CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Accountable how? And why? You agreed that abortion is legal... remember I'm atheist so how is the doctor going to be held accountable? Why should he? He did nothing illegal.
Okay... but you're acting a little like Srom now... (he never gets these kind of debates) your opinion on abortion doesn't really matter... the point is IF abortion is legal then how can someone be charged with killing an on-born kid/fetus/whatever you wanna call it?
Understands now. Thank you for helping me. The doctor cannot be charged unless the pregnancy is past a certain point. I believe that latest a woman can have an abortion is 24 weeks.
The doc performs at the mothers request. If the mother intends to have the kid, and some doc aborts it, that's not legal. I don't know if it's considered murder. In the case of this debate, lets assume the mother intended to have the kid. Two lives have now been halted. Still don't know if it counts as double though.
The doctor should be held accountable for what exactly? The only thing it seems a doctor did in this case was legally perform a surgery they were asked to perform. Just like they'd do for the removal of a limb, tumor, broken bone etc. In fact, and let's stick to facts please, if the doctor didn't perform the surgery that the patient wanted, had insurance for, and could pay for, the doctor would then be in legal troubles for turning this person in need of surgery down, as they would also be for any of the ailments mentioned before.
I know what you're saying, I don't agree, but I know. You believe that abortion is bad, so you feel if the fetus is killed that someone should be held accountable. i'm just making sure you know that the doctor can't be held accountable for doing something he's legally obligated to do.
Check my points, I haven't downvoted anyone in 23 days. If you're getting brigaded then it couldn't have been me since I'm talking to you RIGHT FUCKING NOW.
So you are unwilling to debate the relevent topic at hand? This debate is about whether the killer of a pregnant women should be charged with double murder. Do you have anything to say on that topic?
I don't think so. Mostly because the quality of life (or lack thereof) that the unborn and others would otherwise have (if the baby was born) cannot be determined.
Yeah, sometimes he did shoehorn a lot of "anti-USAian" sentiment into discussion. And he was usually sort of indifferent towards most users... But, think of all of the things that Dana would not have said if he wasn't around to engage her!
If it is legal, then it is not murder. It might make you uncomfortable, but the killing of what lacks the capacity for empathy and sympathy is water under the bridge.
Are you seriously suggesting that a (legal) abortion performed by a mother is comparable to the (legal) deeds of Adolf Hitler? Welp, I can't say that I'm surprised.
I used to support abortion, but not anymore. I was wrong. The same way that Hitler denied the humanity, of the Jews, the same way that the humanity of slaves is denied, the humanity of the unborn babies is denied in an abortion.
No, repeating yourself does not count as addressing claims. I am seriously glad that we do not have the tax rates that you advocate, because if we did you'd be in some deep shit.
Saying that when life begins is irrelevant is like saying that the humanity of slaves is irrelevant to whether slavery should be legal or not. In both cases, human rights are being violated.
The controversy regarding slavery and abortion isn't soley based on human "rights" as a moral concept.
I oppose both slavery and pro-life policies because I feel that they cause more unhappiness than happiness, not because of some idiotic narrow deontological principles. If you think that we should uphold any principle for the sake of doing so, then you by extension are upholding one of the most detrimental mindsets in recorded history.
Thanks you for your response. Respects your beliefs on abortion. I used to be prochoice myself so I understand why you feel that way. It was not until I saw that preterm baby that i became prolife.
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.
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.
Juries are interesting, in that (as you say) they are simultaneously one of the greatest assets and detriments to the legal system.
I do not know that convictions are actually overturned with the regularity you suggest. If that is the case, however, I would suggest that it is not particularly remarkable. One must present a compelling case to have your appeal heard to begin with, so it follows that there would be a disproportionately smaller rate of conviction on appeal than upon initial trial.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Exactly. USAian law is crazy in classifying a foetus as a human being within the law of murder. If they wanted the termination of a foetus to carry a more serious penalty, just up the sentencing limits. There was no reason in redefining it is a human being other than to put a smile on the face of pro-lifers.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).