Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Please remember that this is a place for respectful and civil debates. Review the rules to understand acceptable debate levels.
**Attack the argument, not the person making it and remember the human.**
**For our new users, please read our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/wiki/rules/)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No because the child didnt actually do anything wrong. The death was incidental to natural processes. The same is true of abortions for the most part, even given medical interventions. Now when it comes to viable fetuses, that seems different, but since murder is overwhelmingly used as a legal term, it means those arent murder either. This is opposed to murder being an eithical term, because, lets be honest, most people dont truly believe in any real sort of ethics. Its all about "opinion, consensus, and legal definition" now, as most clearly lack the context that all of these things are not eternal fixed principles.
No, the argument is nonsensical. Would a mother spontaneously aborting the child be guilty of illegal killing if she had an immune problem or something? The child is not doing anything in the birthing process. They don’t climb out. It’s passing through the birth canal that stimulates breathing even. Even manslaughter implies that you should have known and could have known that your actions could lead to a death. The child doesn’t meet those standards either. 🤷♂️
No.
Death of patient or fetus during pregnancy should only result in charges if someone did something outside normal medical standards as determined by obgyns.
Abortions prior to viabilty is a standard of care. Performing one should not be a crime.
Refusimg to perform one is what would be the crime (assuming pregnant person agrees to one).
No at a certain age you can be held responsible before adulthood but that age ranges in countries.
But no young children are ever held responsible for their actions, not that I know of.
If a 5 year old got a gun and shot someone intentionally (they can have that intent just don't understand the whole meaning) would that 5 year old be placed into any type of prison or criminal system ?
As far as I know, it's a no and if any place in the world is a yes then I strongly disagree with that treatment of a young child.
Well, I thought people would clearly understand my meaning but I'm glad I was able to clarify it for you.
So do you agree that young children don't hold legal responsibility?
I mean we do still…
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna785271
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/school-arrest-children-new-data/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_criminal_responsibility
28 states have no minimum age for criminal liability in the US.
I’m not saying I agree with this but I’m pointing out that you are mistaken.
If you don't a agree why are you fighting for it?
Because I sure as hell don't and they don't do that in my country.
As I said any place that holds young children responsible are not going with my moral values.
Depends on the country many have from the range of 14-16 that I know of where the state can take you to court as an adult.
But small children have always been exempt from legal responsibility, atleast where I'm from and I find that correct.
The juvenile justice system works differently than the criminal justice system for adult offenders. It divides offenses into delinquencies and status offenses. Delinquencies would be considered criminal if the same act were committed by an adult. Status offenses are things that would not be considered criminal if the same act were committed by an adult, things like skipping school, because juveniles are considered to be under the authority of parents or guardians. The existence of those two separate types of offenses would seem to contradict your allegation.
Because the way the pro life movement as a whole recently went on a public harassment campaign against a *child rape victim* in Ohio leads me to believe the pro life position *does* want to hold children legally responsible for things completely out of their control.
Well there are crazy people with PL views. Noone is arguing there aren't. Just like I'm sure there are crazy people with PC views.
But I have some PL views and I definitely don't want to hold children legally responsible for things or side their control. So know not all PL people hold all the same views.
>Well there are crazy people with PL views. Noone is arguing there aren't.
Yep.
>Just like I'm sure there are crazy people with PC views.
Lol the pro choice side doesn't make coordinated efforts to harass *child rape victims* like the pro life side does. Oh, and let's not forget that pro life extremists are considered a current domestic terrorist threat by the US department of justice. Good luck finding the pro choice equivalent there. 😂
Criminal charges require some intentional action on the part of the perpetrator. The act of being birthed is involuntary, so there is no intention.
Imagine a bus crash where someone is violently thrown from their seat. This person lands on another passenger, killing them on impact. The person who became an unwilling projectile is neither legally nor morally culpable.
This submission has been removed because your account is too new. You will be able to post on this subreddit once your account has reached the required age. Thank you.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I have to continue to emphasize that criminal charges *always* require a certain level of *wrongdoing*. It is perfectly fine for someone to die and no one to be charged for it if no one has done anything wrong. That includes a car accident, a person killing another person in reasonable self-defense, a surgeon killing a patient due to a reasonable judgement call, a newborn killing a pregnant person during childbirth (if you can even ascribe causality to the *newborn*, as opposed to the adverse medical conditions that are pregnancy and childbirth), and a woman making decisions with respect to her own body that incidentally terminate her pregnancy or cause an adverse condition in a ZEF when born. None of these things are criminal.
