topane

Abortions are rare after 20 weeks and extremely rare after 26 weeks.

You could be right, but I believe the decision to terminate the pregnancy would have occurred before the third trimester had it been a matter of convenience.

ManM

Mortal Wombat,
I see your point, but I am not sure it avoids the problem. To draw an analogy, there is usually not a problem with a person putting down his own dog. It is a different story if he shoots his neighbor's dog. However, he would not be charged with murder for shooting his neighbor's dog. Even if he performed the deed with the most evil of intentions, murder does not apply here. There is a qualitative difference between the object of a murder and the object of cruelty to animals. And so when a person is charged with murder for destroying a fetus, it is in effect assigning a very high value to the fetus. Furthermore, the charge here is not destruction of property, but murder. Someone could cut off your finger and smash into a pile of mush. You still would not be able to charge that person with murder, because murder deals with a separate individual entity. Also, if you cut off my finger, you have committed no crime against my finger. It would not be a case of double mutilation.

If this case is indeed a double murder, abortion becomes a case of legalized murder. In cases where there are no medical reasons to abort, this murder is performed solely on the whim of the mother. In what other situation is murder on a whim acceptable?

MortalWombat

No, he would not be charged with murder, but you can see two different people would be treated differently for essentially the same act (killing a dog), but under different circumstances. That is all I am trying to convey here. I'm not trying to say that a finger or a dog is a fetus. I'm just saying that it's not black and white, and that A doesn't necessarily equal B, if A and B both involve similar acts, but with different intents.

Derec

I don't say those things should not be considered but an absolute amnesty is not ok either.

UMoC

Derec

You can't have it both ways. Either it's a homicide or not. Barring serious medical reasons I do not see why it should not be considered an infanticide.

Quote:

Ninety percent of the nation's abortions occur in the first 13 weeks.

There is no reason why the other 10% should be performed late term. US should ban late term abortions (except in rarest cases of medical emergency) since they do not infringe the woman's reproductive rights.

UMoC

Derec

The point is that if you can be charged with a murder for killing a fetus than that fetus is considered a human being. That status cannot be subject to the decision of another person. A dog is a property, so property rights apply. So ManM is 100% right here!

Also both mother and father are the parents. If a couple has a dog, should only one of them be allowed to put the dog to sleep?

UMoC

Viti

Did you guys even read the law Clarice posted? Late term abortions are not permitted on demand...only in cases where a doctor states the life of the mother is at stake...it is murder UNLESS

Because the law does not seem to mention early abortions, I suspect the definition of the word FETUS to include some gestational age.

Derec

The same section includes:

That means it is not a murder if the mother wants it, regardless of the motive. And that part needs to go!

UMoC

hezekiah jones

Further to Clarice's post in the other thread, the criminal complaint is here:

The People of the State of California v. Scott Lee Peterson

Clarice already stated § 187, I believe.

Here a couple of relevant annotations:

The use of the term fetus in Pen. Code, § 187, defining murder as the unlawful killing of a human being or a fetus with malice aforethought, and the failure of that statute to state exactly what stage of development of unborn human life it was intended to cover do not render the statute unconstitutionally vague.

Thus, § 187, was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to defendant who killed the fetus of his former wife since he was fully and adequately warned that the brutal attack he committed upon her for the avowed purpose of killing her unborn baby could result in a charge of murder of a fetus. In writing criminal statutes, no more than a reasonable degree of certainty can be demanded, nor is it unfair to require that one who deliberately goes perilously close to an area of proscribed conduct shall take the risk that he may cross the line. People v Apodaca (1978) 76 CA3d 479, 142 Cal Rptr 830.

The legislative history of Pen. Code, § 187, defining murder as the unlawful killing of a human being or a fetus with malice aforethought, clearly indicates that the omission of the word fetus from Pen. Code, § 192, defining manslaughter, was not due to legislative oversight, but it was the exercise of legislative judgment. Accordingly, in California there is no statutory crime of manslaughter of a fetus. Thus, in a prosecution for murder of a fetus in violation of § 187, the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on manslaughter of the fetus as a lesser included offense of the murder of the fetus. People v Apodaca (1978) 76 CA3d 479, 142 Cal Rptr 830.

The penalty enhancer attached to the wife's murder comes from here:

Any person who, during the commission of a felony or attempted felony, knows or reasonably should know that the victim is pregnant, and who, with intent to inflict injury, and without the consent of the woman, personally inflicts injury upon a pregnant woman that results in the termination of the pregnancy shall be punished by an additional and consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for five years. The additional term provided in this subdivision shall not be imposed unless the fact of that injury is charged in the accusatory pleading and admitted or found to be true by the trier of fact. Cal. Pen. Code § 12022.9 (2003).

Clarice

Short answer: because only the pregnant woman has a valid self-defense argument.

Long answer: For me, an embryo (as a proto-human at less than ten weeks LMP is known) or young fetus isn't a person at all. It doesn't have the most basic equipment required for human thought. Abort it, use its stem cells in research, it doesn't bother me. After about 20 weeks, I start to be concerned about the rights of the fetus. Nevertheless, I can see justification for late term abortions, in addition to things like imminent threat to the mother's life or anencephaly in the fetus.

Birth is by necessity a dangerous, painful, and disfiguring event. Yes, even a healthy, normal birth. A woman faced with, say, a certifiably insane full-grown man who threatened to do to her body what childbirth does to it would be justified in using lethal force against him, even though he lacks the ability to form the legal intent to harm her. Therefore, if an abortion offers a less risky, disfiguring, or painful end to the pregnancy than live birth, I think it's arguable that such an abortion would amount to a form of justifiable homicide, leaving intact the personhood of the fetus without punishing the woman or her doctors for murder.

Because the surviving victims suffer more, even if the pregnancy was very new. Parents and other relatives have an emotional investment in a pregnancy even if they do not believe that the fetus is a person yet. The law routinely acknowledges and compensates for emotional harm.

***

And to reiterate, LadyShea is right - the murder law applies only after the pregnancy reaches eight weeks gestation.