privacy is simply bizarre. If it is homicide to destroy a fetus because a fetus is a human being, how can the pregnant woman's wishes alter the status of the fetus?? Utter vile bullshit. And in any event we know that "fetal homicide" laws are being used against people who *had* the consent of the pregnant woman to the assault.

It's a slippery slope indeed, and it comes right along with legislation that has been passed in the US to protect fetuses from the actions of the women whose bodies they are in. Women ... oddly enough, mainly poor women of colour ... are being imprisoned for what they do to their own bodies during pregnancy: "delivering narcotics to a minor". I always wonder how anybody justifies imprisoning pregnant women; isn't that violating the fetus's constitutional right to liberty?


http://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/fetalrights/16530res19960731.html

(edited to rearrange a sentence for clarity and delete something arising from my own bad memory)

[melnjones]

37. Some thoughts...

"The counter-argument based on the woman's right to privacy is simply bizarre. If it is homicide to destroy a fetus because a fetus is a human being, how can the pregnant woman's wishes alter the status of the fetus?? Utter vile bullshit. And in any event we know that "fetal homicide" laws are being used against people who *had* the consent of the pregnant woman to the assault."

These are excellent points. It is such a difficult issue.

I wonder though, and here's an area where I struggle...if I were pregnant and someone assaulted me and caused a spontaneous abortion, I clearly would want justice for the assault on me, but since I had been planning on this baby, possibly even spent a lot of money in fertilization clinics to get this baby (or fetus or future baby or whatever you want to call it...if I was having it by choice, in my mind it would be my baby), should I have the right to seek some sort of justice for this additional loss? I can at least deal with the legal status of a fetus being not a person (have issues with it, but could deal with it), but should there be additional repercussions for the death of the fetus anyway? Perhaps there already is, legally, and I'm unaware of it...if so, please educate me.

[iverglas]

40. as has been said here already ...

I can at least deal with the legal status of a fetus being not a person (have issues with it, but could deal with it), but should there be additional repercussions for the death loss of the fetus anyway?

... it's called "sentencing". Assault with the *intent* to cause a miscarriage would universally be regarded as a serious assault. Assault that causes a miscarriage is properly regarded as assault causing serious bodily harm, or whatever the local term might be.

If someone punched Hulk Hogan in the abdomen and left nothing but a bruise, that would be a common assault (probably a "misdemeanour", in US legal parlance). If someone punched a pregnant woman in the abdomen and caused a miscarriage, it would very obviously be quite a different thing.

Just as if I shoot you in the arm, I have committed an assault causing bodily harm, but if I shoot you in the head and you survive, I have committed attempted murder.

The effect on the victim is commonly also considered in sentencing. Beating a three-year-old will usually draw a heavier sentence than beating a 21-year-old. Knocking an old person down to steal his/her money, leaving the old person afraid to leave home, for instance, is regarded as deserving of a heavier sentence than knocking a young person down to steal his/her money.

In some jurisdictions criminal courts can order restitution as part of a sentence; I rather think that the costs incurred for fertility treatments would be regarded as too remote, but there are always the civil courts and victim compensation funds.

It simply isn't the job of the criminal courts to compensate people for emotional pain and suffering or financial loss in the case of an aborted pregnancy any more than in any other kind of crime. The criminal courts operate according to sentencing principles that are in the public interest, not as agents of private retribution. And convicting and sentencing someone for murder hardly compensates anyone for the lost investment in fertility treatments anyway.

Nonetheless, because assaults on pregnant women are indeed a serious social problem -- we all know that a woman is most at risk of intimate-partner assault and homicide when she is pregnant -- the use of heavy sentences as a general deterrent, which means to send a message to other potential offenders to think very seriously before doing the same thing because the sentence will be heavy, would be entirely appropriate. Just as it is appropriate to sentence someone who spraypaints hateful things on a religous group's premises more harshly than someone who spraypaints gibberish on the local barber shop.

There is absolutely no disagreement, from me or I think anyone else, that assaults on pregnant women, including assaults that are intended to, or do, cause pregnancy terminations, are serious assaults and are part of a serious social problem. So is vandalism of the property of minority ethnic and religious groups. That doesn't make either case murder.


edited because a sentence w/o a verb is no sentence at all ...

[Control-Z]

24. What is your topic, boolean?

'I want to know how you guys feel about the double murder laws that exist in some places. '

No, you don't. You haven't responded back to anyone who has addressed your "topic". You came here to start up another fight.

[boolean]

32. OK....

Some people responded with "absolutely not". What do you want me to say to that? At least they're being consistent.

