Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Andrew Wilson on December 2, 2010 at 11:24am

Difficult one. If the woman is full term? is she 8 months?, 7 months? If she is full term then what is the difference between a full term baby and a newly born one? They are both entirely dependent on other people. If the difference is that they have been born, does that include caesarians? Just asking.

My idea would be to look at from what time can we keep premature babies alive? I think it's currently 21 weeks (4-5 months?).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ian on December 2, 2010 at 11:42am

Developmentally there's not really a point that makes a difference, birth or any other. Survival for preemies is based just on their fitness for being outside the womb. The only way I think you can look at a crime that takes away a mother and a child is to ignore the birth aspect. How bad is it considered if someone murders a little kid? That's all I see when I imagine someone killing a pregnant mother.. they just killed a little kid, and mom. Why did they do that? How did they possibly view that decision as ethical?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Andrew Wilson on December 2, 2010 at 12:17pm

I understand your graphic. I addressed that in my comment. I also said, in as many words, that I don't think anyone would consider a baby at full term pregancy to be anything other than a person.

It is difficult and there is no definite right or wrong at anything but the extremes, but when it comes to charging a criminal with murder, the law has to decide some point.

Just as, in the UK, it is legal to drive from the age of 17, someone may be more mature before that but it is still illegal for them to drive.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kris Potter on December 3, 2010 at 2:23am

I'd say you're not a person until you're a person. You know outside someone elses body and capable of functioning basic life process on your own.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joli on December 3, 2010 at 7:10am

Hi Andrew, for arguments sake let's say 5 months (just to give it a number) and yes, it is 21 weeks. however most will post something about how 'that child would have all sorts of problems being born that early'. that's not the issue here, just if it is single or double and why :)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Cathleen Sessions on December 2, 2010 at 12:29pm

If a person is a murderer does it matter? He killed one person, what is the difference if you make it two? I have never understood this. If you can prove a person mudered someone what would be the point of making it two? More jail time?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reggie on December 2, 2010 at 12:31pm

What if he merely assaulted the woman and she lost the fetus as a result?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jon Heim on December 3, 2010 at 2:11am

That's a good point. It doesn't matter. But it probably makes a victim's family feel better...even if it's just in the name of the sentence. I guess you just fight for the recognition of the second murder, not the punishment that the person receives.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joli on December 3, 2010 at 7:17am

@ Cathleen - I agree with Jon. if the person is convicted of 1 murder they will either get life in jail or the death penalty.

@ Reggie - Then should the assaulter be charged with murder? I would think so. Something "Major" should happen considering he just took out a fetus that (as far as everyone knew) had a chance. like I told Andrew, for arguments sake lets say the mother was about 5 months along...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dave G on December 2, 2010 at 12:55pm

Intent would come into it, I think. Did the murderer intend to kill the fetus? In other words, was it a case of M(murderer) intended to kill W(woman), and F(fetus) was killed as a consequence, or did M intend to kill both W and F? Or maybe M meant to only kill F, but also killed W by mistake?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joli on December 3, 2010 at 7:19am

All good points, but does it matter? someone or atleast something that had every right and potential to become someone is murdered, should there not be the ultimate consequence?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ryan E. Hoffman on December 2, 2010 at 1:40pm

There was a famous case a few years ago of an NFL football player, Rae Carruth, who conspired to have his pregnant girlfriend shot because he did not want to pay child support.

While I don't think abortion is murder, I think that a clear intention to kill a woman AND her fetus (which, by law would be considered murder in the first degree) by an outside influence should be treated as a double homicide.

I caught myself- I called it a baby at first. It's so tempting to do, because the termination of the fetus is coming from someone who wants to, in essence, veto the woman's decision to bear a child. I don't necessarily think it will deter someone from going ahead with it, but I find the double homicide law to be more pro-woman than pro-life.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page