In the US a man is being held in custody, charged with first degree murder for allegedly interfering with his girlfriend's medication causing the abortion of their foetus. The girlfriend was six weeks and five days pregnant.

http://www.theage.com.au/world/us-man-tricked-girlfriend-into-abortion-20130517-2jq0i.html

It is the charge of murder that is proposed for discussion in this thread.

When is the foetus a 'child', or does that rely solely on the woman's judgement notwithstanding any law based on such definitions as viability outside the womb?

Highly educated feminist 'ethicists' in Australia have long held that fertility is solely the decision of the woman concerned and a foetus is merely a parasitic lump to be aborted legally with government assistance on the decision of the woman (can't use 'mother' in this case I suppose) up until the very moment of birth.

Peter Singer, utilitarian philosopher and darling of the Greens goes further, ruling that no newborn should be considered a person until 30 days after birth: "Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons", and, "the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee."

What was the offence and why?

>>What was the offence and why?<<

Hope this clears things up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

That is the Act that Mr. Welden is being charged under.

Cheers,

Tony

People who support killing babies want to justify their own godless behaviour. Singer also approves of bestiality. Moral relativism which is totally irrational is blinded from looking into a microscope to see little hands, hearts and feet. Just like Nazis saw the Jews as less than human so abortionist use the dishonest tactic of using different terms for unborn babies. One only has to look at the total dishonesty of the arguements for abortion back in the 60's and 70's to where it is now. It is those who speak the truth that become demonised instead of the butchers and their supporters.

Dear onthebeach,

At the root of the controversy is a basic value judgement
about the human status of the fetus. If the fetus is
considered a baby, then abortion is a form of killing.
If it is considered a mere collection of cells and tissue,
then abortion is a morally neutral surgical procedure.

The status of the fetus is inherently ambiguous.

On the one hand, the fetus is not a human being in the
usual sense, for it is generally not viable. Indeed, no
society treats the fetus as human; for example, if the
mother accidentally miscarries, the fetus is not given
a funeral, but is simply disposed of like any other tissue.

On the other hand, the fetus is not like just any other
tissue, such as discarded nail or hair clippings. The
fetus is potentially a human being, one that might become
alive and unique as we are. The conflicting value judgements
about abortion stem from this fundamental ambiguity in the
status of the fetus.

The question is compounded by a related issue, the right of a
woman to control her own body. Many women feel that a decision
about abortion should be a strictly personal one, and they deeply
resent other people insisting that they should bear a child
they do not want to have.

But here too there are ambiguities. Half the genes in the fetus
were contributed by the father, and although the woman must
bear the child, society may make the father responsible for the
child's support for nearly two decades thereafter. If the
father waives his responsibilities - for example, by deserting
the mother - then of course he has no further rights in the
matter. But if he accepts his responsibilities and wants the
child born, what are his rights in relation to the mother's
right to control her body?

The issue is a very complex one. However, in the case of the
man who tricked his girlfriend into losing her baby.
He did this without her consent or knowledge.
Whether it was murder is something the courts will have to
decide.

I don't see a problem with the decision to charge the father with the murder of his unborn foetus.

A woman should have the right to decide what does and doesn't happen with her body.
If her partner 'interfered' with her medication then that is a crime against her well-being in itself.

The fact that this interference caused the miscarriage of her baby is murder, because she obviously had wanted that baby.

As for Runner's predictable comment about 'Godless' women who have abortions, I can only remind him of the many so-called natural miscarriages (abortions) his God apparently causes to millions of women around the world every year.

How do you justify that Runner?

Obviously the law is on the side of a woman's right to decide, because legal abortion is allowed in Australia, but causing the miscarriage of a woman against her will is murder.
This fact will never change...

What's the big deal about the 'human status'?

Murder is immoral and should be condemned, regardless whether the murdered is a human or otherwise.

The state, however, especially the secular state that we have, is in no position to be a guardian of our morality.

Yes, the state has a justified mandate to protect those of its citizens (and others who hold a valid visa) who desire its protection.

Currently, a foetus is not a citizen, hence the state is not obliged to protect it. Currently also, a baby once out of the womb is a citizen.

However, I suggest that the current definition of citizenship is arbitrary and flawed: it should have nothing to do with whether a baby is still within the womb or out in the air.

Instead, a baby, regardless whether still in the womb or outside, should become a citizen (thus protected by the state) at the point in time when either one of its parents (themselves citizens or valid-visa-holders) or the child him/herself (once grown sufficiently to be able to express such a wish) registers him/her with the state, implicitly or explicitly requesting the state to place the child under its protection.

If this system was in place and the mother had already registered her 6-weeks+5-days old foetus with the state, then indeed that boyfriend needs to answer murder charges (otherwise, he would still need to answer lesser crimes against the mother). Indeed, those who wish should be able to deposit in advance a legally-binding form stating that any foetus conceived by them is to be automatically a citizen protected by the state, either on conception or xx weeks after.

On the other hand, Peter Singer also has a point: should none of the parents choose to register a baby with the state, then killing that baby, while highly immoral, should not be subject to criminal prosecution.