“If you have a teen who’s being told it’s not a baby yet, by everyone in her world, not just doctor and family, but the entire culture, and you combine that with coercion, no court well-grounded in the traditional view of murder is going to find mens rea (guilty mind).”
That’s an interesting defense strategy.
Suppose a 19 year old mother is put on trial for the murder of her two week old baby that she tossed in an abortion clinic dumpster after stabbing her baby with an ice pick and tearing the baby’s limbs off.
No one directly involved in her life made it clear to her that here baby was a real baby.
Therefore, she does not have a guilty mind.
To the contrary, a jury in THAT case would easily be persuaded her claimed lack of intent was not credible. Her personal, tangible interaction with the body of the child, the manner of treatment, etc., a good prosecutor could easily show mens rea even if the woman denied it. Because mens rea does not rely exclusively on testimony of the person. If it did, you could never convict for murder. But in cases where intent is denied, it may still be found through indicators that are external and objective. "I didn't mean to run him over with the car fives times" will not work as a defense.
Which is why there is no one size fits all easy peezy lazy ass solution for this problem. I know people want it to be simple but it isn't. It'll always come down to specific cases and fact patterns. The jury will hear all the facts, and if a case can be made to the jury that the person lacked the right kind of intent, they won't be convicted of murder. Sorry.
Peace,
SR