My take on it is the double murder laws should apply after, say, the 3rd trimester. Completely consistent with my stance that at some point during a pregnancy a human being exists.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[boolean]

35. Absolutely not

I know I'm new and have a low post count so believe me, I understand people might think I'm a troll/freeper. Actually I've been lurking these boards for years. Like I said in the original post, this is the only topic I struggle with. Pretty much every other issue I'm as far left as the eye can see.

If you wanna talk about how much bush sucks, come on over to the GDP board and we can have a beer together. :P

And to everyone else - really, I don't mean to start a fight and don't worry, I won't be posting a billion threads here over and over on the same thing. I know I'm somewhat in the minority here, but you gotta admit, if we all just agreed, this place would be pretty boring, would it not?

[melnjones]

36. I don't think

he has an agenda anymore than I have an agenda in stating my opinions on this issue openly, and I see no reason why he would be "from the opposition," as he clearly stated he is not for criminalizing abortion. I would be very interested in what you would have to say about my post earlier (#27), and I mean that seriously, I'm not trying to start a fight. There is a tendency in DU to assume that anyone who has any sort of reservation about abortion must have some false motive for thinking that way, and I don't think that's a fair assumption to make. I have reservations, which I explain above, but I can promise you that in no way am I interested in taking for granted women's rights or their best interest. It's simply a matter of trying to reconcile personal/ethical beliefs with a difficult issue that is not black and white. For example...do I believe that a woman should in the end have total control over her own body? YES. Do I believe that a fetus at 8 months is a living human being? YES. I don't know how to reconcile those two beliefs, but I do know that someone else angrily telling me that an 8 month old fetus is clearly not a child does nothing to change that particular belief that I have. So much more could be accomplished if all sides of the argument could find something to agree on and go from there...well, that would be hard with the GOP fundies, but I believe it is quite possible within our own party! Please read my post above, as I sincerely want to know what you think.

[liberalnurse]

41. The thread post theme is classical

right wing agenda ammunition. Your topic is "off topic" and deserves a new thread in my opinion. I will not engage in entertaining the discussion as it is presented in your post under this thread theme as it cracks into the woman's right to choose. I would enjoy such a discussion separately for the theme post.

[Lux]

30. RE:Should murdering a pregnant woman be double murder?

We would have to change our Constitution for that to be legal. Only the born are consdered persons if you look at the wording of the Constitution carefully. In fact, there's a difference between being human and being a person, legally. Given evolution and DNA similarities, some apes and other non-human creatures could also be considered humanlike. Yet, we don't call such creatures persons.

One solution to this problem, which really isn't a problem at all except for anti-choicers wanting to end legal abortion, is to toughen the laws for violence against all women. Of course, a lot of men are opposed to that solution because it means they might actually end up paying a price for beating up on their wives and girlfriends.

[melnjones]

34. Very good points. nt

[liontamer]

48. good point and welcome to DU!

:hi:

[Lux]

43. Double Homicide Laws Put Pregant Women in Peril

...because they give the government the right to decide what is in the best interest of the fetus over the rights of the pregnant woman. In fact, recently one government agency (the FDA, I think) floated a proposition to monitor all women of child-bearing age to make sure they would ingesting folic acid. Given that most women remain fertile on an average of forty years, the government could butt its nose into women's business most of their lives. Just imagine what would happen to pregnant women if the government had the power to enforce double homicide laws. Forget the woman; the fetus becomes government property and law enforcement officials can do what they want to make sure the woman doesn't harm the fetus.

You may think this is far-fetched, but there have been cases in which women have been jailed or forced to have Caesarian sections in order to protect the fetus. I live in Kansas, where Phill Kline is attorney-general. If he had his way, he would sitting on the belly of every woman of child-bearing age in the state to make sure each of those women does things his way.

[melnjones]

46. This is a good point. nt

[novalib]

47. What an INCREDIBLY STUPID Question

Honestly, sometimes otherwise bright people ask the MOST STUPID questions!

Why in the world would murdering a pregnant woman EVER IN A MILLION YEARS be a double murder??!!

Murdering a pregnant woman results in the loss of one -- AND ONLY ONE -- life!

A FETUS is NOT a BABY!

A fetus is merely a parasite that inhabits a woman's body. It is no different from a tapeworm or an e coli bug.

Surely, you would not suggest that murdering a pregnant woman is a million-fold murder, even though the murder of a pregnant woman also results in the death of millions of tiny little parasites living in her!

You betray your true allegiance in the war to keep the government's hands off of women's uteruses simply by posing your vile little question.

[RedXIII]

50. So that would have made you a parasite when.....

you're born..no way to cut it it's murder,unless the Woman's/Women's life is in danger.

