My feed

to access all these features


To think unborn babies should be counted as disaster victims?

126 replies

pudding24 · 13/07/2017 21:46

I've just read that an unborn baby (7 months) was killed in the Grenfell fire disaster - thankfully the mother was not.

I've also just read that an unborn baby of 7 months was killed in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and yet the official death toll is 6, not 7 or '6 + one unborn child'.

AIBU to think that - especially in the third trimester - the likelihood is that that baby would have been born and led a full and wonderful life, and therefore they are just as much a victim and should be included in counts and reports? Sad

OP posts:
rinabean · 13/07/2017 21:57

I do agree with you but if we start talking like this we end up eroding abortion rights.

I wish a balance could be struck with this kind of thing and like, assaulting a woman and causing a miscarriage and everything along these lines, but I can only see it being used to ultimately hurt pregnant women by getting abortion fully banned and even restrictions on other behaviour whilst pregnant.

I don't think it hurts anyone for you or for the people affected to consider them as victims. But I think it would hurt pregnant women if it were standard and included in official counts. If we had in clear law that women's rights trump foetus rights it would be fine. But so much is based on the idea that they're not alive, rather than that they're not entitled to their mother's body.

MaudGonneMad · 13/07/2017 22:02

The 'death toll + unborn child(ren)' is the case for the Omaha bombing and the Dublin & Monaghan bombings.

CoteDAzur · 13/07/2017 22:13


(1) No such thing as an "unborn baby", let alone an "unborn child".
Baby = 0-12 months (starting at birth)
Child = over 12 months

(2) If fetuses of pregnant women were counted as persons, abortion would be homicide. Having a glass of wine or going skiing would be attempted murder. Think about what you are suggesting for a minute before taking out those little violins.

exLtEveDallas · 13/07/2017 22:17

The way I see it is that the foetus knows nothing, feels nothing, is not cognisant so cannot be considered a 'victim'. To be a victim you need to be aware. It's right that they are not counted.

SolomanDaisy · 13/07/2017 22:18

That comment about the tiny violins is really fucking off. To that woman, she lost her baby and you think that's a thing to make a tiny violins joke about as though it's not something that deserves sympathy?

CoteDAzur · 13/07/2017 22:19

To be a victim, you have to be a person first.

A fetus is not a person.

SolomanDaisy · 13/07/2017 22:21

And I say that as a strong opponent of all those foetus protection bills and supporter of abortion. Don't make tiny violin comments at women who've had late term losses.

SolomanDaisy · 13/07/2017 22:21

Yeah, have a bit of fucking compassion while you make that argument.

CoteDAzur · 13/07/2017 22:22

I didn't go harass the poor woman who lost the baby in question in a terrorist attack Hmm I told OP to think about what she is suggesting before she starts pulling on the heart strings. And she should.

WishingforSolong · 13/07/2017 22:22

if fetuses of pregnant women were counted as persons abortion would be homicide

So let's just carry on deluding ourselves that they don't really exist before birth as the alternative is what ? Realisation that it is homicide all dressed up as choice

TartanDMs · 13/07/2017 22:23

The father of that unborn child (if it is the same one) works where I do. He is relieved that his wife and child escaped, although his wife sadly lost her baby. It is desperately sad, the employer has been so supportive and the union reps have organised a collection to support the family.

I think it's a difficult area to consider, because the child isn't legally a person until birth and their registration. The abortion debate would be more complex if foetuses could be considered people in their own right. I don't think what you are proposing is possible or desirable, although I do understand the motivation behind your reasoning.

I sincerely hope that the report you are referring to is the person I know about, otherwise that means more than one poor family lost their unborn baby, in addition to the many poor souls who lost their lives. The whole incident is tragic Flowers

CoteDAzur · 13/07/2017 22:24

Go take a cold shower or something.

I said that to OP. Not to a woman who lost a late term pregnancy.

SuperBeagle · 13/07/2017 22:24


A fetus has no legal rights, as they are not a separate entity until birth.

When Sharon Tate was murdered by the Manson Family, she was 8-9 months pregnant, but her son is not considered in the victim count. There are a myriad of legal reasons for this.

SparklyMagpie · 13/07/2017 22:24

Didn't say that OP though did you ?!

Disgusting comment

SparklyMagpie · 13/07/2017 22:25
  • to OP
muddlefuck · 13/07/2017 22:26

YABU. A foetus is not a person

CoteDAzur · 13/07/2017 22:26

Wishing - We are not "deluding ourselves". Look up the meaning of the word "baby" in any dictionary.

Delusion is calling a fetus "unborn child". There is no such thing, since "child" is a person who is 1-year-old or older. Any younger is a baby.

MaudGonneMad · 13/07/2017 22:27

After the Omagh bombing I think there was a child destruction charge recommended by the coroner.

user1480334601 · 13/07/2017 22:28

Premature babies - a baby born at 36 weeks is a baby and has rights, but if they are still in the womb those rights disappear? Developmentally and size etc etc they are the same

grandOlejukeofYork · 13/07/2017 22:28

As pp say, yabvu as to count them as victims you would have to give them legal status as persons, which they are not. To do so would have far reaching terrible effects on us all.

grandOlejukeofYork · 13/07/2017 22:28

Premature babies - a baby born at 36 weeks is a baby and has rights, but if they are still in the womb those rights disappear?

They don't disappear because they don't exist yet, you have it backwards.

stopfuckingshoutingatme · 13/07/2017 22:28

It's awful
But to change from 81 to 82 won't really change it

But that family Sad

The whole thing is horrific and I am glad you bought this up as we mustn't forget

theymademejoin · 13/07/2017 22:30

MaudGonne - the death toll for omagh was always described as "including a woman pregnant with twins " rather than the foetuses being counted separately. I think that is a good way of doing it.

WishingforSolong · 13/07/2017 22:32

Don't exist .....legally. Yet in every other way they do exist but without that legal status it's somehow easier to push to the back of our minds what it really means ?
I'm not anti abortion, I know in some circumstances it is necessary and the only option so has its place but I feel we are too desensitised to what it really is and regulations/time limits need changing.
In the case of this tragedy OP mentions I think that the baby should be recognised as a victim

SolomanDaisy · 13/07/2017 22:33

I think that is a good way to describe it they. It's a way of acknowledging the loss happened.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.