posted
In light of the results of the Lacey Peterson Trial, and Scott Peterson being convicted of one count of second-degree murder for the death of the son Lacey Peterson was carrying, how does this match up with abortion?
If the case for abortion is that the fetus is not an actual person, how can the courts charge a man with murder for killing a fetus?
and,just out of curiostiy, what is the earliest term of a fetus that someone has been charged the murder of?
Posts: 28 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's not entirely true. You cannot be charged with murder if the fetus is less than the absolute minimum age of viability (currently (legally) 24 weeks, I believe). Most states have laws severely limiting the circumstances under which abortion past the second trimester can be performed.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
oh boy.. I can imagine a few persons boiling in their head at the moment. I'm sure I could put out a rather passionate argument why abortion is wrong or right. Etc. I suppose I ask you then to see it in a simple life , look at the question at its most base. But then I also believe you shouldn't litter or cause filth to occur in the environment because I think it will logically lead to the death and unhappiness of human beings, not to mention everything else out there. People too often look at actions for their singular consequence and not the collective one.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing is, that baby was full-term. There's very little doubt that if he had been born, he would have been alive. That's the legal basis for charging him with a double murder instead of murder only of his wife.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the legal viability age is 24 weeks, then the courts need to update their info. Babies as young as 19 weeks and weighing less than a pound have survived to be discharged home from the hospital, and some have even done so without any type of complication from the birth.
It used to be that one pound was considered the threshold, but the hospital where I gave birth had a baby weighing 14 ounces go home from the hospital.
Edit: Actually on googling, I didn't find anything younger than 22 weeks. I'll keep looking.
Edit #2: Don't edit your post too soon. 19 weeks is indeed correct, and there is at least one baby born at 19 weeks that has lived to adulthood.
quote:That is why so many people thought that law was bogus, and why it will probably be overturned on appeal as unconstitutional.
What basis would they have for overturning this?
The killing of an unborn child leads to criminal culpability for murder if the legislature says it does. There's no constitutional decision that says the state can't criminalize the killing of an unborn child. There is one that says the state can't criminalize the killing of an unborn child with te consent of the mother.
It highlights the some of the inconsistency, but it certainly violates no constitutional principles.
posted
I don't think it's even that inconsistent. Killing is permitted in self-defense and in time of war. In other words, killing is only murder when the law says it is. Now, when this impinges on the sense of justice that most people feel, it becomes a problem; but I think few right-to-choose supporters would have trouble with considering a forced abortion as being murder. Tactical considerations against the slim end of the wedge are something else again, but I doubt anyone genuinely holds the position that this is not wrongful death. So why should the law not be inconsistent? It is in many other cases.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
hmmmmm you are wrong there, killing in self defense can get really wishy washy in some states and it depends on how you do it. I know a lot of places won't consider it self defense unless you were considered in mortal danger, btw if he is ten feet or so from you with a knife you can't shoot them and not get charged for man slaughter.
That and I know people who have been brought up on legal charges for shooting the wrong persons in a war zone or excessive use of force. That and depending on who you talked to killing of any sort is considered evil and wrong. It simply matters what you believe is the ultimate authority. It is a rather interesting thing in America where people believe something is all right because " Hey it isn't illegal." It is a weak point to believe that legal constraints should encompass all moral and ethical issues.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Edit #2: Don't edit your post too soon. 19 weeks is indeed correct, and there is at least one baby born at 19 weeks that has lived to adulthood.
Belle, do you have a references for this, other than the snippet of names & dates at abortioninfo.net? Of the only three mentions of this online that I can find, two of them seem to be reciting that same site, and I can't verify any othe others independently. There don't seem to be any articles about this in the mass media that I can find, even though one of the names at abortioninfo.net cites a Cincinnati paper (no date). Still, I don't think that this paper has online searching that far back.
I ask because I probed the question of viability with the neonatologists I trained under, and they don't even attand births under 22 weeks gestations "because there has never been a survival at that age." I was concerned about the policy of not attending some births, and I asked pretty detailed questions.