[iverglas]

51. you didn't get a chance to answer the question

in the thread of yours that was locked. Here's another chance.

Your profile says this:

Once upon a time, our country treated people as less-than-people due to the color of their skin. Today our nation does the same thing to a different group of citizens. In the future, I hope that we look back upon this era as we do upon an era years in our

First, you seem to have run out of characters -- do you want to complete the thought?

Aha: I've found it. It goes like this:
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:SpWiJ30qkvsJ:www.conradhubbard.com/thechip/thechip.html+%22+Today+our+nation+does+the+same+thing+to+a+different+group+of+citizens%22&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=1&ie=UTF-8
(If that doesn't work: it's google's cached version of
http://www.conradhubbard.com/thechip/thechip.html
found by searching for "Today our nation does the same thing to a different group of citizens".)

Times They Are A Changing

"But states have long been allowed to refuse to recognize other states' marriages that violate their own social policies. For instance, for a time some Southern states refused to accept interracial marriages performed elsewhere." – Time Magazine

Once upon a time, our country treated people as less-than-people due to the color of their skin. Today our nation does the same thing to a different group of citizens. In the future, I hope that we look back upon this era as we do upon an era years in our own past -- the Civil Rights Movement. Hopefully we will think, "What kind of immoral people treated homosexuals like they were less than human beings? What was wrong with people back then?" And hopefully we will see the rightful end of such tragic behavior as a thing of the past, and shake our heads at it, and wonder how supposedly civilized people could have been so ignorant.

I think that from what you've said in this forum, there was an impression that you were referring to human embryos, fetuses, etc.

You have a bit of an odd posting history, but I gather from one of your focuses that you are gay/lesbian, and of course we now see that the passage in your profile is referring to the GLBT community.

You seem very young -- although you say you were in school in 1992, so you can't really be under 20. Your comments about abortion seem to come straight from the kids who think abortion is icky and who will believe anything songbook, nonetheless.

My unsolicited advice would be that you read more in this forum; I won't say talk less. There is much you could learn that would be useful to you.

You might even try reading something you wrote yourself:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=221&topic_id=31925

The more things change the more things stay the same.

During The Great mortality{The Black Plague} they blamed Jews for it,during the Aids crisis they blame us for it. Don't the religious right realize they're repeating what their ancestors did in fact i read that many people during the plague said that it was G-ds curse.

and what Old Crusoe said to you:

There's something about a majority claiming special privilege with their God and using that special status as a moral superiority to lord over others, and in many cases, to blame marginalized people for disease or crop failure, or what have you.

The climate for that scapegoating of lesbians and gays is actively stoked by Bush and other modern-day Republicans.

Surely you can't have missed how both homosexuality (read: gay men and lesbians) and abortion (read: women who have abortions) have been blamed for the attack on the World Trade towers, Hurricane Katrina, ... . Someone named Nathan Tabor has apparently blamed abortion for illegal immigration.

People clamouring for their own rights as members of oppressed minority groups while at the same time seeking to have other people oppressed look just as ugly as any member of an advantaged majority who wants some other group to be oppressed.

You seem to need to do some serious thinking about the question of reproductive rights, and there are lots of people here who can help you out. In the meantime, you really would do well to avoid the infantile snarky tone -- "Well what if your mother had chosen to abort you instead of letting you live,would you still support it?" Nobody loves a silly smartass.

And if you focus on the real world instead of speaking nonsense -- "Well i heard about true ghost stories that concerned the ghost of a girl who was aborted" -- you may find it easier to see the women in the picture. They seem to be kind of not there in your present vision of things.

[RedXIII]

54. Yes i am

Gay, why do you ask?

[iverglas]

55. are you really

this thick -- or just this rude?

Yes i am
Gay, why do you ask?

I didn't ask. Any more questions?

The reason I pointed out that you appear to be gay is that I noticed that someone else in the other thread had the same impression as I did: that the truncated quotation in your profile was saying that abortion was "genocide" or some variation on that viciously moronic theme.

What I said was:

I think that from what you've said in this forum, there was an impression that you were referring to human embryos, fetuses, etc.

You have a bit of an odd posting history, but I gather from one of your focuses that you are gay/lesbian, and of course we now see that the passage in your profile is referring to the GLBT community.

By tracking it down, and checking your posting history, I realized that the quotation was about homophobia, and I think there are others here who will be interested to know that it is *not* an effort to portray women who have abortions as genocidal maniacs.

The reason I find it interesting that you are gay is that you are spouting a line of misogyny in your posts in this particular forum that looks very bad on someone who objects to hatred of another disadvantaged and oppressed group that s/he happens to belong to. Homophobia looks bad on, say, activists for the rights of people of colour; and misogyny looks bad on activists for the rights of GLBT people. You included.

