new fetal bill passed

Under the Senate-passed bill, violence against a pregnant woman would be regarded as two separate crimes: one against the woman; the other against her unborn child, defined as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." An assailant would not have to know a woman was pregnant to be prosecuted.

from washington post today march 26

my one argument (but there are many others) since the organisms life or the unborn child's life is only sustained by the mothers, the unborn child cannot operate under normal circumstances ie breathe, etc. the unborn child is not a person. the organism is a part of the mother therefore being one person

[Ryan]

Originally posted by BeatBreaker
Under the Senate-passed bill, violence against a pregnant woman would be regarded as two separate crimes: one against the woman; the other against her unborn child, defined as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." An assailant would not have to know a woman was pregnant to be prosecuted.

from washinton post today march 26

my one argument (but there are many others) since the organisms life or the unborn child's life is only sustained by the mothers, the unborn child cannot operate under normal circumstances ie breathe, etc. the unborn child is not a person. the organism is a part of the mother therefore being one person

What happens if the crime occurs when the woman is giving labor? Is it still one person until the baby is 100% out of the birth canal? What if only the head was out? What about if the umbilical cord has not yet been cut?

I have not really formed an opinion on this so I'm sorta playing devil's advocate here. But this is very tricky territory. The punishment for a crime is generally based in large part upon the damage or amount of suffering of the victim. If a woman is walking her dog down the street and a group of thugs attacks her, killing her dog in the process, those criminals can be held liable not only for the assault on the woman, but also for the slaughtering of her pet. Isn't it a pretty fair assertion to make that the same woman would certainly experience even more suffering as a result of her unborn child being killed?

I understand the concern that this could undermine efforts to maintain reproductive choice for women, but I have a hard time opposing this thing at face value. If nothing else, there is an enormous difference in a woman deciding to terminate her pregnancy and being violently forced to terminate her pregnancy against her will by another individual.

your last point makes a good point, that it is viewed as a greater crime, but shouldnt the bill just say that as a murder commited during a felony warrants the highest penalty.

secondly your dog example is not a good counter example, the dog is another being all by itself able to self sustain its own life.

[Ryan]

Originally posted by BeatBreaker
secondly your dog example is not a good counter example, the dog is another being all by itself able to self sustain its own life.

But a unborn child who is in the ninth month can certainly sustain their own life, and in fact, it is on this basis that they have outlawed certain late-term abortions. And the loss of the parent is enormously greater than losing a pet.

One more thing, if your argument is based upon not being able to sustain one's own life, then should it not be a crime to walk into a hospital room and pull the plug on someone who is being kept alive with a respirator?

[Ryan]

Originally posted by BeatBreaker
your last point makes a good point, that it is viewed as a greater crime, but shouldnt the bill just say that as a murder commited during a felony warrants the highest penalty.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the bill also apply stricter penalties when the mother is not killed but the pregnancy is terminated? I believe that under current laws, the assailant could only be held liable for assault and battery, but no consideration would be given for unborn victim. I personally feel that there should be, if not for the lost life, then for the anguish of the mother.

i agree with the youthanasia case, good counter example, i get off on this stuff.

anyways i am going to have to classify the child in a different category of self sustain as the old or hospitalized patient. the first distinction is that the organism or unborn child is living inside the mother and the later is run by machines. still destroying the machines would be the same as killing the mother. i agree with this statement.

my only problem is that the law is too broad and classifies a pregnant women in a way the classifies or identifies the organism inside her as a homo sapien.

anguish is emotional and the criminal courts should not deal with emotions, thats what civil courts are for

this is a good point though

[Ryan]

Originally posted by BeatBreaker
anguish is emotional and the criminal courts should not deal with emotions, thats what civil courts are for

this is a good point though

But courts do take emotion into account all the time. This is why family members of the victim always testify to the judge and jury prior to sentencing. The perceived loss of the victim or that of the victim's family often plays an enormous role in determining the severity of the punishment.

