Granted, the guy is a major repeat DUI offender. I have no pity for the guy in that respect.
DUI’s historically are difficult to call murder due to the lack of direct intent to kill or do serious injury (IIRC). An unborn child is debatably a legal person (as we go about 100 rounds a year on this boards).
A difficult to prove murder on an questionably legal individual person?
Sounds like a giant step forward for DUI but a step back for people in support of a “pro choice” world.
the core question/debate
Does the law permit a different set of conditions because the mother “wants” the baby therefore it becomes a legal person that can be legally murdered as opposed to her “not wanting” the baby and being able to legally get an abortion.
I was pondering just GQ’ing this but I figured it would end up here.
Well, I think the law, at least implicitly, views unborn children differently depending on how old they are. If the woman had been only 2 months pregnant instead of 5 months, it’s possible (I don’t want to say “likely”, as I don’t know) the verdict would’ve been different.
In general, I think that a fetus should be granted some protections. Consider the case of a man who punches his non-pregnant wife in the stomach, to hurt her, vs the man who punches his pregnant wife in the stomach, killing the child. It seems to me blatantly obvious that the two cases should be different.
That being said, I think a murder charge in this case was unwarranted, though I would’ve favored manslaughter. However, I think this verdict, should it survive appeal, may provide some favorable precedents. There appears, from my un-lawyerly POV, to be some fuzziness in the notion that killing a fetus is criminal and vile if you’re not the mother, but perfectly A-OK if you are, regardless of how late in the term it is. This case may force legislators to recognize this double-standard, and pass some sort of law regarding late-term abortions. Something along the lines of “Before X months, the fetus has no rights, and is abortable. After X months, the fetus has rights, and is not abortable.”
Jeff
Killing a fetus (when the woman doesn’t want it killed) is a pretty brutal crime, but the victim is the woman, not the fetus. It should be prosecuted as an assault on the woman with aggravating circumstances.
Fetus: The unborn young of a mammel from the time the major features of it’s body have appeared, esp. in humans, the unborn young after the 8th week of development. However, the law interpets murder of a fetus when the child is viable enough to survive on it’s own. i.e. Drunk hits the car, the woman was 8 1/2 months pregnant, that child would be able to survive delivery at that point. So, yes, it’s murder according to the law. Had she been 5 months pregnant, the chances of survival at this point would be slim to nil. Therefore the charges would not have been murder of the child but of the mother with extenuating circumstances
Well, I just hope some legislators can find their way to providing for consistency in DUI cases involving death. According to the article in question, there were 5 perfectly viable, already born humans who died at the hands of drunk drivers in 1998 and those drivers only got vehicular manslaughter. They also both got less time. That seems the biggest double standard to me. 17-year-olds are somehow less valuable than questionably viable fetus’s? Talk about a fucked up world.
Doesn’t the pro-choice philosophy typically hold that it is a personal choice as to whether the unborn is a child or not, that the mother is the only one in a position to make this decision? And that this is the only opinion that matters? Does that right to choose only extend in one direction, or is it real?
This woman believed she was carrying a child and intended to carry him to term. Shouldn’t we respect that choice?
No, the pro-choice phiolosophy holds that the woman is the only one who has the right to decide if a fetus will be carried to term or not-- a decision not to terminate a pregnancy does not alter the legal status of the fetus.
Of course we should respect that choice. No one is saying that a crime was not committed, we are only debating what that crime should be called. IMO it cannot be called a murder if it doesn’t kill a person, and a fetus has no legal staus as a person.
However, I do think it’s an extremely brutal and despicable act of violence against a pregnant woman. I’m all for a nice long prison sentence. Hell, if it’s a deliberate act, give them life. Just don’t call it “murder.”
Hmmm…let’s see now. We have 2 women who each are pregnant. They are each exactly the same amount of time along in their pregnancy. One wants the baby, so it’s considered a child. The other doesn’t want it and plans for an abortion, so it’s not considered a child. Each unborn child is exactly the same age from conception. Yet one is a child and one isn’t. Wow, that sure makes a lot of sense! Totally ridiculous in my humble opinion.
It is not a personal choice as to whether the unborn is a child or not. It either is or isn’t. And the mother isn’t the only one in a position to make this decision. Nor is her opinion the only one that matters. It’s God who decides whether it’s a child or not. Mankind (including women) has become very arrogant, in my view, playing God and thinking they have the right to decide who’s a person or not. The pro choice philosophy isn’t what’s going to matter later on when people have to answer for all the killing of unborn babies. I consider the whole thing to be very tragic, especially the legalized murder called partial birth abortion.
This has to be one of the few times H4E and myself are going to agree…could we have a moment of silence.
Move to strike… this is irrelevant to the OP. In this situation the courts would be forced to interpet what is or is not a individual legal person with rights and protections of law. IMHO this case sets a dangerous precedent. It could quite easily be extended to where people are criminally cited for the death of a fetus who may or may not be viable. I would appreciate containing discussion to the issue of the differential in the eyes of the law as stands, not if the matter of abortion is right or wrong. I have no desire to uncork that can of worms for the 7,373rd time here.
