Chances for debates are high, please read with caution.
PrincessLou71186
Posts: 741 Member
Whilst studying I came across an interesting question. (Law in the UK if anyone is wondering.)
"A person stabs a woman who is pregnant. The woman survives but the child is born prematurely and later dies as a consequence. Should the culprit be convicted of unlawfully killing another human being?"
Whist typing up my response I was curious about what others thought about it.
"This very question was looked at by the highest court in the land, the House of Lords, in 1997 in the case of Attorney General’s Reference (No. 3 of 1994) 29 BMLR 99. The facts of the case were that on 26 May 1990 a man stabbed his girlfriend, who was to his knowledge 22-24 weeks pregnant with his child, in the face, abdomen and back. Seventeen days later the child was born, and survived for 120 days before dying from the effects of premature birth. The mother recovered. In that case the attacker was given a four-year prison sentence for a serious assault charge but he was not convicted of a homicide offence (which includes murder and manslaughter). The matter was then referred to the House of Lords so that they could give advice on how similar cases should be dealt with in the future. They ruled that a foetus could not be the victim of a violent crime where the violence to the foetus causes its death in utero (Latin for ‘in the uterus’), unless an Act of Parliament stated that a different rule was to apply. In his judgment, Lord Mustill stated that an unborn child ‘does not have a distinct legal personality, whose extinguishment gives rise to any penalties or liabilities at common law’. However, where, as in this case, the baby was born alive but then dies of its injuries, the appropriate offence would be manslaughter."
My response is: Yes the culprit should be convicted. Once the foetus has a heartbeat it is living and breathing with the aid of the mother. Essentially, it is still a person, growing until s/he is ready to be brought into the world, same as a baby or toddler are growing and being cared for by guardians until they are old enough to do so by themselves. ‘In utero’ is simply the stage of the person’s existence and any injury should be accounted for.
Anyone else care to share their thoughts on the matter?
"A person stabs a woman who is pregnant. The woman survives but the child is born prematurely and later dies as a consequence. Should the culprit be convicted of unlawfully killing another human being?"
Whist typing up my response I was curious about what others thought about it.
"This very question was looked at by the highest court in the land, the House of Lords, in 1997 in the case of Attorney General’s Reference (No. 3 of 1994) 29 BMLR 99. The facts of the case were that on 26 May 1990 a man stabbed his girlfriend, who was to his knowledge 22-24 weeks pregnant with his child, in the face, abdomen and back. Seventeen days later the child was born, and survived for 120 days before dying from the effects of premature birth. The mother recovered. In that case the attacker was given a four-year prison sentence for a serious assault charge but he was not convicted of a homicide offence (which includes murder and manslaughter). The matter was then referred to the House of Lords so that they could give advice on how similar cases should be dealt with in the future. They ruled that a foetus could not be the victim of a violent crime where the violence to the foetus causes its death in utero (Latin for ‘in the uterus’), unless an Act of Parliament stated that a different rule was to apply. In his judgment, Lord Mustill stated that an unborn child ‘does not have a distinct legal personality, whose extinguishment gives rise to any penalties or liabilities at common law’. However, where, as in this case, the baby was born alive but then dies of its injuries, the appropriate offence would be manslaughter."
My response is: Yes the culprit should be convicted. Once the foetus has a heartbeat it is living and breathing with the aid of the mother. Essentially, it is still a person, growing until s/he is ready to be brought into the world, same as a baby or toddler are growing and being cared for by guardians until they are old enough to do so by themselves. ‘In utero’ is simply the stage of the person’s existence and any injury should be accounted for.
Anyone else care to share their thoughts on the matter?
0
Replies
-
There's an entire board dedicated to such debatable debates.0
-
I agree, he should have been charged with murder. He deliberately stabbed the woman. As a consequence of that action the child died. If he hadn't have done what he did, the child would not have been born premature. Definitely murder in my opinion. He may have stabbed HER, but that unborn baby was dependent upon her for it's life.0
-
Take it elsewhere. Not the place for these shenanigans.0
-
I agree, he should have been charged with murder. He deliberately stabbed the woman. As a consequence of that action the child died. If he hadn't have done what he did, the child would not have been born premature. Definitely murder in my opinion. He may have stabbed HER, but that unborn baby was dependent upon her for it's life.
^agree0 -
In some (most?) states in the U.S., the offender would have been charged with a double murder, whether the baby was born premature or he had died along with the mother.0
-
Caution: this is an abortion post. Any minute all of you will be called murders.0
-
Caution: this is an abortion post. Any minute all of you will be called murders.
This has NOTHING to do with abortion.0 -
I agree, he should have been charged with murder. He deliberately stabbed the woman. As a consequence of that action the child died. If he hadn't have done what he did, the child would not have been born premature. Definitely murder in my opinion. He may have stabbed HER, but that unborn baby was dependent upon her for it's life.
^agree
Ditto... especially in the case that you described... the fetus, in the example you provided, would have been considered a viable fetus... thus meaning that if it had been born prematurely it had a chance (albeit a small one) to live.0 -
Caution: this is an abortion post. Any minute all of you will be called murders.
This has NOTHING to do with abortion.
It's asking the question if a fetus is a person. It has everything to do with abortion.0 -
Caution: this is an abortion post. Any minute all of you will be called murders.
This has NOTHING to do with abortion.
It's asking the question if a fetus is a person. It has everything to do with abortion.
Apparently, the answer to that question is relative based on the individual... so while there are many shades of gray, should a person whose future child was murdered (not by the will of the mother, ie abortion) in utereo not recieve justice nor compensation for the life of the child they where attempting to carry to term? The mother wanted it, most like called it her "child", "baby", perhaps even by a name and not "it" or "fetus"... so the carrying mother, it was her baby... not some "clump of cells" or a "parasite" or a "zygote"... it was her child... a person... There will NEVER be a clear answer to the question, because it always depends on a person and how they view the world and their experiences.0 -
I agree, he should have been charged with murder. He deliberately stabbed the woman. As a consequence of that action the child died. If he hadn't have done what he did, the child would not have been born premature. Definitely murder in my opinion. He may have stabbed HER, but that unborn baby was dependent upon her for it's life.
^agree
Agree too before this thread gets locked.0 -
Caution: this is an abortion post. Any minute all of you will be called murders.
This has NOTHING to do with abortion.
It's asking the question if a fetus is a person. It has everything to do with abortion.
"a·bor·tion   [uh-bawr-shuhn] Show IPA
noun
1. Also called voluntary abortion. the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.
2. any of various surgical methods for terminating a pregnancy, especially during the first six months.
3. Also called spontaneous abortion. miscarriage ( def. 1 ) ."
The question was "A person stabs a woman who is pregnant. The woman survives but the child is born prematurely and later dies as a consequence. Should the culprit be convicted of unlawfully killing another human being? "
According to the definitions of abortion, the question has nothing to do with abortion. The 'act of stabbing' was not to end the pregnancy, voluntary or spontaneous, the 'act of stabbing' was to injure the mother.
The question I am asking is: Can the child be classed as murdered?
In case anyone is wondering my views on abortion, here they are: Unless it is medically necessary, I don't believe it should happen. As it happens, it is also law where I live.0 -
I think, given the facts it was the right decision.
At the time of the offence the baby had a separate legal personality as it was part of, and dependent on, the mother. The intention was to hurt the mother not the child. In addition the child died as a result of the premature birth and not the injury caused. Yes, it could be argued that the premature birth was as a result of the attack but to establish a direct chain of causation would be very difficult in reality. There would be a number of intervening factors which could have caused the premature birth.
Emotionally yes, it is murder but the law has to put emotion to one side.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions