COURT RULES MOTHER CAN USE LETHAL FORCE TO PROTECT FETUS

Lifesite.org ^ | October 16, 2002

[nickcarraway]

DETROIT, October 16, 2002 (LSN.ca) - The Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled that a pregnant woman may use deadly force to protect her fetus even when she does not fear for her own life. Legal experts quoted by the New York Times suggest that the decision has "opened another front in the legal wars surrounding abortion."

The case involves Jaclyn Kurr and her late boyfriend, Antonia Pena, the man with whom she became pregnant. She testified that after Pena punched her in the stomach when she was 16 to 17 weeks pregnant with quadruplets, Kurr stabbed him in the chest with a kitchen knife, killing him. She was charged with manslaughter, and the jury rejected her assertion that she had been acting in self-defense. She was sentenced to five to 20 years in prison. But the Michigan appeals court reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial, on grounds that the trial judge failed to allow for the defense that she was acting to protect not only her own life but also "in defense of others," namely "her unborn children."

Judge Patrick M. Meter wrote: "Our holding today does not apply to what the United States Supreme Court has held to constitute lawful abortions [in Roe v. Wade]. ... This issue... is not raised by the parties, is not pertinent to the resolution of the instant [i.e. the current] case, and does not drive our ruling today.

"Indeed, the issue today is straightforward: Is a nonviable fetus entitled to the protection of the laws of the state of Michigan such that an individual, typically the mother, may defend the fetus during an assault against the mother? We conclude that an individual may indeed defend a fetus from such an assault and may even use deadly force if she honestly and reasonably believes the fetus to be in danger of imminent death or great bodily harm."

[nickcarraway]

State Homicide Laws That Recognize Unborn Victims

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Can't believe the first jury found her guilty.

[Registered]

Dude, we're talking a jury pooled from Detroit.

[Sgt_Schultze]

It's good that the mother was vindicated in protecting her children. But the treatment of the unborn really needs to be squared. An unborn child is no less a child simply because the mother is an unwilling parent. A child's right to life should never be dependent on the mother's assessment of the timliness of motherhood.

[HamiltonJay]

What Jury convicted her in the first place? No damned way I would have ever found a pregnant woman guilty of killing a guy who knowing full well her condition puched her in the stomach. If she could prove he did in court, no damned way I would have convicted her.

[Ron H.]

The PRO-Abortionist's are really going to love this one. I too find it difficult to understand why a jury/court would convict this woman in the first place unless the jury was packed with Planned Parenthood types.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Dude, we're talking a jury pooled from Detroit.

I missed that part. Thanks.

[Lil'freeper]

if she honestly and reasonably believes the fetus to be in danger of imminent death or great bodily harm.

Only things that are alive can "be in danger of imminent death", "bodily harm" requires a body. Sounds like an admission that a fetus is a human being.

[Faith]

A child's right to life should never be dependent on the mother's assessment of the timeliness of motherhood.

Amen and right on.

[phasma proeliator]

Ping.

[aruanan]

Indeed, the issue today is straightforward: Is a nonviable fetus entitled to the protection of the laws of the state of Michigan such that an individual, typically the mother, may defend the fetus during an assault against the mother?

Hey, if the issue of viability is decided on whether someone can live on his own, let's see how many newborns are viable, or 3-year-olds, for that matter.

"Oh, no," the judge would have to say. "The fetus is unviable because no one but his mother can sustain his life." Presumably though, after birth, since more than one person can sustain the child's life offing the kid or failing to support his life is murder or neglect leading to manslaughter. Still, if the person in charge of the child's care doesn't sustain life or takes the child's life, he's guilty of murder or at least manslaughter regardless of the fact that someone else, in theory, could sustain the child's life. So the argument for non-viability before birth seems to boil down to this, "If I'm the ONLY one capable of sustaining this child's life, then I can, with impunity, take it."

[Commander8]

Great news.

[Alberta's Child]

Remember the muted outcry that resulted from the left when President Bush signed that executive order extending children's health care funding to unborn babies? These people will tie themselves into knots trying to figure out a way to oppose the "meaning" of specific measures like this without appearing to oppose the measures themselves.

I can just imagine what we'll here from Gloria Steinem about this one: "Just as all men (at least Democrats) are to given one free grope before they are actually 'sexually harassing' a woman, I think the law should allow a man 8 body blows to a pregnant woman before he can be accused of trying to harm anything, even though that thing in there would be seriously injured and it's not a human being -- it's part of a woman's body, and how is a man to know that the woman he is pounding with his fists wouldn't want to do that to herself anyway? -- and after all, isn't that child, uh, thing in there better off being pummelled to death in a safe, legal manner than being pummelled to death in a back-alley encounter with some guy with a nasty right jab?"

[Enterprise]

And we have a VERY interesting theory here for pro-life people to dwell on don't we? If a mother can use lethal force to protect her fetus, can a third party also use lethal force to protect the fetus? Perhaps, a third party can kill someone like a doctor trying to abort the child? What a grandly twisted scenario here!

[Spiff]

Okay...We're getting somewhere. Now, can the Father use force to protect his unborn child?

[Undivided Heart]

I have never understood the "viability" argument for the reason you cite. Here's another angle using the "viability" arguement: A full grown adult, if taken out of his environment necessary for life will die. Just seal him in a large plastic bag and he will soon die. I guess since he can't live inside of a sealed plastic bag he must not be viable.

The question is, why would he not be viable? Because he's not in his natural environment. What is the natural environment for a unborn child?

[newgeezer]

We conclude that an individual may indeed defend a fetus from such an assault and may even use deadly force if she honestly and reasonably believes the fetus to be in danger of imminent death or great bodily harm.

So, what about the abortionist wielding implements of death? Isn't he also putting the "fetus" in danger of immenent death or great bodily harm?

In my opinion, from my pro-life perspective, this judgment isn't as great as it first appears. As it stands, it does nothing to weaken the feminist ideal:

Mother = God.

If the mother wants her baby to live, the baby has the right to life. If the mother wants her baby dead, it has no rights. I really don't think the pro-aborts see anything wrong with that situation. It still says it's her body; she's autonomous, and can do with it as she pleases (especially in Nevada, Amsterdam, ...).

[witnesstothefall]

stabbed him in the chest with a kitchen knife, killing him....

Pregnant with quads no less. You go girl.

[aruanan]

The question is, why would he not be viable? Because he's not in his natural environment. What is the natural environment for a unborn child?

Exactly right!

[Sloth]

She was charged with manslaughter, and the jury rejected her assertion that she had been acting in self-defense.

It's a sad, sick day when judges have more common sense than juries.