IMHO, the fetus is not a child until it is able to survive on its own without the mothers body. That having been said, I believe that you cannot “kill” a fetus anymore than you can kill an arm, a liver or a spleen. If it were up to me, I would punish the perp as if he did cut off her arm but only a hundred times worse because a fetus has a potential for life, while an appendage or organ does not. It is aggravated assault.
the trivial fact that the woman is again pregnant seems to be lost in this arguement.
Fair enough, as far as philosophy goes. I’m not sure that’s true from a legal perspective. From Roe v. Wade:
**IANAL, but this seems to me to be consistent with state laws that prosecute the death of an unborn, at least beyond a certan stage of development, as murder. And even prior to viability, Roe v. Wade seems to offer some support for the state’s right to protect unborn life:
**IOW, even if privacy rights form the basis for abortion rights, is that necessarily inconsistent with the state’s duty to protect unborn life (if the state deems it compelling), provided the state does not violate the right to privacy as it’s described in the decision? If the protection of the unborn is subjugated by the woman’s right to choose abortion, that does not necessarily mean it is not valid in other circumstances–say, where a mother is carrying a baby to term (or plans to).
Again, IANAL, but I’m not sure the right to abortion is inconsistent with a law that says killing unborn life is murder. Can a lawyer opine? Can an unborn life be at a stage that is simultaneously “compelling” enough for the state to protect it from outside agents who may harm it, but not “compelling” enough to override the mother’s right to privacy in making the decision to abort? Is there anything unconstitutional about this?
Incorrect. It’s not “considered a child” in either case.
Correct. No amount of “deciding” turns a fetus into a child.
Do you have a cite for Gods position on abortion. I can produce verses from the Bible where God orders the Israelites to kill babies and to rip unborn infants from the wombs of pregnant women.
Ooh, I’m so scared, look at me shake. :rolleyes:
There is no such medical procedure as a “partial birth abortion.”
You’re right that it’s inconsistent, which is why the killing of a fetus against the mother’s will cannot be called murder. It is a heinous crime on a par with murder or rape, but it does not take a human life. It is a crime against the mother, and only against the mother.
Diogenes the Cynic:
Do you have a cite for Gods position on abortion. I can produce verses from the Bible where God orders the Israelites to kill babies and to rip unborn infants from the wombs of pregnant women.
Ex 21:22. If killing the unborn is murder then the punishment would be the same as for all other murders. The perpetrator would surly be put to death. But in this case the woman’s husband decides what the punishment should be.
No, you misunderstood me. I said I did not think it was inconsistent (sorry for the double negative). The cites I provided were my non-lawyerly attempt to interpret Roe v. Wade to show that that decision in fact most strongly supports the notion of calling this murder (if the act occurs post viability) and perhaps less strongly if the act occurred prior to viability. I’m still interested in any of our Constitutional experts chiming in.
Let me try to state my thoughts more clearly.[ul]1. Roe v. Wade explicitly says that the state can have a compelling interest in protecting the life of the unborn.
This interest becomes more compelling with the passage of time (within a pregnancy, that is). As a matter of fact, the Court had allows the state to proscribe abortion after viability in the interest of protecting the unborn’s rights, despite the mother’s wishes.
That interest, however, cannot be assumed to be so compelling that in every instance it overrides a mother’s right to make a private decision regarding the termination of the pregnancy. That’s why the Supreme Court ruled that certain statutes were unconstitutional. Not because they prohibited abortion, but because they did so too broadly.
My interpretation is that this is absolutely consistent (let me state this positively this time) with categorizing the act of killing of an unborn who is viable as murder.
I am further suggesting that a law that categorizes all such acts (without regard to viability) as murder is also consistent with Roe v. Wade, so long as it does not infringe on the mother’s right to privacy as the court describes it (which the court does NOT believe is absolute). I am suggesting that the state may have a compelling interest in protecting the lives of the unborn in any instance where the mother has not made a counter decision to terminate the pregnancy. I don’t see why this would be inconsistent with Roe v. Wade in any way, though I may be missing something. [/ul]
Well the very obvious problem with this is (quite apart from who gives a fuck what Exodus has to say) is that there may have not been a “husband.”
There may not have even been a “father.” Paternity may be self-absented or unknown.
And - having gone to Bible.com to check this one out - the FULL reading of this verse raises a very interesting point
*22 "When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. *
Looks like Exodus is making a clear distinction between miscarriage and “harm” (=death of the mother?) Odd wording that.
Another version:
“If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [5] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows”
(footnote [5] is “or had a miscarriage”)
Veeeerrrrry interesting…
Also interesting that the start of that chapter is all about buying Hebew slaves. How much would Ariel Sharon cost, d’you reckon? My kitchen floor could do with a really good clean…
I agree with this statement. I think we are only quibbling about the semantics of what to label the crime. Maybe we could call it “fetacide” or something. I think we both agree that such a crime should be punished as though it was murder, but I am leery of the can of worms it would open to actually categorize it as such.
