Man who put abortion-inducing drug in girlfriend's drink gets 22 years in prison -attempted homicide

[jasg]

I guess this news has ruined Jason Miller’s weekend…

[Riemann]

@UltraVires

The principles in the OP suggest that if the standard is that a fetus is protected by murder laws, then a cannot be less than b.

Well, that’s only if you assume that “life” is a binary definition, that all forms of life are exactly equivalent. Which is petitio principii in this debate. If we end up in a world where growing a fetus in a synthetic womb is possible, then we will need a legal framework to encompass that. But there’s no reason in principle why the order of precedence of rights need not be

killing a fetus < woman’s bodily autonomy < killing a mature human

…and yet we still might choose to call the first and third of those things types of of murder when they happen in isolation (or we might not). That’s a matter of semantics. You don’t make two acts ethically precisely equivalent just by calling them variants of the same type of thing. And it doesn’t certainly doesn’t imply no respect at all for the rights of a fetus.

[UltraVires]

@JRDelirious

Well, just IMO as I am not the legislator or the court of course, that’s just why parallel-history legislator **JRDelirious **would **not **have voted for “fetal homicide” statutes using those terms about “unborn child” that are used in many of the states.

However… we know that not all killing is what the law calls “murder”… but at the same time not calling it murder it does not mean it can’t be determined to still be treated as a crime or a tort.

I subscribe to the tradition that a natural person is one who lives free from the motherly womb; so I woud not have legislated to call it murder. But it is causing a damage upon an entity that is within the woman’s body and tied to her organism, so her consent would be required for it to be intervened with; and it is an interruption of a natural process that, under normal circumstances, is life-risking but not per se terminal but has a higher risk if meddled with unprofessionally. So then I’d say redraft the bill and call it (malicious/wrongful/negligent) (termination of pregnancy/fetal death/gestational mayhem) and penalize it or recognize a cause of action, separate and distinct from those we use for murder, where the injured party is the woman.

I don’t disagree with much, if anything, you have said. I agree that it is a terrible crime and should be punished severely as it treads upon the woman’s bodily integrity and deprives her of a choice of whether to carry her child to term.

But to construe it as a crime against the fetus/child is inconsistent. As the abortion laws hold that the fetus/child has no recognized legal interest in protecting its right or desire to be born, then the assailant has not deprived this fetus/child of any legal protections recognized by law; he has however harmed the woman.

[Riemann]

For me at least, I should add: I’m not discussing the current legal definition of murder, or what the perpetrator in the OP might be charged with under our current legal framework. I’m talking about ethical principles, about what I think the law should be.

[RitterSport]

Is fetal homicide a kind of murder or is it something else? I’d love to get that nailed down from one of our resident lawyers if possible.

Anyway, I think it’s dangerous to have fetal homicide laws (murder or not) because that’s in the direction of creating fetal personhood provisions and I’m against those. Looks like I’m too late, since the state in the article and apparently others already have those laws.

First trimester abortions are constitutionally protected but that doesn’t mean that other laws could be put in place that would harass the mothers. Drinking or taking drugs while pregnant? Child endangerment, contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Having too much caffeine, which can cause miscarriages? Attempted homicide? Slippery slope arguments are usually garbage, but we’ve already been slipping down that slope with more and more restrictions on the ability to get an abortion (waiting periods, sonograms, listening to required statements, ridiculous standards that only apply to abortion clinics). We’re slipping down that slope and some states only have a single clinic now.

I see any fetal homicide laws to be similar. This was an assault on the mother, not attempted homicide (again, is that the same as attempted murder?).

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Riemann

Well, of course people’s opinions may vary widely on the issue. But no, for most people I don’t think you are describing things fairly. The pro choice position is a positive assertion of the woman’s right to bodily autonomy relative to the rights of a fetus, not an assertion that a fetus has no rights at all. If one is ethically confident in that relationship, the question of exactly where the rights of fetus lie does not need to be addressed unless a fetus can be grown independent of a woman’s body.

This take on a woman’s right to abort would suggest that, at best, you could characterize her actions as a “justifiable homicide” under the law.

The law is saying another party is able to murder the unborn regardless of term of gestation. Therefore the unborn possesses the quality that makes murder possible which I always considered to be being a living human being.

