Murder, Manslaughter

In some ethical and legal respects a pregnant woman and her fetus can be considered separate. Both the woman and the fetus are ordinarily affected by the well-being of one another for as long as each of them live. The ethical and legal issues are challenged deeply in cases where the well-being of the fetus and the mother appear to be in conflict. Our society struggles with identifying cases where the pregnant woman’s interests and/or behaviors might put her fetus at risk. Criminal and/or civil commitments should be used to bar pregnant women from exposing their fetuses to risk.

In 'The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of Double Effect ', Phillipa Foot takes into account what is called the Doctrine of Double Effect (henceforth DDE), which appeals to two effects that an action causes - one intended at and desired, the other foreseen as a consequence of the action but undesired. She uses this doctrine to critically examine its application and thereby assert that "My conclusion is that the distinction between direct and oblique intention (the DDE) plays only a quite subsidiary role in deciding what we say [in these cases], while the distinction between avoiding injury and bringing aid (the DAO) is very important indeed." In this paper, I will begin by first reviewing and commenting on the soundness of arguments in support of DDE in some cases provided by Foot. Then, I 'll show how and why Foot proposes an appeal to DAO or the Doctrine of Acts and Omissions which is explained by her on the basis of negative and positive duty distinction. I will then criticise this approach. Finally, I will analyse three different abortion cases mentioned by Foot from the points of view of DDE and Foot 's proposal of DAO.

Despite some recent reforms, there are still criticisms to be made of the current law

Unlawful abortion was defined as “unlawful if performed not to save the life of the mother in question.” (Queensland Parliamentary Library, 2003) However, in 1969, the Menhennitt ruling was established in the case R v Davidson. This more liberal interpretation stated that abortion could be ‘lawful’ under strict guidelines and circumstances; establishing that “abortion is lawful if performed to preserve the woman from serious danger. However, the danger must be equal to the dangers imposed by an abortion.” Since the Menhennitt ruling, no new interpretation have been made introduced, nor has any official legislation been introduced, leaving the decision up to the judge, and in some cases, a jury (Cica, 1998). This leaves abortion law hazy and unclear; evidenced by the fact that 14,000 abortions occur every year in Queensland. Stakeholder groups with conflicting views are in uproar over this

3. Arkansas Code Ann. § 5-10-104 – (a) A person commits manslaughter if: . . . (2) The person purposely causes or aids another person to commit suicide[.];

The Queen vs. Davis case concerns the murder trial of Arthur Paul Davis and Alice Davis that occurred in 1875. In it, they were tried and convicted of murder for conducting an abortion; the killing of a fetus and subsequently causing death of the victims, Catherine Laing and Jane Vaughn Gilmour. This essay will examine the historical context of the case, what the trial reveals about the nature of women’s lives in Toronto during the 1870s as subordinate women who are deemed as caretakers and how women managed to end unwanted pregnancies. During the late 19th century ending an unwanted pregnancy was an illegal offence because it was considered unethical to kill a fetus. Women were not able to access safer alternatives such as

Mary Anne Warren (p.195-196) points out the exceptional circumstances of pregnancy; where one human is entirely biologically reliant on another and where it is impossible for complete personhood rights to not be in conflict between the foetus and the mother. Consider the following case. A mother and an expecting mother both express an intent to kill their child or unborn child respectively. Services are available to take the postnatal children from their mother without affecting her body. Yet to protect the foetus, one would have to imprison the mother until birth, or worse, force a caesarean on her. Warren (193) points out that forced caesareans are not merely a hypothetical

Synopsis: Our story follows a economist from Harvard University called Henry Spearmen who takes a vacation from his life of writing books and lectures to go to the virgin islands with his Wife. However, as they reach their resort (Cinnamon bay) they quickly find that there is trouble in paradise as radical black power groups are spreading their influence on the island and wish to harm the tourism industry by harassing white visitors. Nonetheless the couple enjoy their stay and meet colorful characters such as Mr.Dyke a fellow Harvard professor of theology, a vacationing couple called the Clarks and General Decker: a strict and demanding military official that earns

In his essay Why Abortion is Immoral Don Marquis attempts to argue that abortion is almost always wrong except for a few special circumstances such as when the life of the mother is being threatened by the pregnancy. In his thesis Marquis asserts that abortion is in the same moral category as killing an innocent adult human being and the ethics of abortion is solvable. The strongest argument that Marquis presents to defend his thesis is the claim that what makes killing wrong is the loss of the victim’s future. In this paper, I will argue that this argument fails because aborting a fetus is not in the same moral category as killing an innocent adult human being.

In disagreement many people say that one person?s right to life always outweighs another person?s right to autonomy. However Thomson?s argument makes a very interesting unwanted pregnancies resulting in permissible abortions. To counteract her claims I?m going to use a hypothetical situation as she did. Let?s say a mother gives birth to a set of conjoined twins. The twins grow up having a somewhat troublesome life considering the fact that neither one has the opportunity to achieve autonomy. Once they get older, lets say age 18, twin A obtains the information that twin B?s survival depends on the use of twin A?s vital organ?s. However twin A would survive if twin B was too be separated from him thus granting twin A his right to autonomy. It seems that it is obvious that it not permissible for twin A to kill twin B. The following argument shows a more concrete view of the situation. It is morally impermissible for twin A to kill twin B if he has the right to life and the right to twin A?s body. Twin B does have a right to life. Twin B prima facie has the right to twin A?s body. Therefore it is morally impermissible for twin A to kill twin B. In turn this would create the argument that abortion is not permissible even when the pregnancy is not voluntary.

Abortion is one of the most controversial topics of all times. The definition most people associate with abortion is the termination of unwanted pregnancy. In their essay, “The Wrong of Abortion”, Patrick Lee and Robert P. George argue that intentional abortion is unjust and therefore objectively immoral no matter the circumstances. Also, they argue that “the burden of carrying the baby is significantly less than the harm the baby would suffer by being killed; the mother and father have a special responsibility to the child; it follows that intentional abortion (even in few cases where the baby’s death is an unintended but foreseen side effect) is unjust ” (24).

Based on the view that the fetus is already a small baby, some extreme anti-abortionists would maintain that abortion is impermissible even to save the mothers life. The rationale behind this view would be that the child is innocent, and killing the child would be active, on the other hand, letting the mother die would be passive. This introduces two new concepts, the first being the mother’s rights in competition to those of the fetus and the second being the question of innocence and how we would define this (Langley).

This is case that faces Mary Barnett. The issue in this case is that On January 23, the litigant, Mary Barnett, left Chicago to visit her life partner in San Francisco having left her six-month-old little girl, Alison, unattended in the apartment. Mary Barnett returned home a week later to find that her child had died of dehydration. She called the police and at first, to let them know that she had left her kid with a baby sitter. She later expressed that she had left the child and she didn 't mean to return, and that she knew Alison would die in a day or two. She has been accused of wrongdoing of second-degree murder; purposeful homicide without intention. In the event that she is sentenced, she could face up to eighteen years in prison. This piece of writing tries to give the verdict of the case after critically examining both prosecution and defendant side.

In the United States the degrees by which a person can be charged with killing another person vary; the degrees of murder include first, second, and third degree murder, the definitions of which can vary in legal terms from state to state. These charges are considered to be legally separate from voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, and justifiable homicide which each have their own definitions (Cole, Smith, & DeJong, 2014). Each type of murder, manslaughter and homicide is determined by intent and negligible behavior and each will be examined in this paper (Cole et al., 2014).

In this essay, I will describe the elements of a criminal act, address the law of factual impossibility, the law of legal impossibility, and distinguish whether the alleged crime in the scenario is a complete but imperfect attempt or an incomplete attempt. I will address the ethical or moralistic concerns associated with allowing a criminal defendant to avoid criminal responsibility by successfully asserting a legal defense such as impossibility. The court was clearly wrong to dismiss the charge against Jack of attempted murder of Bert.