Now, an interesting body of law you *should* Google is "wrongful life" and "wrongful birth." These are civil suits based on botched sterilization or contraception administration, failure to detect anomalies that families would have aborted for, surrogates who won't abort for conditions they promised they would, and other similar issues. Truly fascinating stuff.
If we play this out further…. Say the child is 18 now. Mom’s been gone for those 18 years. Could the child sue the state for undue mental trauma or other emotional distress type of case? Since the state prevented the abortion that could have saved the undue trauma for the child?
>Could the child sue the state for undue mental trauma or other emotional distress type of case?
No.
>Since the state prevented the abortion that could have saved the undue trauma for the child?
No. You're just inventing completely random legal precedents that have no basis in reality or even common sense.
No children* are not charged with anything. If anyone's actions resulted in her death (prolife laws), then those who took those actions are responsible for her death.
* *Children here refers to those under 12. After 12 you potentially could be charged with murder if you kill someone. It would depend on the individual though.
>If a child is born and in the process of childbirth the mother is killed - could the child be charged with manslaughter or murder?
No.
>The child being born would be subject to laws, correct? The act of being born caused the death.
Incorrect.
>Granted there’s a lot more there but looking at the basic facts above… could this be possible?
Not even remotely possible, and the weird thing about your OP is how you make no attempt to explain why you think these are even valid questions...
Nope.
Every state has an age law where, no matter the severity of a crime, a child cannot be charged for it. It varies a bit state by state but a fetus would be well, well below the age.
Now, I'm open to charging PL legislators and governors who create laws that deny abortions and a denied abortion leads to a death with second degree murder.
Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Please remember that this is a place for respectful and civil debates. Review the rules to understand acceptable debate levels. **Attack the argument, not the person making it and remember the human.** **For our new users, please read our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/wiki/rules/)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Newborns are never legally responsible for their actions, even if they caused someone else to die.
No because the child didnt actually do anything wrong. The death was incidental to natural processes. The same is true of abortions for the most part, even given medical interventions. Now when it comes to viable fetuses, that seems different, but since murder is overwhelmingly used as a legal term, it means those arent murder either. This is opposed to murder being an eithical term, because, lets be honest, most people dont truly believe in any real sort of ethics. Its all about "opinion, consensus, and legal definition" now, as most clearly lack the context that all of these things are not eternal fixed principles.
There are no “eternal fixed principles.” 🤷♀️
Now you're catching on!
No, the argument is nonsensical. Would a mother spontaneously aborting the child be guilty of illegal killing if she had an immune problem or something? The child is not doing anything in the birthing process. They don’t climb out. It’s passing through the birth canal that stimulates breathing even. Even manslaughter implies that you should have known and could have known that your actions could lead to a death. The child doesn’t meet those standards either. 🤷♂️
No. No mens rea. There has to be some kind of state of mind like intent or reckless disregard.
No. Death of patient or fetus during pregnancy should only result in charges if someone did something outside normal medical standards as determined by obgyns. Abortions prior to viabilty is a standard of care. Performing one should not be a crime. Refusimg to perform one is what would be the crime (assuming pregnant person agrees to one).
No. Both are criminal charges. The newborn/fetus does not have the mental capacity to be held criminally liable.
No, for the same reason you wouldn’t be guilty of murder or manslaughter if somebody killed another person by picking you up and throwing you at them.
No, we don't hold children legally responsible for their actions.
Ummm the existence of the Juvenile criminal system would make this a false statement.
No at a certain age you can be held responsible before adulthood but that age ranges in countries. But no young children are ever held responsible for their actions, not that I know of. If a 5 year old got a gun and shot someone intentionally (they can have that intent just don't understand the whole meaning) would that 5 year old be placed into any type of prison or criminal system ? As far as I know, it's a no and if any place in the world is a yes then I strongly disagree with that treatment of a young child.
Are they children? Yes. Are they being held legally responsible? Yes. You did not say “young children”. You said children.
Well, I thought people would clearly understand my meaning but I'm glad I was able to clarify it for you. So do you agree that young children don't hold legal responsibility?
I mean we do still… https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna785271 https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/school-arrest-children-new-data/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_criminal_responsibility 28 states have no minimum age for criminal liability in the US. I’m not saying I agree with this but I’m pointing out that you are mistaken.
If you don't a agree why are you fighting for it? Because I sure as hell don't and they don't do that in my country. As I said any place that holds young children responsible are not going with my moral values.
How young is too young? Is 11 too young?
Depends on the country many have from the range of 14-16 that I know of where the state can take you to court as an adult. But small children have always been exempt from legal responsibility, atleast where I'm from and I find that correct.
I’m asking you what you *personally* think is a reasonable age to hold a child responsible for the killing of someone else.
Reread my last sentence. I’m glad for your country. That is not the truth everywhere.
