Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

Does it apply at any time in pregnancy? i.e. a woman at say a month is not exactly "obviously pregnant", so if someone kills her zygote/cluster of cells/child/embryo/whatever in some act of criminality but is unaware of the existance of said "thing" then is the penalty still applicable?

I'm not interested in the argument of whether the thing constuitutes a "human life" or whatever, I'm just curious whether it applies in cases where the woman is not "obviously pregnant". I mean is there some clause that the woman has to say "I'm preganant" if she is not showing in order to gain the proteection of that particularly law or is it a blanket coverage?

The reason I aks is that the coverage of the law here is very limited.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 24747

A good question. Is a pregnancy test conducted post mortem and if it is positive does the law apply? I dunno. I do know, however, that this law is just another step toward painting ourselves into the corner in argument of morality that science is rapidly going to force to a conclusion.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location:
Posts: 3030

I'd say it probably doesn't matter if the perpetrator knew the woman was pregnant. If you burn down a house to kill someone, and you didn't realize someone else was in the house, you'd still be legally responsible for that second death. And from what I've read, intent doesn't really come into this particular law.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35656

Sentencing in that case would often run concurrently, I think, here in the UK at least.

Because of Roe v Wade, this seems to be a logical inconsistency in the law though, to me.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2003
Location: North Myrtle Beach SC
Posts: 3353

i'm sure this law will end up being used in stupid ways .

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2004
Location: kansas.
Posts: 346

Interesting question which made me go find the bill text online -

quote:

---

`(B) An offense under this section does not require proof that--

`(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or

`(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

quote:

---

Originally posted by nymbus
I'd say it probably doesn't matter if the perpetrator knew the woman was pregnant.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 24747

Thanks, snarkychick. I read an article in Discover magazine recently that has science an the verge of defining viable life. As I have said, the walls are closing in on the this argument fast.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35656

In the end, I don't see why it won't be possible to take a foetus at any stage and grow it, with some sort of artificial womb. Although that must be a long time off, it is possible. I'm more interested in a legal state of affairs where the foetus counts as a human until the mother wants to abort it.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 24747

Precisely, SG. And extra-utero support (or artificial womb) is not as far off as you think.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location:
Posts: 3030

quote:

---

Originally posted by philjit
I wasn;t asking you what you think though, I was asking what the law was.

Seems that intent does come into it (assuming the linked text is correct)

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 2573

Last i checked ignorance was no defence in any law.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35656

Ignorance of the law is no defence. Ignorance in general certainly can be a defence, though.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

quote:

---

Originally posted by nymbus
And I was telling you what I thought the law was

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 10152

quote:

---

Originally posted by philjit
No you weren't. You said "I'd say it probably doesn't matter". You're expressing your opinion on how you think it ought to be, not how you think it is.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 24747

The fact is that the cunundrum of the "what constitutes human life " is rapidly being unraveled by science and our own lack of understanding of where we stand on the issue. We legislate to extend rights to the unborn with the very same pen we use to legislate that no such rights exist. The clock is running out on this issue and it will need to be settled one way or the other, sooner rather than later. I personally have an opinion as to what it will come down to, but this thread was not started for that purpose so I will refrain from expressing it here.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

quote:

---

Originally posted by MstrG
Yes, because it's such a remote concept to imagine leaving off the clause at the beginning of the sentence "Based on what I've seen/heard about it...". Far be it for Phil to put words in anyone's mouth.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged