Pro-choice people what would you want these men should be charged with?

Murder? but they aren't born therefore if a mother has an abortion the results are the same, so how can you justify saying certain people you can end this life but others can't?

Assault on the mother? They have just ended 2 lives is that enough?

When it comes to pro-life to pro-choice I don't care but I think if we give women the right to abort a child a father should have the right to abort parental responsibility similar to how a woman has the chance to end parental responsibility until a certain date.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/pregnant-woman-loses-twins-shot-in-stomach-unprovoked-attack-washington-usa-a7232531.html

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

BabyLadDarren

Assault and agree on the forfeiting parental right thing.

Grievous bodily harm

I'd it call murder.
In terms of abortion, I only support rape victims. The vast majority of abortions are performed due to immaturity, stupidity, or for convenience.
You can't just say, "My body" when killing someone else's body!

Reply 4

Dez

Original post by joecphillips

Crime is about intent and context, not just the resulting action. Though the foetuses obviously have no independent lives, they would have done if the woman hadn't been shot.

Imagine another scenario: a man has a near-fatal accident. He's not breathing, and is being rushed to hospital in an ambulance. But en route, another driver hits the ambulance. The resulting crash means the man never makes it to hospital and dies at the scene. Is the driver responsible, even if the man may have died of other causes once he reached the hospital anyway? The answer is probably yes, despite the fact that life might have been forfeit anyway, the driver's actions means he's guilty of death by dangerous driving.

So to answer your question, it'd be assault with a deadly weapon, GBH, and manslaughter, most likely. Cases like this are hardly black and white though, so it'll be up to the court to decide in the fairest way possible, we hope.

Attempted murder

Original post by Dez

So to answer your question, it'd be assault with a deadly weapon, GBH, and manslaughter, most likely. Cases like this are hardly black and white though, so it'll be up to the court to decide in the fairest way possible, we hope.

So, it's manslaughter if a gunman kills them but if a mother does so it's perfectly fine?

Can't you see the logical inconsistency with this position?

Either it's manslaughter in which case it's a person or it's no more serious than shooting someone in the hand as it's just a bunch of cells.

SS

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 7

Dez

Original post by Supersaps

There is no logical inconsistency, it's all about context. Theft is illegal, yet there are many legal ways in which a person may be forced to part with their money or possessions. Law is complicated.

Reply 8

username878267

Original post by joecphillips

Grievous Bodily Harm.
Quite a simple answer. It's not murder because they are not legally classed as humans at that time.

I'm really not sure what the issue is here.

Reply 9

Good bloke

Assuming the facts are as reported in the link and that the witness beliefs are well-founded, this is attempted murder as the gunman was trying to kill one person - a gang rival - and was incompetent enough to shoot the pregnant bystander instead. The foetuses are irrelevant in this respect; the same would be true if the woman had not been pregnant.

Reply 10

user73867

Original post by Dez

Law is complicated.

You can't directly contradict yourself and then hide behind the fact 'the law is complicated' - the entire point of the law is that it can be applied to all persons in all situations - that's why we call it 'the law' and not the 'whatever I feel like.' (Although, of course, there are aggravating and mitigating factors.)

You believe that it is manslaughter if the baby is wanted by the mother but if the baby is unwanted then it's just a clump of cells.

As you will know, the law makes no provision for life being more or less valuable because it is wanted or not. The value of life is not dependent on how much that life is wanted.

You must either retract the statement he should be prosecuted for manslaughter or you must admit that abortion is killing a child. It cannot be both.

SS

Reply 11

username878267

Original post by Good bloke

True. I think the question that the OP was really trying to get at though was if someone was trying to kill a woman's unborn baby/ies and did so, would that be classed as murder.

Which it wouldn't, it would be grievous bodily harm, among other things.

Reply 12

username878267

Original post by Supersaps

It isn't manslaughter because the fetus is not legally a human. It's grievous bodily harm, among other things.

Reply 13

user73867

Original post by Bornblue

It isn't manslaughter because the fetus is not legally a human. It's grievous bodily harm, among other things.

Right. I have no umbrage with the logical consistency of your position.

I believe you're wrong, but at least you're consistent. You believe it isn't anymore wrong to smash two baby twins skulls in with a .45 caliber round than to shoot someone in the kidneys.

You're wrong but at least you're consistent.

SS

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 14

username878267

Original post by Supersaps

I don't see how I am wrong. We are not legally classed as human beings until we have been born. Murder is an offence that can only be committed on a human.

Thus if someone shoots a woman in the stomach, killing her unborn babies then it cannot be murder but it will be grievous bodily harm against the mother.

Reply 15

math42

GBH.

I agree that the father should be able to forfeit parental responsibilities.

Reply 16

username2488767

It's GBH. I know where people are coming from, definitely, but the law says (as others have already mentioned) that we are not people until we are born. Just because people's opinions see this as murder, doesn't make it the correct charge as it's just not how our legal system works. Otherwise, any doctor who performed an abortion would have to be charged with murder.

Reply 17

Good bloke

Original post by joecphillips

Murder? but they aren't born therefore if a mother has an abortion the results are the same, so how can you justify saying certain people you can end this life but others can't?

Leaving aside the pretence that the shooter was intending to kill the foetuses, or even shoot the woman, neither of which appears to be true, the big difference is that a legal abortion would remove the foetus with the consent of the mother and for medically-approved reasons such as risk to the mother and foetal abnormality. In this case, the shooter was an outside agency and had no such permission or justification.

The comparison is a false one.

Reply 18

Dez

Original post by Supersaps

You must either retract the statement he should be prosecuted for manslaughter or you must admit that abortion is killing a child. It cannot be both.

The law allows abortions when a pregnant woman wishes to undergo one, under certain conditions. The law does not allow anyone else to to cause harm to an unborn foetus. That is why one will involve criminal charges and the other will not.