Yes. In relevant part:
The problem is that virtually all case law on battery focuses on “harmful or offensive touching” (the common law formulation of the act defined under subsection 1) rather than type 2.
Ah, good ol’ ZPG Zealot. How’s that humanity thing working out for ya? Not so good at it yet, huh?
(for those who are a little confused, ZPG Zealot has… unique, some might say psychotic, views on child support/paternity. Namely, that a man should not have to support any child if he is not married to the mother, and that adopted children are always inferior to biological children, and should always be reminded of that fact).
It would seem type 2 would be an appropriate pigeon-hole to classify this crime under, perhaps for just that reason - not much case-law.
Inducing a miscarriage would I think readily classify as “Intentionally cause[ing] bodily harm to another person”.
Re: I’m curious. Why don’t men deserve a choice?
I don’t think women deserve a choice, either (beyond ‘adoption’ vs. ‘keep the baby’). I’m pro-life. But that battle is a lost cause for the time being. Punishing men who dodge child support or illegally administer abortifacient are causes that can appeal to the broad middle of the political spectrum. I’d rather settle for half a loaf rather than none.
Re: That’s not exactly correct. The concept of personhood isn’t something we decide on as a democracy. It’s a question of natural rights, and thus in the bailiwick of the judicial branch.
In principle, that’s right. But for better or worse, we live in a liberal-democratic society where the judicial branch answers (in the last analysis) to the electorate. If the American electorate has inconsistent intuitions about fetal personhood, that might not be my ideal world, but I’d rather we inconsistently protect fetal life than consistently fail to protect it.
Well no, science cannot answer that question definitively, but if we have a definition of what constitutes a person, then science can give us an approximate answer as to when a fetus becomes a person.
Personhood is an objective thing, even if we cannot agree on exactly when it occurs. To just decide that the mother grants personhood may be legally convenient, but it’s a rather capricious way to decide who is and who is not a person. the mother’s choice does not bequeath anything to a fetus. It’s heart will beat or not beat regardless of the mother’s wishes, it’s brain will form correctly or not form correctly regardless of the mother’s wishes.
Roe v. Wade also establishes that a fetus is not a person, and therefore you cannot treat injury to a fetus with the same severity as injury to the mother. and no, calling it something other than murder but treating it with the same seriousness while calling it something else isn’t valid either.