“Killing The Unborn. Murder Or…?”

By BARBARA SIMPSON

The question of abortion has been in the headlines for years, not to say the least because of the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.
Some people have argued that abortion is “killing,” and others have denied that. The disagreement goes along with political positions and religious positions — arguments that seemingly would never get settled.
Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe, saying that since the Constitution doesn’t contain that “right,” individual states could regulate abortion. Needless to say, that ruling set off an explosion of arguments across the country as individual states got into the fray trying to decide what should be the law in their jurisdictions. There have been no consistent rulings across the states as to how each will handle the question.
As that has gone on, another stunning court decision has been released that changes the whole picture of the value of the life of a preborn human. In this case, it is a state ruling. The issue, this time, comes from the Massachusetts Supreme Court. It has ruled that “someone who kills an unborn baby capable of living outside the mother’s body can be charged with homicide since that child is considered ‘a person’ under state law.”
Much of what follows about that Massachusetts ruling comes from Liberty Counsel.
In Commonwealth v. Ronchi, the highest state court in Massachusetts recently upheld two first-degree murder convictions of a man who stabbed his girlfriend to death which caused the death of their nine-month unborn child from loss of blood circulation from the mother. The defendant argued that since he had not actually stabbed the baby, he should not be held responsible for its death. However, the court rejected this argument and held that “infliction of prenatal injuries resulting in the death of a viable fetus, before or after it is born, is homicide.”
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld the two consecutive life sentences that a lower court had given the defendant. The State Supreme Judicial Court agreed with the trial court’s instructions to the jury which included: “Killing is not murder unless a human being has been killed. A viable fetus is a human being under the law of homicide. A fetus is viable when there is a reasonable likelihood of the fetus’ sustained survival outside the womb, with or without artificial support.”
The State Supreme Judicial Court followed its precedent in a 1984 case Commonwealth v. Cass in which a driver was convicted of motor vehicle homicide after his vehicle struck a woman who was eight and a half months pregnant, resulting in the death of her child. In that case, the court decided that “infliction of prenatal injuries resulting in the death of a viable fetus, before or after it is born, is homicide. . . . We believe that our criminal law should extend its protection to viable fetuses.”
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court often used the word “child” to refer to the unborn baby in Commonwealth v. Ronchi. Yet in a tragic irony, in the 1981 decision in Moe v. Secretary of Administration and Finance, the same court recognized a “fundamental right of choice” when it comes to abortion, and that the state constitution “affords a greater degree of protection to the right” than previous U.S. Supreme Court decisions of the time.
Currently in Massachusetts, abortion is legal through 24 weeks. After that, “only if it is necessary, in the best medical judgment of the physician, to preserve the life of the patient, if it is necessary, in the best medical judgment of the physician, to preserve the patient’s physical or mental health or, in the best medical judgment of the physician, an abortion is warranted because of a lethal fetal anomaly or the fetus is incompatible with sustained life outside the uterus.”
Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “Abortion has distorted the law. It makes perfect sense to charge a person with murder who kills an unborn child. It makes no sense to call this ‘choice’ when the mother does the killing. Homicide can only be committed against a person — a human being. Homicide cannot be committed against property or a non-person. Plain and simple — abortion is homicide because the act of killing the child is the same whether it is done by a violent actor or a doctor in a white lab coat.”
So then, essentially, that Massachusetts ruling establishes the “personhood” of the unborn child and it is protected by the Constitution. It’s a position that pro-life supporters have argued for years — that an unborn child is a “person.”
The issue has been raised when a pregnant woman dies — either in an accident or intentionally in an attack. If she is killed and her baby dies, does that constitute two deaths? Two “accidental” deaths? Two “intentional” deaths — two murders?
The Massachusetts ruling, at this time, limits the “personhood” designation to infants capable of living outside the mother. The ruling came about as a result of the Court upholding two, first-degree-murder convictions of a man who stabbed his pregnant girlfriend to death. Her death caused the death of their nine-month unborn child from loss of blood from the mother.
As reported in WND Daily, the defendant argued that he hadn’t actual stabbed the child and so he should not be held responsible for its death. The court rejected this argument saying that “infliction of prenatal injuries resulting in the death of a viable fetus, before or after it is born, is homicide.”
The jury instructions included the statements: Killing is not murder unless a human being has been killed. A viable fetus is a human being under the law of homicide. A fetus is viable when there is a reasonable likelihood of the fetus’s sustained survival outside the womb, with or without artificial support.”