Your misogyny may spring from ignorance, and that doesn't look any better on you. You've experienced hostility and discrimination based on your religion and sexual orientation. You might want to listen to what is said by people who have experienced hostility and discrimination based on their sex -- including attempts to interfere in the exercise of the fundamental human right to make choices about their own pregnancy -- so that you can widen your vision outward from your navel a little.

Posting material that promotes the hatred and oppression of women (and the people whom women need in order to be able to exercise rights -- like physicians who perform abortions) just isn't consistent with valuing EVERYONE and EVERYONE's rights.

You don't want to be hated and oppressed because of your religion or sexual orientation. Promoting the hatred and oppression of someone else really isn't a clever way to go about creating a society in which people -- including yourself -- are not hated and oppressed. And, as I said, it's just plain ugly. Your choice, though.

[RedXIII]

56. well it seems that most of the stufff that my parents say

has kinda rubbed off me, sorry for any misunderstanding,because i get mad when people use the "Bible" to justify Homophobia and i should know better.

TaTa.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RedXIII]

53. mods,please delete.

my message please.

[liontamer]

49. no eom

[noamnety]

58. Those who murder pregnant women

Should get harsher sentences because pregnant women are worth more than regular women. The regular ones - like especially the ones who are sterile - are bad to kill, of course, but it's not really so bad as when you kill a pregnant one, that's all I'm saying.



:sarcasm:

[goddess40]

59. Depends on the women's behavior

If she did everything she could for a healthy baby - no drinking, smoking or drug taking. Seeking what ever medical care she could afford then I'd argue that she felt it was a worthy "life" it should be seen as a life.

Unfortunately we will never be able to go that route because the pro-life crowd is give an inch take it all crowd.

[goddess40]

60. Actually we have such a case in court right now (WI)

The husband and his girlfriend hacked up the pregnant wife and threw the remains in a river and he's charged with two homicides. The girlfriend is testifying against him as he supposedly did all the dirty work.

edit: It's already done - Shaun Rudy, 24, had already pleaded “no contest” to charges he shot and killed his pregnant wife, Christine, cut up the body and then disposed of the remains in the Chippewa River. The murder occurred last November on a rural Clark County road.

On Thursday, Clark County Circuit Court Judge Jon Counsell sentenced Rudy to 2 consecutive life terms for each of the 1st-degree murder charges and an additional 30 years on mutilation of a corpse and gun charges.

http://www.cwbradio.com/news/inc/fullnews.php?id=1173

[iverglas]

61. why???

If she did everything she could for a healthy baby - no drinking, smoking or drug taking. Seeking what ever medical care she could afford then I'd argue that she felt it was a worthy "life" it should be seen as a life.

In what other circumstances have you ever heard of a third party's opinion about something determining the "worthiness" of a "life"? If I don't like you at all and hire someone to kill you, will that mean that the hired killer is not liable to prosecution for homicide?

Let alone a third party's opinion about something determining what criminal charge / punishment someone else is liable to.

Does the guarantee of the equal protection of the law mean nothing?

One person may do with impunity that which someone else is charged with homicide (and liable to, oh, life imprisonment) for doing -- and this doesn't strike a lot of people as just a wee tad bizarre?

[novalib]

62. It DEPENDS On NO SUCH THING!!

It depends on the women's behavior???!!!!!!

IT DEPENDS ON THE WOMEN'S BEHAVIOR????!!!!!!

Honestly, how can you even suggest such a thing??!!

The question here is whether murdering a pregnant woman should constitute a double murder.

The ONLY way that could be the case is if two persons -- TWO PERSONS -- had been murdered.

Implicit in the question is the absolutely VILE notion that murdering a pregnant woman constitutes murdering two persons.

Now you suggest that IT DEPENDS ON THE WOMAN'S BEHAVIOR!!!!

What DEPENDS ON THE WOMAN'S BEAHVIOR?!!!

Surely you are not suggesting the ridiculous notion that the woman's behavior determines whether a second person exists or not.

I CAN TELL YOU THAT THERE IS ALWAYS ONLY ONE PERSON when one speaks of a pregnant woman!!!

So it does NOT -- NEVER!!!!! -- depend on a woman's beahvior!!!

Your post, however, does point out an offense against a pregnant woman who is murdered (other than, of course, her murder).

And that is that someone else determines the outcome of her pregancy -- SHE IS, THEREBY, DENIED HER REPRODUCTIVE CHOICE!!!

