[Role Modlin]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

I think both of these questions have more to do with how we define crime than how we define personhood.

Crime must have an element of either intent or neglect.

If you knew, or had enough information that you should have suspected, the woman could be pregnant, it should be considered manslaughter or murder.

If you knew, or had enough information that you should have suspected, you were pregnant, it should be considered abuse to endanger the child's well-being.

The personhood of the fetus doesn't figure into it. If you punch someone in the stomach who has an inflamed appendix and you cause it to rupture, killing them (no, I don't know if this medically makes sense), you are still only guilty of assault (or involuntary manslaughter), not murder, as long as you had no knowledge or reason to suspect that their appendix was inflamed.

I would have to disagree. If the woman legally isn't carrying a human being...you can't be guilty of legally murdering it. I guess you could be charged with assault and performing an unwanted/unlicensed abortion...but it can't be murder or manslaughter unless you are dealing with a human.

[bobthecockroach]

I guess I was replying more to the idea, "If we declare that personhood begins at fertilization, then we will have to do X, Y and Z which seem absurd," and I was saying, "no we won't because it's still not a crime."

I'll grant no one actually said that. Perhaps I was reading into others' posts too much.

[Role Modlin]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

I guess I was replying more to the idea, "If we declare that personhood begins at fertilization, then we will have to do X, Y and Z which seem absurd," and I was saying, "no we won't because it's still not a crime."

I'll grant no one actually said that. Perhaps I was reading into others' posts too much.

I don't know that I want to see it defined in such a manner. I am just curious. At what point does it attain the rights of a born person? There has to come a time when it is legally recognized as a person...right?
Does a heartbeat matter? Does it have to be viable outside the womb? Doesn't there have to be a point where it is (without a doubt) a human being?

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

I think both of these questions have more to do with how we define crime than how we define personhood.

Crime must have an element of either intent or neglect.

In theory, yes, in application, no. At this point the rest of the argument breaks down because I could cite a near infinite stream of people I know of convicted for ludicrous things. Laws are going to be applied as irrationally as humanly possible. Lawsuits show that.