That changes the discussion around abortion a lot if you can say the government deems the unborn to be a fully living human being thus capable of being murdered with an exception carved out allowing the mother to kill it because it’s her body (like being able to shoot an intruder in your home).

[MandaJo]

@UltraVires

I think that just a distinction is necessary for the pro-choice side. If we hold that the unborn child is a life capable of being murdered, then any balancing test would clearly be against legal abortion. The right not to be murdered on one side would clearly outweigh nearly any inconvenience the woman suffers as a result of pregnancy.

@UltraVires

I know of no balancing of harms in the law where one’s convenience is more important than another’s death.

ETA: Or are you saying that some on the pro-choice side hold the position something like, “Well, hell yes, its murder, but fuck the little bastards. It’s my body and if I want to murder it, I will”? That seems not at all in comporting with the standards of any decent society and is untenable.

This is exactly the standard we hold in every other aspect of society. You can’t compel a person to call 911 if they are standing there watching someone drown. You can’t compel a person to donate blood even if it’s the only way to save a life. You can’t compel someone to donate bone marrow.

You can’t compel a dead body to give up an organ without advance permission of person who died–and even that has to be confirmed by the next of kin, because their rights to have a complete meat-sack to bury comes before the right to life of the person who needs an organ.

All of those things require less physical risk, pain, permanent physical damage, loss of opportunity, and expense than pregnancy. Even when it’s to save the life of your own child, that you elected to have, we can’t compel anything.

Hand-waving away pregnancy and childbirth as an “inconvenience” is disingenuous at best.

[Mr_Shine]

Murder is ludicrous, the crime is more equivalent to attempted property damage.

[DavidwithanR]

@UltraVires

As the abortion laws hold that the fetus/child has no recognized legal interest in protecting its right or desire to be born…

They DON’T hold that. They hold that IF it does have such a recognized legal interest, that interest is superseded by the mother’s interests.

Unless you can cite a law that states in literal and specific terms exactly what you described.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@DavidwithanR

They DON’T hold that. They hold that IF it does have such a recognized legal interest, that interest is superseded by the mother’s interests.

Unless you can cite a law that states in literal and specific terms exactly what you described.

Well, I guess it depends on how you parse things but if it is possible to murder the unborn then, ipso facto, the unborn has a legal right to life. Then the state says the mother’s rights supersede that right to life.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@MandaJo

This is exactly the standard we hold in every other aspect of society. You can’t compel a person to call 911 if they are standing there watching someone drown. You can’t compel a person to donate blood even if it’s the only way to save a life. You can’t compel someone to donate bone marrow.

You can’t compel a dead body to give up an organ without advance permission of person who died–and even that has to be confirmed by the next of kin, because their rights to have a complete meat-sack to bury comes before the right to life of the person who needs an organ.

All of those things require less physical risk, pain, permanent physical damage, loss of opportunity, and expense than pregnancy. Even when it’s to save the life of your own child, that you elected to have, we can’t compel anything.

Hand-waving away pregnancy and childbirth as an “inconvenience” is disingenuous at best.

Think about this a second…

If we accept what happened in the OP then the law recognizes the unborn’s right to life. It is alive in the same sense you are alive because it can be murdered.

You just made a laundry list of things we cannot compel people to do because of their right to autonomy as a living human.

Given all that you then have to accept that a woman can choose to justifiably kill (as the law implies) her unborn child because her rights supersede those of the child’s right to life despite the care we give to protect all the things we can’t make people do as you listed.

I am pro choice, I firmly support a woman’s right to abort in the first trimester. My point here is if we accept that a person can be put in jail for 22 years for attempting to murder an unborn person in the first trimester of gestation then the implications for the mother doing the same thing, legally, change dramatically.

[UltraVires]

@Whack-a-Mole

This take on a woman’s right to abort would suggest that, at best, you could characterize her actions as a “justifiable homicide” under the law.

The law is saying another party is able to murder the unborn regardless of term of gestation. Therefore the unborn possesses the quality that makes murder possible which I always considered to be being a living human being.

That changes the discussion around abortion a lot if you can say the government deems the unborn to be a fully living human being thus capable of being murdered with an exception carved out allowing the mother to kill it because it’s her body (like being able to shoot an intruder in your home).