I think TomD had posted that he was in this range when born, but I can't find anything under 22 weeks in the textbooks or when I've called the NICUs in question.
[ November 12, 2004, 10:04 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sara, I will ask my friend who is a head nurse. I saw a picture of a baby that fit in the palm of her small hand.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I used to take care of palm-sized babies in the NICU, too. Their skin was more fragile than tissue paper.
It wasn't the size so much as lung development -- even with umbilical IVs and and all the nutritional support, we couldn't oxygenate the blood even on high-frequency ventilators.
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
They indicate 0% survivability at less than 22 weeks, although I guess one could argue that there may be outliers who "wash out" when calculating general statistics. Still, the abortioninfo.net site gives the date of this 19-weeker at 1972, which seems frankly impossible.
I can't find any mention of survival for less than 22 wks gestation at the University Hospital Fetal Center or Cincinnati regional NICU. That doesn't establish that it didn't happen, but I would expect them to note it.
posted
Though this is somewhat off topic, Georgetown University has a table of fetal events up on its website. This looks like a good resource for our fetal-related discussions.
I think someone was asking about dating of implantation and organogeneses earlier in another thread.
According to Georgetown, at 20 weeks "Viability begins. Survival in the womb is possible starting this age from conception." (I don't know what that means. Survival "in the womb" is possible? Viability usually means outside the womb. Maybe rupture of membranes without delivery?) For the viability info at 21 and 22 weeks, this site cites Contemporary Trends in the Management of Delivery at 23 Weeks' Gestation from the American Journal of Perinatology (2002). I'll try to track down a full-text copy from my work computer.
Fascinating!
[ November 12, 2004, 11:07 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as I know, the reason Peterson got 2 counts of murder is a matter of precedent. A court has at some time in the past declared that murdering a pregnant woman can carry two counts of murder as opposed to one. Personally, I think it fits the nature of the crime completely. As I understand it, the majority of pro-choice people believe the legalization of abortion depends on it being "a woman's choice" (I'm not sure of that, though.) and not that of, say, the person who kills that woman. So, honestly, people need to calm down and stop calling pro-choice people hypocritical when they call an abortion an abortion but are not willing to call the murder of an unborn child an abortion. I really don't think anyone is that heartless. My own personal beliefs have determined my stance on abortions (I'm all for making them illegal), but I don't think it's a good idea to simply assume that any party is willing to admit the idea that killing a mother with her unborn child is anything less than barbaric and that such a crime doesn't just scream for a dual count conviction. Aside from that, there are laws (I believe) that limit legal abortions to only those who have a lisence to perform them. Peterson certainly didn't have that lisence, so at a bare minimum, he could conceivably be convicted for performing an illegal abortion (Not as heavy a sentence for this, but if one were to argue that this type of thing actually is an abortion, which, again, I see as unlikely, this would certainly have been added to his conviction). Anyway, just Boris shooting his mouth of without doing research again
[ November 13, 2004, 02:24 AM: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sara, My friend is doing a study on the use of magnet therapy in the care of premature babies. It has been going on for a couple of years now, and I am not sure how close they are to being finished, but I thought you might be intrested in that. If there is something I can send to you, I will.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A little history on the subject in California:
In 1970, The Supreme Court of California heard the case Keeler v. Superior COurt of Amador County, 2 Cal.3d 619. A woman’s ex-husband heard she was pregnant by another man. He pulled her car over, and proceeded to “stomp it out of her” (his words). He was charged with murder for the death of the fetus, which was viable at the time of the attack.
California statute defined murder as “the unlawful killing of a human being, with malice aforethought.” The only question at issue whether the fetus, which was five pounds in weight and 18 inches in length, was a human being under the California murder statute.
