Pregnant women shot by Police Officer

  • Thread starter Thread starter PhiriTalk
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PhiriTalk

Guest
I know that there was a recent incident where a woman claimed she was pregnant and then was shot and killed by police, but thats not what this is about necessarily.

I am wondering, hypothetically, that if a police officer does shoot a kill a woman in self defense and was 100% legally justified in doing so, but it turns out the woman was pregnant (the police officer in this hypothetical did not know, but I guess that wouldn’t necessarily be the case automatically). Should the police officer still be charged with murder as the police officer shot and killed an innocent, unarmed, person?

I think if the anti-abortion position is taken to the extreme of saying that life begins at conception and that a fetus is fully legal person with the same rights as anyone else, that the police officer most certainly should be charged with murder and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law as they shot and killed an innocent person.

What does everyone else think?
 
Last edited:
40.png
Pregnant women shot by Police Officer Social Justice
You answered your question here. No.
Click to expand...
He was only justified in killing the woman though, not the child. The child did absolutely nothing wrong and did not put the police officer in danger.

If fetuses are fully legal persons with full constitutional rights, then shouldn’t they have the same civil liberties as anyone else?
 
Last edited:
Shooting a pregnant woman is not the same thing as shooting the embryo.
If the shooting of the woman was legitimately self-defence then the death of the embryo is a great misfortune but not the shooter’s fault.
 
The police officer shooting and killing the women does directly lead the death of the child though.

Would it change if the police officer shot the women in the uterus, more directly killing the unborn child?
 
Last edited:
You might want to look up the Principle of Double Effect.
The cop is defending himself, not looking for a chance to shoot a baby.

And do you mean, aiming for the uterus with intent to kill the embryo? If so why? And if not, then my earlier answer stands.
 
Yes, but the police officer, did, in this hypothetical, shoot and kill an innocent, unarmed child. Murder, legally, need not be preplanned for it to still be murder. I’m not necessarily suggesting it would be 1st degree murder.

I mean, shooting the women in the area of her body where the uterus is located, thus directly impaling the child with a bullet. Should the police officer be held to account for killing an innocent human being who was not putting the officer in any sort of danger?

If unborn children are indeed fully legal human beings with full constitutional rights, then why would be okay for someone to kill this child in any way?
 
Last edited:
PhiriTalk said:
The police officer shooting and killing the women does directly lead the death of the child though.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. There are a lot of factors that would determine whether or not the child could be saved, but it is not impossible that the child could be saved even if the mother was fatally wounded.

The principle of double effect comes into play here.
 
What if the shooting occurred before a woman even knew she was pregnant or even just before the fetus could survive outside the womb?

What if the police officer directly shot the women’s uterus where the child is located?

I am talking about US law, not necessarily catholic teaching. Though if murder is a prohibition, then it would serve to reason that killing an unarmed child who is not putting anyone in danger is also against catholic teaching.
 
PhiriTalk said:
Yes, but the police officer, did, in this hypothetical, shoot and kill an innocent, unarmed child. Murder, legally, need not be preplanned for it to still be murder. I’m not necessarily suggesting it would be 1st degree murder.
Click to expand...
The police officer did not shoot the child. The police officer shot the woman, and in your hypothetical did so in self-defence. The death of the child was never the officer’s intent, and not avoidable if he was to defend himself from the woman’s aggression.
Again, look up the Principle of Double Effect.
Here, take a look.

The nature of the act is itself good, or at least morally neutral.
The agent intends the good effect and does not intend the bad effect either as a means to the good or as an end in itself.
The good effect outweighs the bad effect in circumstances sufficiently grave to justify causing the bad effect and the agent exercises due diligence to minimize the harm.

In your hypothetical the ‘agent’ is the cop.
 
But what if the police officer did directly shoot the child? Even if by accident?

I am asking about how this would be covered under US law. The principle of double effect is not legal concept in US law. Though it seems to me that even the accidental killing of an unborn child should be against catholic teaching

Would, under US law, the police officer be charged with murder?
 
Idaho Code § 18-4001, § 18-4006 and § 18-4016 (2002)

Under Idaho law, the accidentally killing of a fetus is manslaughter.

This is one example. 29 states currently recognize fetuses at any stage in their development as full human beings with full constitutional rights.
 
Please Speak with an Attorney. You’ve been given Appropriate Catholic Advice here; however, we’re NOT Attorneys.
 
Last edited:
If it was accidental then why should the cop be treated as though it was intentional?

Why should it be ‘against Catholic teaching’ to suffer an accident? If it was not intentional then it was not intentional.

Also why are you querying a religious discussion board about the secular law? Go talk to Findlaw if you want to know about the law.
 
Last edited:
Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 21 § 723 (2005) specifies that any offense committed pursuant to the provisions of Section 652 and 713 of Title 21, does not require proof that the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had the knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant or that the offender intended to cause the death or bodily injury to the unborn child.

This seems to be a clear indication that, at least in Oklahoma, that the police officer would be guilty of a crime for killing the unborn child.
 
I never said it should be treated as if it was intentional.

But it would legally be be “murder” and murder is against Catholic teaching. Should unborn children not have the same rights and protections under the law as all other people? They’re certainly not responsible for the actions of the body they’re carried in. It’s not the child’s fault the women committed a crime. And the unborn child definitely didn’t commit a crime.

This a social justice section.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top