Infanticide

[buiq]

Hello:

I understand that Rand believed that an embryo is a "clump" of tissues and only has potential, thus does not deserve any rights.

Recently, I have heard in the news that a pregnant woman (a week to her due date) was shot and killed along with her unborn child. That man was charged for two murders not one.

Do you think that he should be charged for one or two murders?

Q

[Richard_Halley]

No, one should not be charged with murder for killing something which is not human.

You don't pay much attention to the news, do you? There was a new bill signed into law the other day which deals with this issue. I don't know the details, but I am under the impression that now murdering a pregnant woman is two murders, not one.

[dondigitalia]

If the unborn child's has progressed far enough that it has developed a nervous system and most likely has some level of conciousness (however limited), yes the murderer should be charged with two murders. If, in fact, the baby woman was due in one week, the case you mentioned qualifies as a double murder.

If, however, the unborn child is still a mass of stem cells and there is NO possibility of conciousness, it is only one murder.

note: I'm not saying this is what the new law reads. This is the belief arrived at by my own reasoning. I'm sure Rand would have agreed.

[Richard_Halley]

If, however, the unborn child is still a mass of stem cells and there is NO possibility of conciousness, it is only one murder.

Firstly, conciousness is not the issue in question. Rational faculty is the issue.

Second, the possibility of that rational faculty is not enough to convict someone for murder, or any other crime for that matter. There must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt (I do believe that is how the legal system works).

[dondigitalia]

I agree that rational faculty is the defining attribute of "manness."

But, by your reasoning that mere conciousness present in a human baby is not sufficient criteria for whether or not a murder has taken place, then killing a 1 week old baby isn't murder either.

There is a contradiction here that needs to be resolved in order for your assessment to be correct.

[Richard_Halley]

This has all been discussed before. If you have any doubt as to what constitutes a human being than I refer you to the thread on abortion. All your quesions on the subject should be answered there, and if they are not, than that is where you should ask them.

[buiq]

Hello Richard:

You don't pay much attention to the news, do you? There was a new bill signed into law the other day which deals with this issue. I don't know the details, but I am under the impression that now murdering a pregnant woman is two murders, not one.

I think you should read what I wrote before saying that I am not informed. This is what I said "That man was charged for two murders not one."

This has all been discussed before. If you have any doubt as to what constitutes a human being than I refer you to the thread on abortion. All your quesions on the subject should be answered there, and if they are not, than that is where you should ask them.

I am not aware that this has been discussed before. I will end here.

[Richard_Halley]

I think you should read what I wrote before saying that I am not informed.  This is what I said "That man was charged for two murders not one."

I read that before, my point was that it is now federal law, not merely some prosecuting attorneys anti-abortion activism.

I don't believe that this particular issue has been discussed before, but the issue of abortion, the issue of what constitutes a human being has been extensively discussed in the abortion thread. There may be special considerations to deal with, due to the fact that the mother did not abort of her own freewill, this is a great place to debate about those.