View Single Post
  #67  
Old 10-15-2018, 11:45 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
I think the analogy breaks down because nobody thinks the crime would be against the kidney. It would always be against the person. However, in the case mentioned in the OP, the crime is against the fetus, not the woman.

The point of this thread is (I believe), should the crime be against the woman or the fetus? And, if you think it should be against the fetus, how do you square that with abortion rights?

As I mention upthread, I think this law is terrible and puts us on the path to fetal personhood laws, which would be a serious challenge to abortion rights. I think the appropriate law would be some sort of aggravated assault against the woman, and, if she's pregnant, I could see further punishment because of that. However, the crime should be against the woman since she's a person and the fetus isn't.
I hate to just post "agree" but this is the point very well made.


Here let's take it just one step farther. A couple had been trying to get pregnant and have a bunch of fertilized embryo stored. They divorce and the father breaks into the storage facility and destroys the embryos against the woman's wishes. Besides breaking and entering what crime has he committed?

The logic of calling the crime of the op attempted "homicide" would justify call this one homicide too, rather than destruction of property. Is it? Are you comfortable calling it that? Why or why not?