Talk:Child destruction

Satanic cults
Child destruction, it seems, has often been associated with satanic cults. There should perhaps be additional sources regarding the alleged practice among such cults. ADM (talk) 04:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is about the law. But if you or anyone else has any reliable statistics regarding the incidence of "Satanic cults" being charged with this crime (in the places this particular law exists), I assume no one will object to their appropriate inclusion in the article ;-) MsBatfish (talk) 03:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

"1958 Crimes Act"
I think the reference to this in the Daily Telegraph article is a mistake. It certainly is if it suppossed to refer to a statute in the United Kingdom. James500 (talk) 13:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge with abortion article
This entry appears to have political motivations behind it. It may very well be a launching base by the anti-choice movement to oppose some of the more neutral content in the abortion article. As the content of this is entirely within the realm of abortion, it only makes sense to merge it as a sub-category (and only then if there are actual laws on the books which literally state the offence of "child destruction"). Frank Pais (talk) 21:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This article is already in Category:Abortion law, and is summarized in feticide. Do you think feticide should also be merged with abortion? The references clearly prove there are actual laws on the books which literally state the offence of "child destruction" in England, Northern Ireland, and Hong Kong. It has other names in most Australian states, but as the McLean reference states, the idea is the same.  I wrote most of this and I can assure you I have no truck with the anti-choice movement. You may feel that the existence of such laws was motivated by anti-choice sentiments on the part of legislators; but it is still possible and indeed necessary to describe the laws in a neutral manner. jnestorius(talk) 11:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that feticide should be merged with abortion, but this article should be merged with feticide. It just doesn't really make sense without the context provided by the larger article.Character (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that the article doesn't currently make sense. However, I wouldn't object to a merger with feticide. jnestorius(talk) 14:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

This article does not have political motivations. It was created on the assumption that each nominate criminal offence should have its own article. And it cannot be convieniently merged with abortion because, rightly or wrongly, the law of England and Wales and Northern Ireland does not classify the killing of a child during its birth as abortion.James500 (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not think that this article can be merged with Feticide because child destruction includes and is primarily directed at the killing of a child during its birth, and I am not satisfied that the medical definition of fetus includes a child that it actually in the process of actually being born (the article says that it a child is a fetus "before" birth.)

Also, I think that this offence is independantly notable. A number of textbooks devote a few pages to it.James500 (talk) 14:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Killing of a viable fetus before birth
I am not satisfied that the killing of a viable fetus before birth cannot be prosecuted under section 58. Card's book explicitly says that section 58 can be used at any time up to birth, and Lord Atkins seems to have said that. I do not think that Knight's book explicitly says that it cannot. I appreciate that this may not correspond with the normal definition of the word "miscarriage" (that article says that miscarriage is a term used of unviable fetuses) but it may be that in section 58 it is being used as a legal term of art rather than a medical one.

I feel that the person who wrote the following passages has misunderstood Knight's book and I am going to remove them:

The crime exists because murder and infanticide do not apply to the unborn, and illegal abortion, defined as "unlawful procurement of a miscarriage", applies only to non-viable fetuses.

Its purpose to address a lacuna in the law: infanticide did not apply to fetuses, and "procurement of a miscarriage" (criminal abortion under the Offences against the Person Act 1861) applied only to unviable fetuses.

Feel free to tell me if you think I am wrong.James500 (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand that this type of offence was originally intended to cover the situation where a child is deliberately killed in the process of being born, or in circumstances where a miscarriage was not procured. This was a situation where the criminal law was perhaps previously silent. It appears as early as 1880 in an English Criminal Code Bill that was used to draft Australasian legislation. However drafting of the UK Act also seems to contemplate a situation where an unborn child is killed or rendered nonviable directly or indirectly in circumstances where a miscarriage (abortion) was not being procured. For example an assault on the mother that kills or destroys viability of the fetus. - 122.57.243.61 (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Capable of being born alive
I am concerned about the following passage:

"The 1929 Act defined "capable of being born alive" as 28 weeks' gestation"

Knight does not say that section 1(2) of the Act defined the expression "capable of being born alive". He says that it created a rule of evidence. In C v S, in 1988, the Court of Appeal was taking medical evidence as to whether a child between 18 and 21 week's gestation would be described as being capable of being born alive.

