The woman was six months pregnant and, after the punch, she went into labor and delivered a dead baby.

Under Minnesota law:

"Whoever does either of the following is guilty of murder of an unborn child in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:

(1) causes the death of an unborn child with intent to effect the death of that unborn child or another, but without premeditation; or

(2) [snip]"

It is obviously appropriate to criminally prosecute a person for punching a pregnant woman when that results in the death of the fetus.

But, I think this raises a couple of questions:

FIRST: Should the act be characterized as "murder" of an "unborn child"?

I know this may seem like word-play but either a fetus is or it is not a "child". And, calling a fetus a “child” is antithetical to the right to an abortion.

With regard to calling it “murder”, I generally think of “murder” as the unlawful killing of a human being. So, if the act is called “murder”, that also seems antithetical to the right to an abortion.

SECOND: What should the punishment be for a person who does what the 18 year old man in the story is accused of?

I think the anti-choice people would eagerly insist on imposing a sentence on the offender that is equal to the sentence that would be imposed on a person convicted of killing a human being. But, by imposing that severe of a sentence, does the sentence, itself, not imply an equality of a fetus with a human being? If a fetus is, well, fetal tissue, why would the offender not be sentenced as though he had, instead, cut off the woman’s arm or some other part of the woman’s body?

For a proponent of a woman’s right to choose, calling this “murder” of an “unborn child” punishable by 40 years in prison seems to be, at least indirectly, a threat to that fundamental right.

quote:

---

Originally posted by marzo:
I think that those two men should be food for carnivorous animals. There are starving polar bears in the Arctic.
Of course, this does not answer the question about the status of a fetus. It's just my judgemental attitude towards their cruelty, gutlessness, stupidity, and petty money-grubbing.

---

Basically, he forced an abortion on her, even if he didn't mean for that outcome to happen. That's just as bad, in my books, as forcing a woman NOT to abort. That's worse than just assault. That is interference with her reproductive rights. I would say that emotionally, that would be somewhat akin to rape. I mean, it's not the same, but the violation, at least for me, would be equal.

[ 02 May 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

At the very least, it's assault causing bodily harm--a felony offense in most countries.

Is it murder? That question of course opens the huge can-o-worms discussion about whether a fetus is a human person in and of itself and whether that should have an impact on the whole matter of choice on abortion.

Given, though, that the woman was six-months pregnant--which is well beyond the limit of abortions in Canada (which, if memory serves, is limited to the first 18 weeks of pregnancy), and a fetus has generally developed at least partially its own brain and nervous system by then, giving it the basic features of what could be considered a human person, I suppose it can be considered murder.

Also, if it can be proven that the perps were attacking the women with the intent to force her to terminate or deliver still-born, they could maybe be charged with assault with intent to kill (since they would have intended to stop the fetus from developing into a baby child).

Personally, I can't find any real medical evidence to show that a pre-18-week-old fetus is a person individually separate and of itself from the woman who carries it. It's certainly alive, but it's pretty much an extension of the pregnant woman herself until after that point. So it’s not a crime to be pro-choice on abortion (unlike cetain unnamed religious wacko organizations may claim). After then, when it shows definite signs or basic characteristics of human personhood, then the choice period obviously should end.

But for now, I can only imagine what that poor woman and her family must be going through because of this.

quote:

---

I certainly agree that the perps should get sentenced to life in front of a firing squad for their cruelty.

---

Really? Or are you just saying this for rhetorical effect?

I don't. I don't want to see anyone sentenced to death. What I'd really like is for this guy to go to jail, and for the whole penal system to change so that he gets lots of counselling, good food and lodgings, learns how to live in a community of people who are likewise receiving good counselling, getting decent food and lodgings and basically be treated like a human being.

Now, if it turns out that he's too dangerous to be allowed back out in society without being violent, then he should remain in this community.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Southlander:
and what about the guy who punches his girlfriend when she asks, cos she doesn't want to be pregnant, and the fetus dies?