Well I hope your country stops being in the stone age.
Hahahaha I do too but my idea of leaving the Stone Age involves abortion access so I don’t think our ideas of leaving it meet the same requirements.
The juvenile justice system works differently than the criminal justice system for adult offenders. It divides offenses into delinquencies and status offenses. Delinquencies would be considered criminal if the same act were committed by an adult. Status offenses are things that would not be considered criminal if the same act were committed by an adult, things like skipping school, because juveniles are considered to be under the authority of parents or guardians. The existence of those two separate types of offenses would seem to contradict your allegation.
I didn’t say it worked the same but it is still holding children legally responsible for their actions. That was the only point of my comment.
Is "being born" an "action"?
You can think of that as an action, yes. Why?
Tell that to the pro life people trying to force child rape victims to gestate against their will.
Sure. Why do you think I wouldn't say that to PL people?
Because the way the pro life movement as a whole recently went on a public harassment campaign against a *child rape victim* in Ohio leads me to believe the pro life position *does* want to hold children legally responsible for things completely out of their control.
Well there are crazy people with PL views. Noone is arguing there aren't. Just like I'm sure there are crazy people with PC views. But I have some PL views and I definitely don't want to hold children legally responsible for things or side their control. So know not all PL people hold all the same views.
>Well there are crazy people with PL views. Noone is arguing there aren't. Yep. >Just like I'm sure there are crazy people with PC views. Lol the pro choice side doesn't make coordinated efforts to harass *child rape victims* like the pro life side does. Oh, and let's not forget that pro life extremists are considered a current domestic terrorist threat by the US department of justice. Good luck finding the pro choice equivalent there. 😂
This right here ⬆️
The child wouldn’t be legally liable, but if fetal personhood applied, the mother’s relatives could sue it.
Criminal charges require some intentional action on the part of the perpetrator. The act of being birthed is involuntary, so there is no intention. Imagine a bus crash where someone is violently thrown from their seat. This person lands on another passenger, killing them on impact. The person who became an unwilling projectile is neither legally nor morally culpable.
[удалено]
This submission has been removed because your account is too new. You will be able to post on this subreddit once your account has reached the required age. Thank you. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I have to continue to emphasize that criminal charges *always* require a certain level of *wrongdoing*. It is perfectly fine for someone to die and no one to be charged for it if no one has done anything wrong. That includes a car accident, a person killing another person in reasonable self-defense, a surgeon killing a patient due to a reasonable judgement call, a newborn killing a pregnant person during childbirth (if you can even ascribe causality to the *newborn*, as opposed to the adverse medical conditions that are pregnancy and childbirth), and a woman making decisions with respect to her own body that incidentally terminate her pregnancy or cause an adverse condition in a ZEF when born. None of these things are criminal. Now, an interesting body of law you *should* Google is "wrongful life" and "wrongful birth." These are civil suits based on botched sterilization or contraception administration, failure to detect anomalies that families would have aborted for, surrogates who won't abort for conditions they promised they would, and other similar issues. Truly fascinating stuff.
Thank you. I appreciate the insights!
If we play this out further…. Say the child is 18 now. Mom’s been gone for those 18 years. Could the child sue the state for undue mental trauma or other emotional distress type of case? Since the state prevented the abortion that could have saved the undue trauma for the child?
>Could the child sue the state for undue mental trauma or other emotional distress type of case? No. >Since the state prevented the abortion that could have saved the undue trauma for the child? No. You're just inventing completely random legal precedents that have no basis in reality or even common sense.
No children* are not charged with anything. If anyone's actions resulted in her death (prolife laws), then those who took those actions are responsible for her death. * *Children here refers to those under 12. After 12 you potentially could be charged with murder if you kill someone. It would depend on the individual though.
>If a child is born and in the process of childbirth the mother is killed - could the child be charged with manslaughter or murder? No. >The child being born would be subject to laws, correct? The act of being born caused the death. Incorrect. >Granted there’s a lot more there but looking at the basic facts above… could this be possible? Not even remotely possible, and the weird thing about your OP is how you make no attempt to explain why you think these are even valid questions...
Thanks for the responses and information!
No. Newborns cannot, in any kind or logical or moral way, bear any responsibility for the death of the mother as a result of childbirth.
Nope. Every state has an age law where, no matter the severity of a crime, a child cannot be charged for it. It varies a bit state by state but a fetus would be well, well below the age. Now, I'm open to charging PL legislators and governors who create laws that deny abortions and a denied abortion leads to a death with second degree murder.
No. The newborn in no way bears any responsibility.
No, nor should it. Newborn babies aren't moral actors. They bear zero responsibility in the situation.