So you’re not planning on visiting Melissa Anne Rowland anytime soon, I guess. She’s being charged w/ murder in Utah for refusing a C-section, resulting in the death of one of the twin fetuses.
Okay, I’ll take this one… IANA(US)L (yet) so take this with a pinch of salt.
a) If the murderer does not know that the woman is pregnant, it is highly unlikely that the court will find the person guilty of murder, because he does not have the necessary intent to kill the baby.
As an example, if I shoot a box without knowing the contents of the box, and there happens to be someone inside who dies as a result, I cannot be charged with murder. I did the physical actions of the murder, but I did not have the mental definition of murder (Intent to kill or cause grevious bodily harm). I most probably would get caught on manslaughter, though, because I was reckless as to the contents of the box.
b) I haven’t read the bill, but I suppose it would depend on when the foetus is given rights. If the foetus has rights at that point of time, it would look similar to case a. It doesn’t matter if anyone else knows that the baby is present, only what the person that committed the act knew. The law (for most part) only criminalises behaviour that is intended.
What the bill does is give the foetus rights, so that they can be a “target” for intent to kill, etc.
Because the Congress and the President agreed that it should be so. I would attribute this to a notion that while murder is despicable to begin with, the murder of someone who is trying to bring life into the world is particularly heinous. This is a notion I agree with, by the way.
It’s called respect for the mother’s wishes. Codified into this law is the assumption that if you (the mother) are pregnant at the time of your death, you wished to carry your baby to term. Your murder then, cries out for an extra dose of harsh justice.
However, if you voluntarily end your own pregnancy for your own reasons that is your own business. Your Creator has given you the power of birth, and therefore has presumably given you the wisdom to decide when and when not to exercise that power.
This is an interesting point. If, as I mentioned above, it is assumed under law that without any intentional act to the contrary on your part, you regard your baby as a life you are bringing into the world, then I believe that yes, it should be classified as murder.
I do not exactly see what the problem is with giving legal weight to the intents and wishes of the pregnant woman, but this seems to be just what anti-choice activists are against.
Looking at some of the other posts, I should qualify my previous statement by saying I am using “murder” as an all-encompassing term. Certainly, circumstances could place it more in the realm of what is referred to in the legal system as “manslaughter”. In any event, the disposition of the crime depends on the determinable intent of the mother.
And before some smart aleck responds with “Therefore, if I see a pregnant woman walk into a clinic whose sole purpose is to perform abortions, I should feel free to beat her if I wish?” I’ll state that I can not see how anyone in a free society could imagine any circumstance in which a person could magically forfeit their right to be free from what they perceive as harm to their own body or person.
Hmm… that gets real tricky. Imho, I think the distinction has to be kept pretty clear. For instance, in the Rowland case cited above, it’s crucial that she’s being charged with murder for refusing the c-section, and not manslaughter.
This case would be watershed anyway if it isn’t dropped, even given the federal nature of the US system, whether the charge were murder or manslaughter. But to charge murder for placing a fetus at risk with no clear intent to cause a stillbirth, that’s mindblowing.