---

That's exactly why the act in the original newspaper story should not be characterized as "murder". If it was "murder" to kill a fetus by punching a pregnant woman in the stomach, it would still be "murder" if the person did the punching at the behest of the woman.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steppenwolf Allende:

Given, though, that the woman was six-months pregnant--which is well beyond the limit of abortions in Canada (which, if memory serves, is limited to the first 18 weeks of pregnancy), and a fetus has generally developed at least partially its own brain and nervous system by then, giving it the basic features of what could be considered a human person, I suppose it can be considered murder.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steppenwolf Allende:
Given, though, that the woman was six-months pregnant--which is well beyond the limit of abortions in Canada (which, if memory serves, is limited to the first 18 weeks of pregnancy)....

---

First, homicide is defined as involving the death of a "human being".

"222. (1) A person commits homicide when, directly or indirectly, by any means, he causes the death of a human being."

Then, the Code says:

quote:

---

223. (1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not

(a) it has breathed;

(b) it has an independent circulation; or

(c) the navel string is severed.

---

So, as long as the fetus is inside the mother, whether partially or completely, it is impossible to "murder" it, because it is not a human being.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
definition of human being s. 223

---

Thanks for the interesting link and direct quotation from the criminal code. It is worth reading the next section as well: "(2) A person commits homicide when he causes injury to a child before or during its birth as a result of which the child dies after becoming a human being."

quote:

---

Martha(bnS): The language is a little odd: both sections of the criminal code suggest that a child becomes a human being: thus an organism can be a child (according to the code) without simultaneously being a human being.

---

Not odd at all. A child NOT brought up by human parents is not a human being; children returned to human society after being "raised by wolves" or other non-human animals have always failed to become fully human. We're social animals and that's our human nature; it's what makes us human. We're zoon politikon said Marx, quoting Aristotle.

[ 03 May 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

Every so often there's an issue such as this one which attempts to play one sacred cow against another. Like gay rights and Islam, or the Canada health act and private abortion clinics, et cetera.

Don't give in. What these two men did is murder.

[ 03 May 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
I'm sorry, did you just call me a liar?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Let's be honest. It's a "wedge" issue for the anti-abortionists who would like nothing better than to find a lever with which they might overturn some of the most enlightened abortion laws in the world here in Canada.

---

Exactly, and anyone who brings it up here is simply trying to open some type of debate, in their relentless desire to but into other peoples business. Personally, I find it pure assualt, there has been 2 in 2 days. It is even more galling when a man, who is quite obviously a soc-con raises some story from somewhere pertaining to a fetus, or a woman's right to choose.

quote:

---

remind: BTW, what Minnesota does, is their own damn business, and has no application here in Canada.

---

Well, yea, but ... I'm glad that Minnesota sided with Manitoba in regard to the dumping of foreign biota by the state of North Dakota into the Red River Valley watershed. [Devil's Lake, etc.] We had a common interest with Minnesota on that issue as the Minnesotans were the first to get the same unknown crap that Manitoba was getting later; the Devil's Lake biota was going into the Cheyenne River (Minnesota) that fed into the Red River (Manitoba). The Minnesotans made dealing with the U.S. Government easier/stronger than if Manitoba was alone.

[ 03 May 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
So, as long as the fetus is inside the mother, whether partially or completely, it is impossible to "murder" it, because it is not a human being.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Let's be honest. It's a "wedge" issue for the anti-abortionists who would like nothing better than to find a lever with which they might overturn some of the most enlightened abortion laws in the world here in Canada.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
That’s exactly how I see it. It’s also why a law like that is concerning.

---

Why is it concerning to you? I can't imagine why.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:

Not odd at all. A child NOT brought up by human parents is not a human being; children returned to human society after being "raised by wolves" or other non-human animals have always failed to become fully human.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly Brandybuck:
The baby was not born dead though. She was a live birth with severe medical complications - the decision was made nine days later to remove her from life support.

I wonder if that will affect the defense?

---

Canada's Criminal Code states, "A person commits homicide when he causes injury to a child before or during its birth as a result of which the child dies after becoming a human being."

quote:

---

Martha (bnS): If you killed ... [etc]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
This is all academic. As far as I'm aware, no such child has survived into adulthood. But perhaps your great capacity for hair-splitting will serve you well somehow.

---

I believe that it is completely inappropriate to use sarcasm your interlocutor in an otherwise perfectly civil conversation.

quote:

---

As stated by the Pro-Choice Action Network, "Canada has no law at all restricting abortion." There is a further question of whether you could actually get a physician to agree to peform an abortion after a certain number weeks: presumably different physicians have their own personal limits and policies. But, whatever a physician's personal policies, abortion is legal in Canada throughout all nine months of a pregnancy.

