Question for those who are pro-choice?

Question

If a pregnant woman is murdered, is the criminal guilty of one or two murders.

If the mother were to survive but not the life inside, should the criminal be charged with murder of the unborn?

Answer 1

If a pregnant woman is murdered, I feel that two murders have been committed because the mother *chose* to carry her pregnancy. She didn't terminate it, this was done by outside forces.

Same reasoning for an assault on the mother that results in the death of the fetus. A murder has been committed because the mother *chose* to carry her pregnancy.

An abortion is not murder because it is the woman's body, and it is her choice to do with it as she sees fit.

Answer 2

This is actually a hot legal topic. My personal belief is that it should only be termed "murder" after the point at which a fetus has a human brain pattern - that point at which abortion is no longer legal unless it is to save the life of the mother. Prior to that, it should be a seperate offense. The damage resulting in fetal or embryonic injury and/or termination would be through the mother's body so it should be prosecuted as an injury to the woman. The caveat would have to be that this is not a charge that the state could bring agaist someone acting on the instruction of the would-be mother; in other words, if the termination of the pregnancy is the result of an abortion conducted within the confines of the law, prosecution would be nothing short of malicious and illegal.

In short, it depends on how developed the fetus / embryo is and if it could be legally aborted. Giving an abortion against the will of the mother is already illegal and such a thing should be prosecuted vigorously, but it is not murder until there is a human brain wave.

Answer 3

I can't answer for certain.

I do think in the instances when the child is in a fully developed state ready to be delivered, a strong case can be made. One clear instance, for me, is if a 9 months pregnant woman was murdered today by her husband and scheduled to be induced tomorrow, yes, there are two murders.

If a woman is 6 weeks pregnant murdered by a stranger, no. And I'll admit there is much gray area in between.

I'm not a lawyer, but intent is a big factor in the law. For instance, in the 9 months example above the husband clearly intended to murder both his wife and unborn child. He knew the woman was pregnant and that his actions would eliminate the wife and the unborn child. This is double murder.

However, if someone robs a 7/11 and in the heat of the moment ends up shooting a 4 months pregnant woman who was not immediately identifiable as pregnant, I don't know exactly what the full crime is. Yes, he murdered the woman. He did illegally terminate the life of the fetus and that should have consequences. But is it murder? Right now, I don't think so. A better case could be made for manslaughter, but again, I'm not willing to sign on to that yet.

Perhaps new laws need to be made specifically tailored to murder, manslaughter, and pregnant women (if they don't exist currently)? I would be for at least an open debate on this topic as long as all forms of legal abortion and contraception were off the table.

Answer 4

Well this is how I view this whole thing. If a woman is 7,8, 9 months pregnant its evident she is pregnant. So I would say they should be charged with two murders.

If a woman is less than 10 weeks pregnant (the time it is legal to get an abortion... at least in my state) No they should not be charged with two murders in this instance. The "baby" is an embryo and not a fetus.

Answer 5

I am pro life and believe if a person kills a pregnant woman he or she should be charged with two murders. If the baby survives then one murder.

Answer 6

The criminal is guilty of 2 murders - the mother and child. If the mother were to survive the criminal should be charged with the murder of the child. I think that this is common rational thinking. I believe legally, that is how it is looked upon by the courts. Then, I ask you, why is it OK to murder unborn babies and call it abortion or right to choose?

Answer 7

I think the way it goes now, is if the fetus was capable of living outside of the womb, the criminal can be charged for murder of the unborn child. So, mostly later term pregnancies are this way.

Answer 8

I don't think it's very important. As far as I can tell, the whole point of that is to make sure the "life of the unborn" is written into law as precedent. When abortion was illegal, people who attacked pregnant women were not charged with two crimes -- this is new.

In a more abstract sense, I think the question of what is necessary to protect society from that murderer is the same regardless of whether he attacked a pregnant woman. To me, the point of the criminal justice system should be to protect the people, not to divvy out "justice."

Answer 9

1. One murder, the fetus is not a person.

2. No, there would be no murder charge, but he would be charged with assault, and possibly attempted murder/manslaughter depending on the severity of the injuries to the woman.

A fetus has no legal rights because it is not a person, and this is how it should be. Anti-choice advocates routinely try to get laws passed that would give the fetus rights in murder cases like this, because it would give them a backdoor way to erode and attack abortion rights. People like this really don't care about justice, they just try to use tragedy to advance their own twisted agendas.

Answer 10

1. One murder.

2. No.


However, he would still be charged a great deal for injuring the woman and for preventing her from having a child, as well as for the effort she went through to get to that point in pregnancy and the time she would lose getting pregnant again. If the pregnancy was late term, he might even be put up for manslaughter or second degree murder.