CreateDebate


Debate Info

54
65
Oh God Yes! No, that's stooopid
Debate Score:119
Arguments:114
Total Votes:142
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Oh God Yes! (43)
 
 No, that's stooopid (51)

Debate Creator

Hellno(17753) pic



Should the Murderer of a Pregnant Woman be Charged with Two Murders?

Okay, I may not have worded that well but you know what the fuck i mean.

Oh God Yes!

Side Score: 54
VS.

No, that's stooopid

Side Score: 65

If the pregnancy was past the point were abortion was legal then yes. So if the woman was close to giving birth then yes, but if she were only like 8 weeks then no.

Side: Oh God Yes!
1 point

YES!! 2 murders...2 deaths. Simple logic. It is ludicrous that someone would even debate this question. The poor defenseless unborn child would have eventually become a human being, just like you and I.

Side: Oh God Yes!
1 point

i believe it depends on whether or not the baby was legally allowed to be aborted or not.

Side: Oh God Yes!

Yes, obviously if it was past the point where you wouldn't abort that baby you're treating that unborn baby like a person, so they shouldn't be murdered.

I do think though that they should take more seriously the murder of the mother because the unborn child is debatable, as sad as that sounds.

Side: Oh God Yes!

Yes because both the mother and the unborn child have the right to live.

Side: Oh God Yes!
Hellno(17753) Disputed
2 points

But abortion is legal... so should a doctor who performs an abortion be charged with murder?

Side: No, that's stooopid
Stickers(1037) Clarified
1 point

Can you imagine how ridiculous that would look in court ?

Side: Oh God Yes!
SitaraMusica(536) Clarified
1 point

Agrees that abortion is legal. I think it is okay to save the life of the mother, but otherwise no. To answer your question, I think the doctor be held accountable.

Side: Oh God Yes!
Troy8(2433) Disputed
2 points

It's morally inconsistent to say that while supporting abortion.

Side: No, that's stooopid
1 point

I'm not even sure what in the heck an "unborn" child would look like...

Side: No, that's stooopid
-1 points

Agrees with your response. I now believe that life begins at implantation because I saw a picture of a baby born at 15 weeks. :)

Side: Oh God Yes!
Stickers(1037) Disputed
1 point

Seriously? You're going through my arguments and downvoting them?

Side: No, that's stooopid

Murder, as a crime, requires intent. One would think that, in order to convict someone of a double murder, they would need to prove specific intent to kill the unborn child (which the murderer may well not even be aware of the existence of).

I'd say that it would be reasonable to charge the murderer with one count of murder and one count of manslaughter, but not two murders.

I base this off of the fact that a person can be charged with murder for disconnecting a brain dead individual from life support when he or she does not have the authority to do so, despite the fact that the family can do so without penalty. Even if the mother of the unborn child has the right to terminate the pregnancy, she is the only one with that right. i went with manslaughter in this case because there is intent when disconnecting life support, but not necessarily intent when an unborn child dies along with the targeted pregnant woman.

Side: No, that's stooopid
Jace(5222) Clarified
2 points

Thank you for making the murder/manslaughter distinction.

Side: Oh God Yes!
thousandin1(1931) Clarified
1 point

Of course. In practice though it doesn't really seem to matter; the biggest strength and weakness of our justice system, imo, is the jury. Not the system that requires a jury, but specifically the jury/jurors.

Convictions get overturned on appeal pretty regularly; one reason this happens is when it's easily demonstrated that there was insufficient evidence for the jury to convict an individual on the charges as filed.

Side: Oh God Yes!
1 point

Great point about manslaughter although Scott Peterson was convicted of a double murder.... but maybe the prosecution argued he wanted them both dead? I don't really know.... and the jury was made up of a bunch of California kooks so anything is possible.

Side: No, that's stooopid
thousandin1(1931) Clarified
1 point

I don't know the specifics of the case in question, but I will say that there is a huge grey area here.

For some, simply having intent to kill the pregnant mother means intent to kill the unborn fetus. Given that the death of the unborn is an almost certain result of the death of the mother, this isn't an entirely unreasonable position to hold, and in some jurisdictions I'm sure one could make the argument that 1) The killer was proven to have intent to kill the woman and 2) The killer knew that the woman was pregnant, drawing the conclusion that the intent to kill the unborn fetus was implied.

I'd personally require more than that, but I'm not everybody. And if it is clear that the killer did not know the woman was pregnant, I couldn't vote guilty to the second murder charge regardless.

Side: Oh God Yes!
1 point

I'd say that it would be reasonable to charge the murderer with one count of murder and one count of manslaughter, but not two murders.

