Bear in mind, of course, that some pro-choicers see no inconsistency in declaring that the putative personhood of the thing inside them does not preclude their right to withdraw life support from it, despite the fatal consequences of such withdrawal. To such an one, visiting death on the foetus other than in an abortion clinic could indeed be murder - and declaring it to be such does not, in their eyes, “chip away” at their abortion rights, for that which is being chipped away was not the foundation of such rights in the first place.
I agree with you there, absolutely. There’s a big difference between fisticuffs and some evil bastard kicking the shit out of his pregnant girlfriend.
However, as other posters and indeed the OP have pointed out, there are a number of variables at play. As it stands, I can kill/abort my own baby but it’s illegal for someone to do it against my will, hence my assertion that the law is unnecessary.
Thus far, the hypotheticals sound like aggravated assault to me. Injuries severe enough to cause miscarriage constitute serious bodily harm, IMO. So any woman-beating/shooting fetal murderers could be sentenced “between 1and 8 years in prison per count/charge.”
The legal ramifications of assigning the fetus his/her own set of rights are huge and IMHO, if you call feticide murder, you’ve effectively granted said rights.
The cynical part of me is tempted to assert that, historically, rape was considered a variety of theft rather than assault; it was the stealing of the right of sexual exclusivity from a woman’s husband or sexual control from a woman’s father. But I’m not going to assert that just yet because I don’t have a non-etymological cite.
So the killing of a fetus could be considered destruction of property?
Hop in my handbasket, we’ll take a trip.
I wasn’t trying to assert that rape should be considered an offense against the father or husband of the victim. What I meant was that, in some cultures at least, it began that way, and has evolved into being thought a variant of assault as humanity (or at least segments of same) has become less odious.
Oh, I know, it just struck me funny. I’m sick that way.
Sorry, I don’t have a sense of humor today. I left the house in a rush and it was in the pants I had on while I was torturing Aquagirl.
No, it should not be murder
I strive for consistency in my views and the law. I dont consider a fetus enough of a person to be pro-life, that’s why I’m pro-choice. Because of that, anything you do to a fetus should not be construed as the taking of a life.
I am very much pro-choice. And I do think it should be murder. Because the key phrase is “against her will”. As the pro choice community says – it’s her body. So if she doesn’t want the baby then she should be free to abort it. And the state supports her freedom to do that (or should, at least). But if she wants the baby, then she considers it a person, and that state supports her belief that way as well.
That’s why, I believe, California has very pro-choice laws but also includes the provision that killing a fetus is murder, at least in some circumstances, as in the Scott Peterson case.
I don’t think the mother’s belief that the fetus is a person is a reasonable basis for this. For one thing, if i’m a crazy person convinced my lamp is a person, then what grounds have you to deny destruction of it as murder? That’s a more unlikely grounds, but i’d guarantee you that if this sort of idea became law, the amount of people attempting to get a killing of maiming of a pet upgraded to murder or assault would be rather large.
In general, it makes sense to me that the line at which killing a fetus should be considered murder is the point at which it is considered a person in general law. The time up until which abortion is acceptable should have no additional crime attached to it’s killing. Between the two, i’m not sure.
No, but is there perhaps a possible compromise – maybe a “forced abortion”, or “abortion without consent?”
Again using the rape analogy, there’s no crime if a person voluntarily chooses to have sex, but an assault which includes involuntary sex is regarded as a different and worse crime than an otherwise-similar assault which did not include sex. Likewise, it’s legal for a woman to voluntarily have an abortion, but an assault which includes an involuntary abortion should be regarded as a worse crime than an otherwise-similar assault without the abortion. I don’t think that that crime should necessarily be called “murder”, and we don’t have a simple one-word term for it like we do with rape and murder, but that just means that we have to coin a new term in the law.
it’s an aggravating factor, and a severe one. It’s a vicious crime, and it should be punished harshly, but it’s a crime against the woman, not a separate entity. It shouldn’t be called murder, but I have no problem with an equivalent penalty.
No. You should be charged with a different capital crime, essentially that of killing a pregnant mother’s fetus without her consent. And it should not matter how far along she was if it can be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that your actions resulted in the death of her fetus, which would otherwise not have spontaneously aborted or anything of that sort. I would think intention would matter, e.g., you shove a pregnant woman out of your way as you exit the bank you just robbed and she loses the baby, you get depraved indifference or involuntary fetus-slaughter or something, whereas if you, abusive husband or jilted former boyfriend, deliberately administer RU 486 to her secretly, thus precipitating a miscarriage, you get 1st degree fetuscide and it’s off to the gas chamber for you, bucko!
And parents of pregnant 14 year olds should be liable for prosecution if they abort their kid without the kid’s consent, as should clinic professionals. Can’t have it both ways: if the pregnant 14 year old has the right to choose abortion for herself, abrogating that decision-making authority to ‘save’ her from an unfortunate pregnancy should constitute a crime.
That nicely encapsulates my stance. I don’t see the OP’s hypothetical as murder. Aggravated assault, sure. Choice-theft, even. But not murder.
Thanks for speaking for me, but you got my answer wrong. I’m pro-choice and I believe that killing a fetus against the mother’s will should be murder.
I do believe that the fetus is a life or becomes a life at some point during gestation, but I don’t believe it should have equal rights to the host until it is viable. After that point, I am against abortion. I believe anyone killing the fetus against the mother’s will at any point in the pregnancy should be charged with murder. It does not matter if she was on her way to the abortion clinic at the time, it is not someone else’s choice to make.
Chronos, I think we’re in agreement or very close. The injury or loss of the fetus, no matter how viable, should be a factor in the prosecution of assault offenders. To me, the death of the fetus does not constitute a separate crime but it does make an assault aggravated.
Diogenes nailed it.
For my part, abortion is murder and it should absolutely be legal. There’s no doubt in mind that if I choose to “terminate the fetus,” I’ll be killing my baby but it’s my decision not my government’s and certainly not some criminal’s.
I absolutely oppose calling it murder if the act is done against the woman’s will. That would leave any legal abortion provider with a huge can of worms, should anyone come back later to claim that they were not in their right mind, and were taken advantage of, or whatever. And you **know **this would happen.
I find this statement very bizarre. If (in your mind) you’re killing your baby, and it’s murder, but it’s OK, I don’t why that would be your decision. I guess I don’t see a difference between murdering your baby before he or she is born and after – do you think the decision to murder a baby is always in the parents hands, until age 18 or something?
Sorry RitterSport, that wasn’t abundantly clear, was it? I don’t think I could ever have an abortion, nor am I comfortable letting the government legislate my reproductive functions by restricting abortion.
People draw the line different places. Some people thing contraception is wrong, others think only 3rd term abortions are wrong. A morning after pill that prevents conception, I’m okay with that. Terminating life post conception doesn’t work for me, that’s just where I draw my personal line.
I think it’s a personal moral question that should be held outside government interference. It’s a question of protecting women’s rights, individual rights, and keeping government removed from reproduction and a deeply personal decision.