Now, with regard to treating an unborn child as an "organism" that is not a homo-sapien, I think that we must be willing to compromise to a certain degree. I have always been an outspoken advocate for a woman's right to choose, but I think trying to determine the exact point at which a fetus "becomes a person" is pointless. I think you'll be hard-pressed to convince most logical people, myself included, that a child who is five minutes from exiting the mother's body is not yet a homo-sapien. On the other hand, I don't believe that a fertilized egg of which the woman is completely unaware of constitutes a person with full protection under the law. The courts will likely have to make a further interpretation of this law in the future to determine the severity of a punishment based upon the term of the pregnancy.

[Adam D]

I think on face it's not a bad idea.

I think the wording of it is most critical. It should increase punishment for the involuntary fetal death occuring from the commision of homocide, that is, fetal death that the mother did not choose by means of abortion. If it is at all vague or more broadly articulated, I fear that in the courts there would be leeway to argue that even though there is an abortion defense from this that the courts should protect the interests of the fetus as the legislature expressed there should be with bill. I think another implication of that is the threat of this bill being used as a stepping stone in a long line of legislation to eventually eliminate abortion.

[Ryan]

Originally posted by Adam D
I think on face it's not a bad idea.

I think the wording of it is most critical. It should increase punishment for the involuntary fetal death occuring from the commision of homocide, that is, fetal death that the mother did not choose by means of abortion. If it is at all vague or more broadly articulated, I fear that in the courts there would be leeway to argue that even though there is an abortion defense from this that the courts should protect the interests of the fetus as the legislature expressed there should be with bill. I think another implication of that is the threat of this bill being used as a stepping stone in a long line of legislation to eventually eliminate abortion.

Right. I think we need to consider the parent the victim, not the unborn child. We have run circles around the issue of trying to determine when a fetus becomes a child with rights, and nothing has ever been resolved. This should be a law that protects a woman from harm to her pregnancy, not a law that specifically protects the unborn child from another person.

Originally posted by BeatBreaker
Under the Senate-passed bill, violence against a pregnant woman would be regarded as two separate crimes: one against the woman; the other against her unborn child, defined as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." An assailant would not have to know a woman was pregnant to be prosecuted.

from washington post today march 26

my one argument (but there are many others) since the organisms life or the unborn child's life is only sustained by the mothers, the unborn child cannot operate under normal circumstances ie breathe, etc. the unborn child is not a person. the organism is a part of the mother therefore being one person

The state of California has a law like this on the books. The killing fo a pregnant woman is regarded as two murders. The statute also explains quite clearly that it cannot be used as a sword to attack legal abortions. It is an apparent conflict - but - such things happen all the time.

Its a conflict to you becaus you are a moron.

[Led]

I certainly see that this could be the very early stages of making abortion illegal. If the law does in fact consider the mother and the fetus two seperate persons, would it not be the mother killing a seperate person through abortion? I understand they have a "yeah but" on the books out in California, but that follows suit with the rest of what is on the books in California, so that is certainly not a motto to follow. I would be very interested to see the exact wording on the books of this bill, but I'm too lazy too look for it.

At least this hasn't turned into an abortion battle thread yet thank God.

Originally posted by bver_hunter
Its a conflict to you becaus you are a moron.

Man you're just killing me right and left.

Shall I point out the conflict?

It is murder for some one other than a person legally authorized to perform an abortion to kill an unborn child. So the conflict would be - that is ok for party A to kill the child but not B - yet the child is no less dead. Even more, I believe it is immaterial whether the slayer knew the mother was pregnant. So, an intentional killing of the unborn child would be legal if done by a doctor but when some one kills the mother (and child) with no knowledge of the pregancy - it is two murders.

Once again, you outdo yourself in stupidity. If you're talking about intent, then the mother is more guilty than the doctor, because the doctor can't make a move without the mother's permission to intentionally do the abortion. Everybody knows that this is alot different from two guys murdering both a mom and her unborn child against the mother's will.

Only morons like you are conflicted on this point.

I almost hope they get rid of abortion in this country, so I can rape you, get you knocked up and leave you taking good care of my kid. I'll just go into exile in Jamaica living in a hut on the beach, bangin other women, while you and Jr are living on crappy welfare, and everytime you look into Bver Hunter Jr's eyes you can always think of me and how much you would like to kill me. Cheers.