Political Forum - View Single Post

Makedde · #1 (**permalink**) 06-27-2008, 08:03 PM

For those who haven't bothered to do their research.

Wikipedia has this to say about a murder victim:

Quote:

All jurisdictions require that the victim be a natural person; that is a human being who was still alive at the time of being murdered. Most jurisdictions legally distinguish killing a fetus or unborn child as a different crime, such as illegal abortion of a fetus or the unlawful killing of an unborn child. The distinction between a fetus and an unborn child in these jurisdictions is that a child could survive if it had been born, while a fetus could not.

So, born people have one law, unborn 'people' have another law. Both laws are designed to protect the fetus (from persons other than the mother) and the unborn childs mother.

Here's what Victorian law (my state) in Victoria says about fetal homocide:

Quote:

Under Victorian law, it is illegal to kill, by unlawful means, an unborn child that is capable of being born alive. [26] This offence is termed child destruction in the Act. For example, if Person A assaulted Person B with intent to kill B's unborn child, Person A is guilty of child destruction and assault - and thus would be liable, under Victorian law to 15 years imprisonment for child destruction plus 5 years imprisonment for assault.

I, for one, was not aware this law was in place - and I not entirely sure this law actually exists anymore, as it was put in place in the mid fifties, so it may have been removed.

This is the definition of infanticide:

Quote:

Infanticide is the killing of a newly-born child by its mother where the mother's mind was disturbed as a result of giving birth or of consequent lactation. It is a type of homicide but is excluded from murder.

So this states that the crime of infanticide can only be committed by the mother, and that it is not murder.

Here is the definition of fetal homocide laws in the United States:

Quote:

Under the common law, an assault on a pregnant woman resulting in a stillbirth was not considered murder; the child had to have breathed at least once to be a human being. Remedies were limited to criminal penalties for the assault on the mother and tort action for loss of the anticipated economic services of the lost child and/or for emotional pain and suffering. With the widespread adoption of laws against abortion, the assailant could be charged with that offense, but the penalty was often only a fine and a few days in jail.

When the Supreme Court greatly reduced laws prohibiting abortions in Roe v. Wade (1973) those sanctions became harder to use. This meant that an assault which ensured that the baby never breathed would result in a lesser charge. Various states passed "fetal homicide" laws, making killing of an unborn child murder; the laws differ about the stage of development at which the child is protected. After several well-publicized cases, Congress passed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which specifically criminalizes harming a fetus, with the same penalties as for a similar attack upon a person, when the attack would be a federal offense. Most such attacks fall under state laws; for instance, Scott Peterson was convicted of killing his unborn son as well as his wife under California's pre-existing fetal homicide law.

Here is a rather interesting artical about how fetal homicide laws came into existance:

Fetal Homicide

And finally, because I shall present both sides, here is an artical from a woman who opposes fetal homicide laws - read it and see what you think:

Law

Hopefully there is enough information provided to give everyone involved in this debate a better understanding of exactly what a fetal homicide is. I admit even I have learned a few things - hopefully you will, too.