The court decided no. It based its reasoning on the principle that the California statute had simply codified common law, and the common law had required since at least 1789 proof that the child was born alive to support a murder conviction. This is actually very Scalia-like reasoning. The court never mentioned abortion in the decision, but the justices were likely thinking of the abortion issue at the time they made their decision.
A spirited dissent argued that the definition of human being could adjust with advances in medical science. Acknowledging that the standards of death had changed such that plunging a knife into a person who appeared to have drowned would not be murder in 1789 might be considered murder now given new resuscitation techniques, he argued for the same extension of the definition of life in the other direction.
In response to Keeler, the California legislature passed a law defining murder as “the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.” The statute then went on to restrict the application of the law to acts which complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, which were made to save the life of the mother, or which were made with the mother’s consent.
28 states have laws allowing for murder prosecutions for the killing of a fetus. Some require viability, some apply throughout pregnancy. In 1993, Corinne Wilcott was convicted of murder for the death of a 15 week fetus that resulted from her kicking the mother in the stomach. None have been successfully challenged; I’m not sure if federal appeals have been launched.
Here's a link from the NJ chapter of NOW. There’s some dispute within the pro-choice community about fetal murder laws. Some support them, some don’t. But, it’s pretty clear there’s no constitutional issue:
quote: Defendants typically challenge the constitutionality of fetal homicide statutes, Burke [a pro-choice defense attorney] said.
In many cases, Burke said, "the defense will argue that it somehow conflicts with the legalization of abortion," and violates equal-protection rights by prosecuting a third party for killing a fetus that legally could have been aborted by its mother.
"But that's been shot down on the basis that a woman has a right, under Roe, to terminate her pregnancy," Burke said.
posted
Having been born at 7 months myself, I really don't have much problem with applying murder charges to viable fetuses.
Of course, since my wife would never have been born if her mother had not had a life-saving abortion towards the end of a previous pregnancy, I can't rule out all late-term abortions either...
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
But see, abortion doesn't come into it in this case, because she was almost at term and no one is disputing that she intended to have the baby. She even named him. Abortion can only be done with the consent of the mother (except, I think, where the mother is unable to make a decision and it is medically necessary to save her life).
quote:killing in self defense can get really wishy washy in some states and it depends on how you do it. I know a lot of places won't consider it self defense unless you were considered in mortal danger, btw if he is ten feet or so from you with a knife you can't shoot them and not get charged for man slaughter.
Black Fox, I train with the firearms instructor of the Sherrif's Office and he says that you can shoot someone who is threatening you with a knife up to 7 yards (21 feet) away. This is true for the states of Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia.
You can still be charged with manslaughter, but it is very, very unlikely. Now, this is in gun-friendly states. In states like California and New York, it might be very different. I have a lesson tomorrow and I'll ask my instructor.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Self defense is very complicated. The best place to get information is just where MrsM got it - at a good firearm instructor who teaches a certified course.
Some of the things which effect the availability of a self-defense defense are:
Whether you are in your home or a public place.
Whether you could have retreated (this is affected by above factor).
Who/what you are defending. Some states have stricter rules for defense of others; some don't allow force for defense of property. In a robbery, however, the threat is made to the person, so it can be sticky. Bernard Goetz was acquitted largely because NY law allowed deadly force to defend from robbery, whether the person's life was threatened or not.
The nature of the threat. The standard in some states is actual belief, in others it is reasonable belief. States (and individual courts within states) vary as to how much of a person's past can be factored into the reasonability of the belief that a threat exists. For example, a woman who has been raped might have a far more reasonable fear of attack in a given situation than a 6'4" linebacker.
Fascinating area of law, and very, very fact specific. On a side note, I have a police officer friend who says the basic rule of thumb is that if someone has a knife out and is within 10 feet, you can't stop him from cutting you even if you use your gun. You can probably stop him from killing you, but you're going to get cut.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Their skin was more fragile than tissue paper.![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
Viability usually means outside the womb. Maybe rupture of membranes without delivery?) For the viability info at 21 and 22 weeks, this site cites 
