Moral Quandary: Should This Be Murder?

[Dexter]

Man charged with murder for allegedly killing his unborn child. (news link)

I'm not here to debate abortion. There's a thread for that and it's a separate discussion. The question I'm posing is, if we accept that a fetus is part of a woman's body and therefore not alive, how can we charge someone with murder for killing something that isn't a life form? Isn't this more accurately described as assault, malicious wounding, or something of that nature?

I'm making this thread in the hopes of getting some discussion going so you guys can help me make up my own mind, because quite frankly, I don't know the answer to my own question just yet. It's certainly something that deserves seriously thought as, at least on the surface, there seems to be a double standard at work here.

 

[HBK-aholic]

With the foetus being only in the 13th week - a time abortion is allowed in most places - arguing that this s murder could be hard. If a woman is allowed to terminate the pregnancy at this time under the argument it isn't actually a 'baby' how can someone else be charged for killing that? I'd have to agree with it not being murder due to that. Assault, GBH, something similar to that. A long prison sentence is definitely what he should get, and by long I mean he shouldn't get out. But using the term murder seems wrong to me.

 

[FromTheSouth]

But Scott Peterson famously, and Selena's killer, Yolanda Saldivar, both got charged with double murder for killing pregnant women. It is a double standard. The problem is it is hard to argue against abortion in this climate and it's hard to argue against the second murder charge. One case make you argue against liberty, and the other makes you argue against life.

I have wondered the same thing. It seemed to me that if that was double murder that an abortion would have to be murder by the legal definition. But then, there is also plenty of legal precedent to state that it is the mother's decision, only, on whether the baby is born. I would think that the laws are contradictory, but the courts don't.

I assume that it is the case, under the law, that it is the mother's, and only the mother's choice on whether the baby lives or not. This is why it is murder to kill an unborn child. There is a legally prescribed method and decision maker, and anyone else's input is a crime.

 

[jmt225]

If the woman was planning on keeping the baby, then it's murder; it's simple as that if you ask me. The man took away a life from a potential loving mother. That's murder.

There is no fucking reason whatsoever to ever lay your damn hands on a pregnant woman, and if someone does... then that person deserves whatever it is coming to them, and that includes life in jail or even in some places the death penalty.

 

[Dexter]

If the woman was planning on keeping the baby, then it's murder; it's simple as that if you ask me. The man took away a life from a potential loving mother. That's murder.

There is no fucking reason whatsoever to ever lay your damn hands on a pregnant woman, and if someone does... then that person deserves whatever it is coming to them, and that includes life in jail or even in some places the death penalty.

Isn't this the legal equivalent of having your cake and eating it too, though? Lets keep in mind that there's no place for appeal to emotion here. It's justice, not revenge. No matter how disgusting you think it is for a man to do this, and of course I agree with you, the law is the law.

You touched on exactly what I was getting at with my post. You said "The man took away a life..." Legally, no he didn't. The law does not recognize a 13 week old fetus as alive. As stated by law, he took away part of the woman's body, as though he'd cut off a finger or a toe. Obviously still a crime, but most certainly NOT murder by that legal definition.

So like I said, this is the legal equivalent of having your cake and eating it too. Either that 13 week old fetus is a life, and thus abortion is murder, or that 13 week old fetus is not a life, and what this man did is not murder. I don't think it's too much to ask to have a little consistency and equality in the law.

As for FTS's point about it being the woman's choice to end that life, and if someone else does it it's a crime, I see the logic in that to a certain extent, but I have two problems with that. First, it's hard for me to see it that way when the very legal basis for the legality of abortion is the premise that the fetus is NOT a life. There's been such a big deal made of that notion that we simply can't avoid bringing that up here. Second, that sounds legally dubious to me. I'm not familiar with any other precedent for that kind of viewpoint in the law. I mean, I suppose if I wanted to smash my own television that'd be legal but if you broke into my home and smashed my television that'd be a crime... but that's hardly the same thing, is it?

 

[The Kingpin]

To me the term "Murder" is to kill another living breathing human being when the government says you can't (As the government kills anyone he sees fit). Now for this, is it murder? By my definition no, is it assault on the women, plausible. You see when the fetus is only 13weeks that is still technically legal time to get an abortion/terminate the fetus and stop yourself from having a baby.

However this small article does not provide sufficient information and I pose many questions:

1.) Did the women involved want to keep the baby?
2.) If yes, then isn't this abortion and, correct me if I'm wrong, is something L.A accepts.
3.) If not, then then what was the extent of the attack to force the fetus to die? Was it accidental "Play fighting" or was the man actually attempting to kill the fetus so that a baby would not be born.

So to summarize, I don't think that this can be considered murder because this is not a living breathing person, it has yet to develop any human-like aspect, if anything this should be called Abuse and at worst, malicious wounding like you said or something along the lines of assault.

So no, Murder is the wrong term for this.

 

[Razor]

2.) If yes, then isn't this abortion and, correct me if I'm wrong, is something L.A accepts.

Ehh...it'd be something along the lines of Unlawful Abortion, if they still wanted to make it a crime. Abortions are fine when done in a medical setting, under the supervision of trained professionals. However, the law has a strict "No medical license, no scalpel for you" stance on this issue. If a man without a medical license can't set your broken leg without being legally responsible for your leg AND being arrested for performing medicine without a license, then a man without a medical license can not start an Abortion. Go to a damn doctor, don't go and get beat on by your boyfriend. This isn't the 70's anymore, Abortion is legal again. Don't get back alley wire hanger abortions. We have doctors that will help you.

In the most literal interpretation of the law, this is equivalent to cutting off a woman's foot. It sure will effect the woman more profoundly than if you sliced off her foot, but in the eyes of the law there is no difference. The fetus is nothing more than a growth in the woman, and she can have it removed at any time, as long as she doesn't wait what...3 months? 4? I'm a little hazy on my time lines here.

However, there is a recourse the law can take to charge him with murder. If the baby took a breath, then it was alive. And if he acted in some way to end its life, he killed it.

It's like if I were to cut a baby out of a woman's belly. If it never breathed, then I simply committed one murder (in the fact that that woman will die from the massive trauma I just put her through. Severing internal organs and all). However, if I cut out the baby and it takes a breath, then it is a living thing. Suddenly, it has every right that an American has at birth. Along with those is that pesky "Right to life" that you hear so often. You kill that baby, you are on the hook for two deaths.

What I need to know, Dexter, is if the baby took a breath. Even if the man beat the woman, she went into labor, and the baby died because of injuries the man gave after it took a breath out of the womb, the man is still responsible. I doubt that a 13 week baby took a breath, but hospitals have seen plenty of things happen that shouldn't have.