View Profile
View Forum Posts
View Forum Threads
Show All Albums
View Friends
Would that be considered murdering the child?
Yes
No
I do not know
If a pregnant mother is beaten and loses her child, is it a murder?
Would that be considered murdering the child?
Last edited by portisizzle; January-21st-2005 at 01:40 PM.
Why don't you stop going these round about ways and just define when life starts. That will make everything more simple.
Formerly known as "Liberty"
I'm not sure murder would be it, but I think involunatary manslaughter could be a charge.
Brotha aka Bro Man
"Uuuunnngh, I like it like that! She workin' that back, I don't know how to act."
R.I.P. Souljah Slim
Depends on intent..
If a Pregnant mother is known to be pregnant and is beaten with the child dying... it should.
If a pregnant mother is not know to be pregnant and is beaten with the child dying... it should by negligent manslaughter...
or accidental....
I'd like to say yes, but it depends on the situation. If the beating was intended to kill the child then yes, but if the beating wasn't for that reason and the child was lost as a result, then that would seem like involuntary manslaughter to me. That's a tricky question. Ultimately I think the answer lies in the intent.
This definitely wins my vote for morbid poll of the week.
In any case, the answer to your question will likely vary from state to state:
For example, take Arkansas:
Compared with California:§ 5-13-201. Battery in the first degree
(a) A person commits battery in the first degree if:
[...]
(5) (A) He causes physical injury to a pregnant woman in the commission of a felony or a Class A misdemeanor causing her to suffer a miscarriage or stillbirth as a result of that injury; or
(B) He recklessly causes physical injury to a pregnant woman or causes physical injury to a pregnant woman under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life causing her to suffer a miscarriage or stillbirth as a result of that injury.
(C) As used in this subdivision (a)(5), unless the context otherwise requires:
(i) "Physical injury" means the impairment of physical condition, including, but not limited to, the inability to complete a full-term pregnancy, as defined by the pregnant woman's physician, or the infliction of substantial pain;
(ii) "Miscarriage" means the interruption of the normal development of the fetus, other than by a live birth and which is not an induced abortion, resulting in the complete expulsion or extraction of a fetus from a pregnant woman; and
(iii) "Stillbirth" means the death of a fetus prior to the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother, irrespective of the duration of pregnancy and which is not an induced abortion, and death is manifested by the fact that after the expulsion or extraction, the fetus does not breathe spontaneously or show other evidence of life such as heart beat, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles...
Cal. Penal Code § 187. Murder defined
(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.
(b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply:
(1) The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Article 2 (commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division 106 of the Health and Safety Code.
(2) The act was committed by a holder of a physician's and surgeon's certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be death of the mother of the fetus or where her death from childbirth, although not medically certain, would be substantially certain or more likely than not.
(3) The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the mother of the fetus.
(c) Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to prohibit the prosecution of any person under any other provision of law.
Last edited by iheartskins; January-21st-2005 at 01:49 PM.
According to the ruling in the Peterson case, it is.
On the same tone, What are the thoughts of the Roe v Wade plaintiff reopenning her case?
It may well become the most underreported pending legal matter in a long, long, time.
Before anyone makes assumptions....I do yet know my opinion and am still thinking on it.
Conservatives cant trust Republicans
Are you asking if we would like it to be?
No would be my answer. Awarding personhood to a fetus would cause more harn then good.
Yes. I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, Scott Petersen was found guilty of killing both his wife, and his unborn child.
2 Seperate Counts of Murder, 2 Convictions.
In a case, where only the child dies. I believe the suspect can be charged with Murder, or Manslaughter. The difference is the intent. As far as the law would be concerned, Does the suspect know the victim of the assault is pregnant? Motive? Modus Operandi?, etc.
Last edited by Painkiller; January-21st-2005 at 01:54 PM.
It was on the front page of the Wall Street Journal yesterday, here's the article:Originally posted by skin-n-vegas
On the same tone, What are the thoughts of the Roe v Wade plaintiff reopenning her case?
It may well become the most underreported pending legal matter in a long, long, time.
'Jane Roe ' Asks US Supreme Crt To Reconsider Abortion
DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
January 19, 2005 11:22 a.m.
WASHINGTON (AP)--The woman once known as "Jane Roe " has asked the Supreme Court to reconsider its landmark Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion 32 years ago.
Norma McCorvey, whose protest of Texas' abortion ban led to the 1973 ruling, contends in a petition received at the court Tuesday that the case should be heard again in light of evidence that the procedure may harm women.
"Now we know so much more, and I plead with the court to listen for witnesses and re-evaluate Roe v. Wade," said McCorvey, who says she now regrets her role in the case.
The politically charged issue comes before the court as both sides gird for a possible bitter nomination fight over Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist's replacement should the ailing justice retire this term. At least three justices, including Rehnquist, have said Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overturned.
Two lower courts in Texas last year threw out McCorvey's request to have the ruling reconsidered.
But in a strongly worded concurrence, 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judge Edith H. Jones criticized the abortion ruling and said new medical evidence may well show undue harm to a mother and her fetus.
The last major abortion decision by the Supreme Court came in 2000, when the court ruled 5-4 to strike down Nebraska's ban on so-called "partial-birth" abortion because it failed to provide an exception to protect the mother's health.
Justices since then have shown little interest in wading back ino the emotional issue.
It's already been done in California. See above.Originally posted by Destino
Are you asking if we would like it to be?
No would be my answer. Awarding personhood to a fetus would cause more harn then good.
Life starts at conception. Science itself has proved this fact. The REAL issue is, do people feel that the fetus is a "Human" life, and should the fetus be treated AS a Human.Originally posted by Liberty
Why don't you stop going these round about ways and just define when life starts. That will make everything more simple.
I personally believe that the fetus IS a Human life, and should be valued as such.
No need for me to type it...Thiebear hit it for me.Originally posted by Thiebear
Depends on intent..
If a Pregnant mother is known to be pregnant and is beaten with the child dying... it should.
If a pregnant mother is not know to be pregnant and is beaten with the child dying... it should by negligent manslaughter...
or accidental....
Does the term personhood need apply. Could you not say that because a fetus exists, the potential for life exists. If a mother is assaulted and the fetus ceases to exist as a potential for life, can you not say life has been stopped?Originally posted by Destino
Are you asking if we would like it to be?
No would be my answer. Awarding personhood to a fetus would cause more harn then good.
After or before the 1st tri-mester?
For me, its whatever that state defines as the point at which abortions cannot occur (save medical complications). Then the state has ruled the fetus is a "life" - thus intentional killing would be murder, imho.
Last edited by T.E.G.; January-21st-2005 at 01:57 PM.
__________________
Birds are flying out of water
Underneath the sky
I run up to the rainbow girl
just to pass her by
I'll never have a change of heart
My swan will never sing
I have no heart the swan is gone
And now I wear the wings
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote
Visit Homepage
