Murdering a Fetus

[MollyM/CA]

Not what you think, but scary and thought-provoking: a case now in the early stages of being brought to court in Sacramento.

Guy has girlfriend. Girlfriend is pregnant. Guy knifes girlfriend twice in stomach for express purpose of killing "fetus" --which is 7 months in the oven at this point. Fetus dies. Girl lives. Guy is on trial for murder of fetus.

It turns out that California law has a special provision for precisely this situation: the deliberate murder by whatever means and without the mother's consent or collusion, of a fetus. There is a paragraph that specifically exempts (legal) abortion, also (sometimes I think California has some sense).

The boyfriend (one hopes, ex-boyfriend by now!) can apparently (not clear from radio report) do more time for murdering the fetus than for assault on the girl, which the reporter and his interviewee seemed to think was all he could be tried for, as she lived and is apparently in OK shape physically.

I'd certainly be happy to see this charmer doing a lot of jail time, or stabbed in the stomach a couple times --whatever. But it's scary to think that we could be only a couple of lines away from a giant step backwards. Given what the current National administration has accomplished--

m

[Lindsey]

Of course, at seven months, you have a viable fetus anyway, so I don't have too much problem with the boyfriend being charged with murder in that case. And so long as the law preserves the principle of "mother decides," I think it's in the spirit of Roe v Wade.

The laws that give me pause are the ones that jail the mother for endangering the fetus for engaging in certain types of behavior during pregnancy. Yes, doing drugs or drinking to excess can have terrible effects on a developing fetus, and they can be things that have great cost for society as a whole, but where do you draw the line, you know? And it seems to me there are probably better ways to deal with those behaviors than making a criminal of the mother.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

I'd certainly be happy to see this charmer doing a lot of jail time, or stabbed in the stomach a couple times --whatever. But it's scary to think that we could be only a couple of lines away from a giant step backwards. Molly, by definition a seven-month fetus is viable. So I don't have a problem with saying that someone who commits an assault that results in the death of a viable fetus (outside of the constraints of legal abortion) has committed a crime which should be treated as equivalent to murder.

[Mike]

It turns out that California law has a special provision for precisely this situation: the deliberate murder by whatever means and without the mother's consent or collusion, of a fetus. There is a paragraph that specifically exempts (legal) abortion, also (sometimes I think California has some sense).
The law was created after Scott Peterson was accused of murdering his wife and unborn child, during the eight month of pregnancy.

[Peter Creasey]

at seven months, you have a viable fetus

At what point is a fetus deemed to be "viable"?

[earler]

They are virtually all viable at 7 months, and perhaps even at 6 months.

[Lindsey]

At what point is a fetus deemed to be "viable"?
Basically, the point which it could survive outside the womb without extraordinary measures. It's a fuzzy point, but I think most people would consider seven months to be past the viability line.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

The law was created after Scott Peterson was accused of murdering his wife and unborn child, during the eight month of pregnancy.
I really hate laws that are drawn to address specific cases.

--Lindsey

[Mike]

I really hate laws that are drawn to address specific cases.
I'm ambivalent.

Since a law cannot be applied ex post facto, it cannot be applied to specific cases. Sometimes those laws address oversights or loopholes.

In Peterson's case, his sentence wouldn't have been affected if the law could have applied to him. OTOH, if he'd been found innocent of his wife's murder, the law could have had an affect had it already been in place.

But I do agree that sometimes such laws are passed for reasons other than to address oversights or loopholes.

[Lindsey]

Since a law cannot be applied ex post facto, it cannot be applied to specific cases.
No, I didn't mean that it would be applied to specific cases, just that the law was drawn to address issues that are raised in specific cases. When they do that, they will usually name the law for the highly-publicized case that they are counting on to raise a tide of support for the legislation, however poorly drawn it might be. These are the laws that are usually named for the victim they have in mind. "Megan's Law," for example, or, in the case of the one that you are talking about, I believe I heard it referred to as "Conner's Law." I always cringe when I see laws named like that, because it's an indication that it's being carried forward on the strength of emotion, and when emotion is allowed to cloud reason, you get bad law.

I have no objection to addressing loopholes in the law when they come to light, but I hate the way the process is so deeply personalized these days, making it more like an episode of "Nancy Grace."

--Lindsey

[Mike]

I have no objection to addressing loopholes in the law when they come to light, but I hate the way the process is so deeply personalized these days...
With that, I agree.

[Peter Creasey]

I think most people would consider seven months to be past the viability line.

http://www.breitbart.com/images/2007/2/19/D8ND737G0/D8ND737G0_preview.jpg

New Viability Standard? (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/02/19/D8ND737G0.html)

[Judy G. Russell]

http://www.breitbart.com/images/2007/2/19/D8ND737G0/D8ND737G0_preview.jpg

New Viability Standard? (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/02/19/D8ND737G0.html)Nope. Viability for purposes of a generalized definition is the ability to live ON ONE'S OWN outside the womb: not to require vast amounts of medical resources in order to survive.

[Lindsey]

New Viability Standard? [/URL]
No, not as far as I am concerned. I believe the answer I gave you said "without extraordinary measures," and a 21-week-old fetus cannot survive outside of the womb without extraordinary measures. And I'm not convinced there there will be no consequences down the road from even a mild brain hemmorhage. Extremely premature babies are at increased risk for learning disabilites and other neurological problems.

--Lindsey