[goddess40]

65. I'm suggesting that each person has a right to see their pregnancy

as they wish. I also am aware that this idea will never fly because as I said in my original post, if the anti-choice people get an inch they want the whole thing.

It has nothing to do with the murderer.

"What DEPENDS ON THE WOMAN'S BEAHVIOR?!!!
Surely you are not suggesting the ridiculous notion that the woman's behavior determines whether a second person exists or not."

Actually that is is exactly what I'm talking about - otherwise her beliefs don't matter which isn't right either.

[iverglas]

66. interesting concept

Surely you are not suggesting the ridiculous notion that the woman's behavior determines whether a second person exists or not."
(I had essentially asked the same question.)
Actually that is is exactly what I'm talking about - otherwise her beliefs don't matter which isn't right either.

There are people who believe in reincarnation in non-human form. Is it right that their beliefs should not matter? If not, must we not agree to prosecute the killing of butterflies as they were human beings?

Where did you get the notion that someone's personal beliefs do or should determine what other people may be punished for?


I also am aware that this idea will never fly because as I said in my original post, if the anti-choice people get an inch they want the whole thing.

Actually, it can't fly, because it makes no bleeding sense and is contrary to our entire concept of criminal law.

Criminal law is about the public interest, not private interests -- e.g. the public interest in some people not taking other people's stuff. And sentencing is about denouncing wrongdoing, punishing wrongdoers, rehabilitating wrongdoers and deterring wrongdoers and others from committing wrongs -- it is not about private vengeance.

Recognition of the seriousness of the harm done *is* a component of criminal law and sentencing. Yes, more harm has been done to a woman whose pregnancy is terminated against her will when she had built hopes, dreams and plans on that pregnancy than to a woman who had no interest in her pregnancy.

But if whoever caused the termination of the pregnancy, say in a case of criminal negligence in the operation of a vehicle (where the woman herself was not killed), didn't know anything about the woman, the offence is objectively the same no matter how much she wanted the pregnancy. Just as the offence is objectively the same if someone causes the death of a child by criminal negligence as it is if s/he causes the death of a person with terminal cancer. A death is a death. We simply do not weigh up the value of the victim's life, whether intrinsically or to the person him/herself or to some third party, in determining the charge and the sentence for causing his/her death.

*If* someone is going to say that a fetus is a human being (which it *must* be in order for homicide charges to apply), then it makes not a stitch of sense to say that some other fetus is not a human being, based on the attitude taken by the two pregnant women to their pregnancies.

And the anti-choice brigade would be standing on very firm ground indeed if they called for "the whole thing" once the approach you advocate was taken.

Either something is a human being or it isn't. Human-beingness is determined objectively, not by reading the entrails of some third party's opinions and emotions. If it is a human being, killing it is homicide. If it isn't, killing it is not homicide. It's that simple.

There simply are not things that are more human-being than others. Ya is, or ya isn't. If member "X" of a particular class is a human being, then all members of the class are human beings. If it is homicide for someone to destroy one fetus, it is homicide for anyone to destroy any fetus. Again, it's that simple.

Meanwhile, someone who kills a pregnant woman has already committed homicide. And someone who intentionally causes a woman to miscarry by assaulting her has committed a very serious offence. Are there not already lengthy sentences available in the US for such things?


edited to add, in the hope of clarifying:

I'm suggesting that each person has a right to see their pregnancy as they wish.

Of course. No one here or anywhere has ever suggested that anyone does not have the right to see her pregnancy as she wishes. (It would be entirely meaningless to say otherwise, in any event, since talking about the right to think makes no more sense than talking about the right of water to run downhill.)

What you're actually suggesting is that some people have the right to have what they think determine how other people are treated. You must see that -- no?

You are talking about someone being charged with and punished for homicide. This is an extremely serious matter. It is generally regarded as the most serious criminal offence we know, and is punished as such.

Do you really think that whether someone is imprisoned for life should depend on the whim of another individual?

People have "the right" to think what they want, about what they want. That simply is not the issue here.

[noamnety]

67. Little known facts

"If she did everything she could for a healthy baby - no drinking, smoking or drug taking."

Women who have abortions drink, smoke and take drugs. Women who plan to give birth don't drink, smoke, or take drugs.


In fact, the women who drink, smoke and take drugs are engaging in SELF-destructive behaviors, and it's far more likely to be related to their own self-esteem than their future family plans. So if their own perception of worth determines the punishment, let's go all out with that. I can see the campaign now - No Life Sentence If You Only Murder A Smoker.

[Scout]

64. of course not

stupid question

I don't want to control women
bullshit



eta: fix html

[Broken_Hero]

68. Locking

The level of flamefilled rhetoric has reached an impasse.