If I'm remembering my studies correctly, this happened in a case in which someone hit the mother, and this caused defects in the baby that later died when born. There was causation found between the assault and the death so there was a charge of manslaughter (really, there was causation for murder too - the judgement is a little strange...).

In any case the most appropriate charge is "child destruction", which is the unlawful termination of a foetus. There is no need to complicate things by saying that the law of murder applies to foetuses. To be the victim of murder you have to be a "human being". I believe in the USA you now define a foetus as a human being under the law of murder. In England we do not. I see no reason to muddy the law of murder to include foetuses when there is a separate law that covers their termination.

I base this off of the fact that a person can be charged with murder for disconnecting a brain dead individual from life support when he or she does not have the authority to do so, despite the fact that the family can do so without penalty. Even if the mother of the unborn child has the right to terminate the pregnancy, she is the only one with that right. i went with manslaughter in this case because there is intent when disconnecting life support, but not necessarily intent when an unborn child dies along with the targeted pregnant woman.

Makes me think of the case of R v Woollin. A guy shook a 3 month old baby and threw him onto a hard surface. The baby died. The man claimed, although he knew throwing the baby would certainly kill him, he did not have the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (this was previously the test of the state of mind for murder). The court found that someone could be found guilty of murder, despite the fact the didn't have direct intent, if the death was a "virtual certainty" of the act and the defendant appreciated this to be the case. This is known as oblique intent murder.

So, I suppose, if the defendant knew that the unborn child would virtually certainly die as a result of killing the mother then he should be culpable for the death of the unborn children. However, as I say, I don't believe a foetus should be the victim of a murder charge. "children destruction" is the most appropriate charge.

Side: No, that's stooopid
2 points

Let me be a little serious just this once. In some states they can be charged with a double murder and I'm calling bullshit on that because abortion is legal... if abortion were illegal then I'd be okay with it but hey, that's just my opinion.

Okay, I'm done being serious now.

Side: No, that's stooopid
ProLogos(2793) Disputed
1 point

But it is still illegal to do an abortion without the woman's consent, that means that it is an unlawful killing of the baby, murder.

Side: Oh God Yes!
King0Mir(67) Disputed
2 points

If abortion is not a violation of an unborn child's right to life, then neither is killing the fetus under other circumstances. It's still illegal of course, just like it's illegal to cut a pregnant woman's arm off, but that doesn't mean it amounts to murder.

Side: No, that's stooopid
Stickers(1037) Clarified
1 point

No no wait. You were serious in the kurds debate .

Side: Oh God Yes!
3 points

Yeah, well I like the Kurds... they are the only decent people in that whole region. If Barry doesn't help the Kurds then fuck him!

Side: No, that's stooopid
2 points

Is our justice system so bad that the only way we can get the proper punishment for murdering a woman is to charge the killer with 2 crimes instead of 1?

Side: No, that's stooopid
1 point

IMO, the whole system where minimal sentences for performing multiple offeneces in the same action stack linearly doesn't make much sense in the first place.

Side: No, that's stooopid
1 point

What do you think would be the better way to do it?

Side: No, that's stooopid
1 point

I wouldn't call the little bugger a person yet so nope. However just to protect the woman's decision to keep that child, if she had in fact planned on keeping that child, I feel their should be some penalty involved. Not amounting to murder, it just doesn't feel like murder to me, but something.

Side: No, that's stooopid
1 point

I agree. Assaulting a women with intent to cause miscarriage should be a bigger crime than punching a perceived jerk in the gut.

Side: No, that's stooopid
1 point

The fetus is not a person yet. There's no reason to charge a double murder.

Side: No, that's stooopid
1 point

Yet.... It still happens.

Side: No, that's stooopid
1 point

I agree. It's bizarre. It's a grey area for a lot of people who still don't know how they feel about abortion or when life begins. That said, it's hard to not be in favor of giving a murderer extra jail time, a murderer whom takes advantage of another's physical condition in this case; which is why it'd be a hard law to change.

Side: No, that's stooopid
1 point

A fetus is not defined as living until about the end of the second trimester. It does not matter how much so-called "potential" it has, I have the potential to become a Harvard graduate or homeless, that does not necessarily mean either of those will happen.

Side: No, that's stooopid
1 point

A fetus is not defined as living until about the end of the second trimester. It does not matter how much so-called "potential" it has, I have the potential to become a Harvard graduate or homeless, that does not necessarily mean either of those will happen.

Side: No, that's stooopid
1 point

There is the crime of "child destruction" that covers death of a foetus. It is not necessary to try and apply the laws the laws of murder. The sentencing for child destruction will be more similar to that of murder depending on the gestation of the baby (amongst other factors).

Side: No, that's stooopid