2007-01-16 02:06:59 · 24 answers · asked by Webber 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
If not, why not?
2007-01-16 02:10:17 · update #1
Note to everyone: this is not about abortion.
2007-01-16 02:14:37 · update #2
Yes, but only since 2004. At common law, the crime would be assault and murder against the mother. No crime could be carried out against an unborn child. The assaulter could not be charged unless the child breathed once. Violence against a fetus is a rare crime and only discussed once in the famous criminal case of U.S. v. Spencer (9th Cir). However, in 2004, the legislature passed The Unborn Victims of Violence Act making any death in this circumstance murder. The assaulter would be charged with both murders.
2007-01-16 03:35:22 · answer #1 · answered by Scott J 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, absolutely. The viability standard should not be used as it is often used now. Just because the fetus would not survive outside the womb at the time of the murder should not make the murderer immune to the death of the fetus. The defense could always argue that there is no proof that the fetus would have ever been delivered alive. Miscarriages happen, right? That argument is ludicris. More than likely, the woman would have carried the baby to term and become a mother. The murderer prevented that from happening. That is murder. Viability should have nothing to do with it. Who should we be protecting here anyway? The murderers or the potential victims? So...absolutely YES!
2007-01-16 02:50:52 · answer #2 · answered by Rach23 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
you know what? this is a great question.
my answer was "yes, absolutely." and then i thought more about it. see, i'd always been pro-choice. however, a few months ago i read that a fetus six weeks along has the same brain wave activity as a 4 month old baby. that brought me up short. and then this question makes me realize-
if a murderer is charged with a double homicide for killing a fetus and its mother, then why is it not murder when the fetus is aborted by a doctor? the only difference is the doctor only kills the fetus. so the fetus is not as valuable as the mother? the mother can kill her own child, but noone else can?
is it just me, or is this rather hypocritical?
i have to thank you for this question. no matter if i get flamed, you've given me an epiphany.
2007-01-16 02:22:23 · answer #3 · answered by political junkie 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
More to the point. If someone purposefully punches a pregnant woman in the gut in order to kill her baby, should he be charged with murder or simply battery? The former will send him to prison for decades. The latter, for weeks, months or not at all.
And, if this sort of crime merits a murder conviction, does that not mean that abortion meets the same standard.
2007-01-16 02:12:32 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Of course. Even if the baby didn't die, the murderer should be charged for the death of the pregnant woman and the attempt to kill the baby.
2007-01-16 02:14:15 · answer #5 · answered by Salih D 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
yes but saying that if the murder is in cold blood it shouldn't matter one life or a hundred, as that person should be looked up for life meaning life anyway.
since when has life been 25 years, a life for a life lock em up and forget about them
2007-01-16 02:17:50 · answer #6 · answered by london2007 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, the unborn baby is a human. However, abortion shouldnt be legal in the cases of birth control abortions. Otherwise, its a double standard.
2007-01-16 02:11:06 · answer #7 · answered by Daniel 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Yes, two lives ended by a senseless and violent act. Two counts of murder is appropriate.
2007-01-16 02:24:33 · answer #8 · answered by Mr. US of A, Baby! 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes
2007-01-16 02:11:51 · answer #9 · answered by B aka PE 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
A murder of any inocent person should be exterminated in a way that is convienant and slow. They should be charged for anything and everything that will ensure their death.
2007-01-16 02:15:47 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