If in killing a woman her unborn baby is killed as well...

Charge the killer with a double murder or not?

Suppose she doesn't die but the baby does?

Views: 1420

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

@Un....;

In this instance you are making an argument for the civil courts not the criminal courts, your original question regards criminal definitions not civil definitions.

Civil courts concern themselves with loss and damages.

Criminal courts concern themselves with crime and punishment.

To me, the essence of Pro-choice is that it is the pregnant woman who has the right of choice, and no-one else (they can advise, but that's it).

From that standpoint, killing a pregnant woman (and the unborn fetus) should count as a double murder, while abortion is the woman's choice.

In a similar way, assisting with suicide (euthanasia) should not be considered murder, while killing someone against their choice should be (and is).

I believe the law was passed on 2004 by the Republican Senate and passed by then President Bush

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".[1]

So it doesn't matter if the she lives or not, it will be still counted as a crime under the law because it is still harming or injuring the fetus. 

There was a whole lot of debate about this because those who are for pro choice argued that it undermined the value of Roe vs Wade ruling. The idea is that abortion is a woman's choice and the death of a pregnant woman including her unborn child is obviously against her wishes.

Of course it matters if you think the law is wrong.

What part do you disagree?

I'm interested in ideas not the law. 

Life begins at first sentient thought. Cellular replication begins at conception The difference being a cancerous tumor undergoes cellular replication, but not sentient thought.

RE: "Life begins at first sentient thought." - if that's your definition, I know at least a couple of adults who still wouldn't qualify.

 @The half bird;

LOL

LOLWikipedia: LOL, an acronym for laughing out loud or laugh out loud, is a common element of Internet slang.

If you knew my son-in-law, you'd know what I mean --

Technically, life began a few billion years ago. the sperm and egg are both alive, both before and after they merge to create a cell with a (mostly) unique DNA pattern.

Of eggs that are fertilized, as many as 70% (study results range from 30% to 70%) fail to implant onto the uterine wall and thus never develop. If we were to consider a conception to be the beginning of personhood, that means that the vast majority of humans in the history of our species died within a couple of weeks of existing.

The fertilized egg may be alive, but it is not a person. Not yet. 

What a person is is a matter of definition or stipulation. One might argue that personhood begins with the formation of a personality and many mothers who have had more than one baby would say that each baby (a term they would probably prefer to use rather than fetus) had a different personality.

What a human cell is is a matter of fact not opinion. Biologically, in that sense, life begins at conception. People can argue about when personhood begins but humanity in the biological begins at conception, it seems to me. 

RSS

Events

Blog Posts

It's all Greek to me

Posted by Simon Mathews on April 15, 2015 at 4:14am 18 Comments

Free at last

Posted by Belle Rose on April 15, 2015 at 1:00am 3 Comments

Services we love!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service