That would be a troublesome holding. You are allowed to shoot an intruder in your home because that person has acted so far beyond the bounds of decent society that he or she has placed you in fear of losing your life. In that extreme exception to the norm, we allow the taking of another human life.

On the other hand, every single person ever born has been in their mother’s womb. To hold such a thing as “justifiable homicide” means that every person ever born has committed an act which they could legally be killed for. The exception becomes the rule.

Again, I’m not here to debate pro-life v. pro-choice, but surely the pro-choice side must use a better argument than that for justification.

[Jackmannii]

This story immediately reminded me of a similar case portrayed on Forensic Files some years ago.

And in looking for a link, I found two other examples.

Jail sentences varied from a few years to 14 years in prison. I doubt this latest guy will serve anywhere near 22 years.

Intentionally poisoning someone and putting their health at risk is a bit different from seeking a legal abortion.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Jackmannii

Intentionally poisoning someone and putting their health at risk is a bit different from seeking a legal abortion.

I think “poisoning” goes a bit too far here. He tried to dose her with medicine intended to induce an abortion. I do not see that as trying to poison someone.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Jackmannii

This story immediately reminded me of a similar case portrayed on Forensic Files some years ago.

For those interested here is the video of that episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6f3ma-6OIE

[asahi]

@Whack-a-Mole

This morning I came across this article: Man who put abortion-inducing drug in girlfriend’s drink gets 22 years in prison

The short version is a man tried to give his pregnant girlfriend an abortion-inducing drug without her knowledge. She did not ingest the drug but his plan was found out and he was convicted of attempted murder of the unborn child. (As it happens she miscarried later unrelated to this.)

What struck me about this is the disconnect where we allow a woman to terminate a pregnancy yet sentence this man to 22 years in prison for attempted murder. I have no problem with getting him for some lesser crime (e.g. assault) but murder seems at odds with allowing a woman to terminate her pregnancy with no repercussion.

I could see this charge if it was in the 2nd or 3rd trimester but not in the first (I did not see in the article how far along the woman was…I am assuming the 1st trimester).

FTR I am pro-choice. For debate I am curious if others think this is an appropriate crime to be charged with in these circumstances? (As in whether it makes sense, not debating if this is how the law is actually written.)

An abortion is solely a woman’s choice to make - it’s her body.

A guy who poisons a woman with the intent of terminating a pregnancy is a sick fuck who belongs behind bars.

[asahi]

@Whack-a-Mole

I think “poisoning” goes a bit too far here. He tried to dose her with medicine intended to induce an abortion. I do not see that as trying to poison someone.

Horse manure! It’s poisoning. It’s forcing a woman to ingest toxins that cause her to end her pregnancy.

[cmkeller]

Babale:

if negligence causes the escape, and a man is killed, the owner is put to death as a murderer (if I remember this right – the exact details are foggy, I learned this years ago in a high school class)

Only if the ox is established as having a habit of killing people. If the ox does not have an established pattern of killing people (i.e., not having done so three times), the owner is not held responsible.

(And just BTW, the ox is ideally to be killed after it kills only once, but that requires that it have been brought before the court for sentencing. The case above would be where this happens three times before the opportunity to bring the ox to court occurs.)

If the bull crashes into a pregnant woman and causes a miscarriage though, the owner of the bull only pays a fine.

I’m not sure about the source for such a law on ox-damage, but a fine (for causing a miscarriage) rather than the exile (which would be the usual sentence for one who accidentally causes the death of a born human being) is the rule for a PERSON causing said event, as per Exodus 21:22.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@asahi

An abortion is solely a woman’s choice to make - it’s her body.

Kinda missing the point of the thread.

A guy who poisons a woman with the intent of terminating a pregnancy is a sick fuck who belongs behind bars.

I agree he committed a crime and deserves to go to jail. Did he commit attempted murder and deserve 22 years is the question. The law clearly says yes but do you think it is attempted murder?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@asahi

Horse manure! It’s poisoning. It’s forcing a woman to ingest toxins that cause her to end her pregnancy.

To be clear, he absolutely deserves jail time for trying this. The issue at question in the OP is whether we can square laws that convict him of attempted homicide with abortion rights.