I am going to replace this with "the period of 28 week's gestation was". James500 (talk) 05:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Why were my edits reverted?
User:James500 reverted my entire revision as of 23:47, 7 December 2011 [| here] with the edit summary stating that he disagreed with 2 minor points. It would have been more helpful to just change what you didn't like about those 2 parts as opposed to removing my entire contribution. I am bringing this up here in an effort to prevent a potential edit war, as I see that James500 has made the vast majority of the edits to this article and may perhaps have some feelings of ownership. I think it is important for us all to remember to work with each other to improve articles, not against each other. As for the edits that James500 said he didn't agree with:

"That is not what the books by Card and Knight actually say. Killing viable fetus before birth already an offence".
 * Here you are talking about my inclusion of the words "prior to or" in the sentence: "The purpose of the law against "child destruction" is to criminalize the killing of a fetus prior to birth or during birth..." You could have easily just removed the words "prior to or". However, I still disagree. This law clearly applies to killing a fetus before birth as well. Are you just trying to say that's not why it was originally invented??


 * That passage is referenced to Richard Card's book, and that is not what Richard Card says. We cannot attribute what you are saying to him because that would be an original synthesis. James500 (talk) 06:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

"Crimes Act 1958 is Australian".
 * This is in response to the sentence: "The Crimes Act 1958 defined "capable of being born alive" as past 28 weeks' gestation; this was later reduced to 24 weeks". It's true that I did not realize this was an Australian law. I took it from another article and assumed it to be correct. You could have just altered it. I think it is important to include the definition of "capable of being born alive". You could/could have easily altered it to one of following:"In Australia the Crimes Act 1958 defined "capable of being born alive" as past 28 weeks' gestation; this was later reduced to 24 weeks" or " 'Capable of being born alive' is defined in the law as as past 28 weeks' gestation".


 * The other problem with this passage is that it was sourced to Bernard Knight's book and he does not actually mention the Crimes Act 1958 at all. James500 (talk) 06:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Another problem with that passage was that there is already a section on Australia in the article which includes section 10 of the Crimes Act 1958. James500 (talk) 07:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Also, that is not a definition (see the section above on this page). And the article already includes section 1(2) of the 1929 Act, which section 10 of the 1958 Act substantially reproduces. James500 (talk) 08:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what issue you have with all the rest of my edits. I think they improve readability, flow, clarity, and order, and reduce redundancy. I would like to place them back in, with the above sections omitted, and I would like to discuss the first one. As the sentence currently stands, "Its purpose is to criminalize the killing of a child during its birth", I don't think it is accurate and it gives the reader the impression that this law only applies to a child killed during birth (which is untrue). Any input from others regarding this matter would be most appreciated. Thanks. MsBatfish (talk) 06:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that the words "it can also be used to prosecute late abortions" cover this. Card was saying, if I understand him correctly, that the intended objective of this Act, and its actual effect, were not co-terminus. James500 (talk) 06:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It is not ownership. I simply thought that your edits made no sense. If I didn't object to the other edits expressly, that was because there is a limit on the length of the edit summary that I can type. James500 (talk) 06:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC) I do not agree that your edits improved readability, flow, clarity or order or reduced redundancy. James500 (talk) 07:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Do you want me to give you a blow by blow account of everything that I thought was wrong with that edit? James500 (talk) 08:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Cut and paste from article
The following passage was cut from the article by another editor. I reverted that edit, but removed the passage again because it cites no source for what it says:


 * In United States law, the crime of feticide may encompass both illegal abortion of non-viable foetuses and what would in English law be defined as "child destruction".

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Child destruction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120923092814/http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/sarah-louise-catt-sentencing-remarks-17092012.pdf to http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/sarah-louise-catt-sentencing-remarks-17092012.pdf#page=4

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Killing Unborn Child may be different from Child Destruction
The offence of Killing an Unborn Child as found in several Australasian jurisdictions is not derived from the 1929 English law. Rather it is derived from an earlier codification of English criminal common law that was presented as a Criminal Code Bill in 1880 to the English parliament. Several Australasian jurisdictions can trace this offence back to that 1880 bill. The wording of the offence is intended to cover a criminal act that would essentially amount to murder, were the child fully born. This offence was intended to cover a perceived gap in the law where a child was killed during the act of birth. Recent New Zealand case law indicates the offence can be applicable from as least as early as 26 weeks gestation. Does that make it a different offence? - 122.57.243.61 (talk) 12:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)