Child destruction v abortion

JPNelsforearm

Just after reading this article http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/17/man-convicted-of-killing-unborn-baby-by-kicking-pregnant-ex-girlfriend

Kevin Wilson was found guilty of child destruction after he kicked Malorie Bantala repeatedly in the stomach during attack

and I have a question,

Legally why is it not just assault against the female, if when a woman has an abortion, essentially doing the same thing, its considered legal. Can a woman induce an abortion by say punching herself, drinking wine/whatever and be charged with child destruction if someone complains.

Conversely if she wanted an abortion or tried to commit "destruction of the fetus" and the boyfriend stopped her where does he stand?

January

Abortion is a medical procedure, kicking someone in the stomach isn't.

intheclouds

Because she was in her 8th month of pregnancy. Abortion is not legal in the UK at 8+ months.

JPNelsforearm

intheclouds wrote: »

Because she was in her 8th month of pregnancy. Abortion is not legal in the UK at 8+ months.

Its not really the specifics of this case, its moreso the principle, say its two months for the sake of argument

JPNelsforearm

January wrote: »

Abortion is a medical procedure, kicking someone in the stomach isn't.

:rolleyes: So if he slipped abortifacients into her drink he'd be hunky dory, cmon...

intheclouds

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Its not really the specifics of this case, its moreso the principle, say its two months for the sake of argument

But if it was two months he wouldn't have been charged with child destruction.

Had she tried to abort in month 8 it would be a criminal offence also.

Uno my Uno.

The relevant legal issue is his intention when kicking her in the stomach. To be convicted of child destruction (an offence I've never come across in this jurisdiction. Considering the constitutional status of the unborn here I believe the appropriate charge would be murder.) he must have intended (or been reckless as to, presumably) to cause the miscarriage of the child. This is why he was not simply charged with assault. Had he not intended it harm the child then assault of the mother would have been the correct charge.

January

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

:rolleyes: So if he slipped abortifacients into her drink he'd be hunky dory, cmon...

:rolleyes: no he'd have been charged with child destruction then then too.

Victor

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

:rolleyes: So if he slipped abortifacients into her drink he'd be hunky dory, cmon...

In Britain, abortion is only legal in certain circumstances, e.g. there are requirements for two doctors to certify it.

Manach

From what I remember reading from Keown's text "The Law and the Ethics of Medicine", the common law had provided various foetal protections against such from the detection of the present of the unborn, but their interpretations have been diminished somewhat by the various abortion related statue laws.