Unborn Victims of Violence Act

[Tony2255]

This happened locally and the charges raised many questions. Maybe a repeat.
wect.com/story/21467926/deputies-identify-woman-found-dead-in-woods-fire-make-arrest
Brief summary: Detention officer shoots pregnant woman then burns the body. Mother and child die. He is charged with murder and death or injury of a child in utero due to commission of a violent crime.

law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/919a

lawserver.com/law/state/south-carolina/sc-code/south_carolina_code_16-3-1083

It is essentially the same as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act and I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around this law.

1. The law recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines “child in utero” as “a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb”
2. (B) Nothing in this section may be construed to permit the prosecution under this section:

(1) of a person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

(2) of a person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or

(3) of a woman with respect to her unborn child.

(C) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or " child who is in utero" means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any state of development, who is carried in the womb.

(D) Nothing in this section shall be construed to broaden or restrict any other rights currently existing for the child who is in utero.

How can a fetus be recognized as a member of the homo sapiens species, human, and considered a “victim” in one situation and not when it comes to abortion? In both circumstances they are considered an innocent human being BY LAW. So how can you rationalize prosecuting one and not the other if they’re both innocent humans? I don’t get it.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Under this Act person(s) can be tried for homicide or feticide for killing the unborn. You can even be tried for double homicide if you kill a pregnant woman.

Legal to kill a baby inside a clinic but if that baby is killed by somebody elsewhere, the perpetrator could be tried for murder

 

[R_C]

How can a fetus be recognized as a member of the homo sapiens species, human, and considered a “victim” in one situation and not when it comes to abortion? In both circumstances they are considered an innocent human being BY LAW. So how can you rationalize prosecuting one and not the other if they’re both innocent humans? I don’t get it.

Eventually they will change the law.

I mean, this law that gives such recognition to the fetus.

Not the other way around, obviously.

But perhaps I am just a pessimist

 

[Tony2255]

You can even be tried for double homicide if you kill a
Legal to kill a baby inside a clinic but if that baby is killed by somebody elsewhere, the perpetrator could be tried for murder

That’s what I don’t understand. If a wife finds her husband inconvienant can she take him to this clinic and have him aborted? Because I don’t see the difference.

 

[mgoforth]

So how can you rationalize prosecuting one and not the other if they’re both innocent humans? I don’t get it.

I think the problem is that you’re trying to think about it rationally…and abortion is a completely irrational evil act. There’s no way to justify abortion, and therefore any law that treats abortion as justified is also completely irrational.

 

[Tony2255]

I think the problem is that you’re trying to think about it rationally…and abortion is a completely irrational evil act. There’s no way to justify abortion, and therefore any law that treats abortion as justified is also completely irrational.

Very true. Maybe I’m thinking to much into it. The first part of the act says you can’t kill them then it says you can? Boggles the mind.

 

[nodito]

As a parallel, I’ve always found it curious that a mother can be held legally responsible and punished for prenatal drug exposure. For example, in my state, mandated reporters must inform the DCF when a child is born with a drug dependancy at birth. I absolutely agree with the law. But it’s so contradictory. The mother can legally slaughter her child before he’s born, but she can’t consume certain drugs to harm it. How is that rational?

I think it harkens back to the community-first mentality. We don’t want to support drug-addicted kids. But we also don’t want to support disabled kids, or poor kids, or unwanted kids. This really is so tragic.

 

[Tony2255]

As a parallel, I’ve always found it curious that a mother can be held legally responsible and punished for prenatal drug exposure. For example, in my state, mandated reporters must inform the DCF when a child is born with a drug dependancy at birth. I absolutely agree with the law. But it’s so contradictory. The mother can legally slaughter her child before he’s born, but she can’t consume certain drugs to harm it. How is that rational?

I think it harkens back to the community-first mentality. We don’t want to support drug-addicted kids. But we also don’t want to support disabled kids, or poor kids, or unwanted kids. This really is so tragic.

Great parallel! I’d completely overlooked drug use. What if she was taking drugs to induce a miscarriage so she wouldn’t have to go to a clinic? Should’nt that be legal under the “law”?

 

[marymary1975]

What happens in here is that the laws are inconsistent and they don’t make sense. The true is that they are based on convenience. Whenever is convenient for the mother to consider the fetus a person, then the fetus is a person: if someone else murders a pregnant woman that person gets charged with double murder because it is presumed that the woman wanted to have the baby, therefore the fetus is a person. Same with the prenatal drug thing, because the woman hasn’t seek an abortion then it is presumed that she wants the baby so then the fetus is considered a person. On the other hand Whenever is not convenient for the mother to consider the fetus a person, then the Court doesn’t consider the fetus a person and allows the mother to abort. Pretty much your personhood depends on whether your mother wants you.

 

[ilikepizza1]

Its alarming to think that people can support such a blatant inconsistency in the application of the law…