---

Thanks for this info. The abortions I know about al took place within the first 18 weeks. I have been told the health risks to the woman increase the later in the term of pregnancy, as well as the ehtical concerns some doctors have the more developed the fetus gets.

quote:

---

222. (1) A person commits homicide when, directly or indirectly, by any means, he causes the death of a human being."

Then, the Code says:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
223. (1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not
(a) it has breathed;

(b) it has an independent circulation; or

(c) the navel string is severed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, as long as the fetus is inside the mother, whether partially or completely, it is impossible to "murder" it, because it is not a human being.

---

OK, this makes sense with the Pro-Choice Action Network info.

I wrote above:

quote:

---

I certainly agree that the perps should get sentenced to life in front of a firing squad for their cruelty.

---

Michelle asked:

quote:

---

Really? Or are you just saying this for rhetorical effect?

---

Obviously the latter. Life in front of a firing squad would be kind of impractical

quote:

---

What I'd really like is for this guy to go to jail, and for the whole penal system to change so that he gets lots of counselling, good food and lodgings, learns how to live in a community of people who are likewise receiving good counselling, getting decent food and lodgings and basically be treated like a human being.

---

This certainly is a good thing in many cases. I didn't check to see if this guy has a violent track record. However, it's quite clear he knew he was up to no good when he attacked that woman. Some societal retribution may be justified as well.

quote:

---

Exactly, and anyone who brings it up here is simply trying to open some type of debate, in their relentless desire to but into other peoples business. .. It is even more galling when a man, who is quite obviously a soc-con raises some story from somewhere pertaining to a fetus, or a woman's right to choose.

---

Who are we talking about here, Remind? Is that what you think this is all about?

Paranoia will destroy ya!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steppenwolf Allende:
Life in front of a firing squad would be kind of impractical

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boarsbreath:
Why do we need an analogy at all? It's not criminal because it's like murder, or because it's like coerced abortion; it's criminal because it's assaulting a woman with a punch to the abdomen and killing (contributing to the death of) the foetus.

In an ideal world, that is, where we're legislators. (The original statute in the posting clearly is an anti-abortion gesture.)

---

Boars:

that is the problem. isn't it? It is more than just an assault on that woman, but less than a murder of a child.

One question to ask is does this situation occur frequently enough to enact specific legislaton?, or will current statutes cover it?

I reject a death penelity without any consideration, like Michelle - yet I can only hope that the law or the sentencing guidelines allow for more than regular penelities and attempts at rehibilitation.

Can anger management or sensitivities toward indentifiable groups in society (in this case women) be mandated? If he refuses to attend the classes or courses, what can be done?

quote:

---

So, as long as the fetus is inside the mother, whether partially or completely, it is impossible to "murder" it, because it is not a human being.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Not odd at all. A child NOT brought up by human parents is not a human being; children returned to human society after being "raised by wolves" or other non-human animals have always failed to become fully human. We're social animals and that's our human nature; it's what makes us human. We're zoon politikon said Marx, quoting Aristotle.

---

[ 04 May 2007: Message edited by: Agent 204 ]

quote:

---

A child NOT brought up by human parents is not a human being; children returned to human society after being "raised by wolves" or other non-human animals have always failed to become fully human. We're social animals and that's our human nature; it's what makes us human.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phrillie:
Huh? What makes us "human" is being a member of Homo sapiens. A child raised by non-humans doesn't change species.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
To put this slightly differently: A dog raised by homo sapiens is still a canine, not a homo sapien.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phrillie:
Oh, now you've gone too far.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
Well, we do consider our two cats and two poochies as family members!

---

quote:

---

Phrillie: Huh? What makes us "human" is being a member of Homo sapiens. A child raised by non-humans doesn't change species.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
You're not getting it. Human beings are biosocial beings - with emphasis on the "social" part. Take that part away - raise a child by wolves, say - and the key part is missing. Biology is less than half of what we are. A newborn is only a potential person/human being. The proof is that all the known cases of newborns without human upbringing never develop as fully human.

---

And, while you're at, tell me what "fully human" means, please.

[ 05 May 2007: Message edited by: Phrillie ]