Abortion Rights and Fetal Homicide: Contradiction? In MY Law?

[Shanghai Alice]

I sure am pro-life. I feel you are as well.

Eh. I'm not saying you're a horrible person because of it, but I feel like people need to take a definite stance.

There are too many "pro-life" politicians that support abortion, and it bugs me.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Eh. I'm not saying you're a horrible person because of it, but I feel like people need to take a definite stance.

There are too many "pro-life" politicians that support abortion, and it bugs me.

In no way do I support abortion. Just thought I'd clear that up.

 

[Eliminator Jr.]

Which is funny, because coal is cheap and abundant, but it causes pollution. It's an easier way to get power, but it's frowned upon, so we use wind and nuclear, because "It's easier" is no excuse.

From what I've been told embryonic and adult stem cells have been known to treat different diseases; in other words there are some diseases that we would need embryonic stem cells for, not just because they're more abundant and cure the patient faster (or "easier") but because adult stem cells wouldn't do the job.

But to stay on topic, I agree with I Laugh At Your Misfortune!, that if this particular part of the law was to be consistent they should introduce "forced abortion" as a crime, as the mother had no consent in the termination of the fetus. It's happened before that juries would convict differently to what the law entails - in Australia they had to create the indictment of defensive homocide, because too many juries weren't convicting people of murder (or manslaughter, I can't remember) because of the "I had to defend myself" defence. What I'm trying to say that if a fetus being killed without consent is making juries give out harsher penalties, maybe a law should be made to reflect this.

 

[Shanghai Alice]

In no way do I support abortion. Just thought I'd clear that up.

:D

From what I've been told embryonic and adult stem cells have been known to treat different diseases; in other words there are some diseases that we would need embryonic stem cells for, not just because they're more abundant and cure the patient faster (or "easier") but because adult stem cells wouldn't do the job.

In that case, we should find another way to treat those diseases.

If I suggested vivisecting dozens of children (Who would all die from the procedure) for the sake of science, I'm sure you would all look at me like some sort of monster.

If I suggested butchering embryos, people wouldn't so much as bat an eye.

 

[Amai]

:D


In that case, we should find another way to treat those diseases.

It really is not that easy at all, and to think so is pure ignorance.

 

[Livewire]

Problem with argument.

In theory (Whatever helps one sleep at night) the unborn child did not provoke the death penalty.

The abortion doctors, however, did.

Therefore, it is not hypocrisy because the two situations are completely different. Did you ever consider that maybe Texans against abortion would find abortion to be an all new low in "capital punishment" and feel like it's further harming their image? It's not implausible.

It was irony at best. I'm just saying.


I find that people seem to think that abortion is this trouble free answer to unwanted pregnancies amusing... There is plenty of trauma to be had for women who undergo abortions. Studies suggest that, in America, somewhere around 60% of women who get one cannot get over it. Medical research shows that after only a few weeks an unborn child has a sort of nervous system, including a brain. It's less like 20, and more like 8, at max. You can expect your child to start acting on it's own as early as 4 weeks. You can expect to feel movement within 16-20, and that's only because the womb has no feelings of it's own, so it has to move quite a bit for you to feel it.

Grey indeed.

I hope you aren't insinuating that the doctor deserved being murdered, for starters, and I was under the impression murder was murder? That's the same. A life being taken is life being taken, regardless of the circumstances, so that was totally valid point. And usually the pro life people say all life is sacred, yet the death penalty somehow isn't killing.

Rampant Hypocrisy.

If someone is pro-life and is for the death penalty= hypocrite. A big contradiction.

 

[Eliminator Jr.]

I hope you aren't insinuating that the doctor deserved being murdered, for starters, and I was under the impression murder was murder? That's the same. A life being taken is life being taken, regardless of the circumstances, so that was totally valid point. And usually the pro life people say all life is sacred, yet the death penalty somehow isn't killing.

Just playing Devil's Advocate here - I'm sure the argument that will be used to rebut this involves the "innocence" of a fetus compared to that of a person who has murdered somebody (innocence is in quotations obviously because pro-life people will see the fetus as a being and pro-choice people will see the fetus as a non-being and so not capable of being innocent or guilty).

I will say that if this argument is used then one could also argue that there is difference between a person on life-support in a coma (like a pro-life poster said earlier) and a fetus in that although both have no capacity to think or feel* the person in the coma has gained something throughout living their life (similar to how one becomes guilty of a crime but think opposite - how one forms relationships with family and friends, impact on the world etc.) and have more value than a fetus. Of course, there's no winning this argument as both sides will be talking to brick walls, so this doesn't really make much sense me posting this, but whatever.

* Somebody said that a brain-dead person in a coma still retains some cognitive function or something similar to that, look back over page 1.

- - -​

Again back to the main topic, even though I'm pro-choice I would support tougher penalties on a person convicted of murdering a pregnant woman as opposed to murdering a regular person, simply because it wasn't their right to terminate the fetus. Even though I don't believe the fetus qualifies as life, it has the potential to become a human being and murdering it infringes on the rights of the mother to have a baby (but not on the rights of fetus itself, as personally I believe the fetus does not have rights until it is 20 weeks old or so).

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Just playing Devil's Advocate here - I'm sure the argument that will be used to rebut this involves the "innocence" of a fetus compared to that of a person who has murdered somebody (innocence is in quotations obviously because pro-life people will see the fetus as a being and pro-choice people will see the fetus as a non-being and so not capable of being innocent or guilty).

I will say that if this argument is used then one could also argue that there is difference between a person on life-support in a coma (like a pro-life poster said earlier) and a fetus in that although both have no capacity to think or feel* the person in the coma has gained something throughout living their life (similar to how one becomes guilty of a crime but think opposite - how one forms relationships with family and friends, impact on the world etc.) and have more value than a fetus. Of course, there's no winning this argument as both sides will be talking to brick walls, so this doesn't really make much sense me posting this, but whatever.

* Somebody said that a brain-dead person in a coma still retains some cognitive function or something similar to that, look back over page 1.

- - -​

Again back to the main topic, even though I'm pro-choice I would support tougher penalties on a person convicted of murdering a pregnant woman as opposed to murdering a regular person, simply because it wasn't their right to terminate the fetus. Even though I don't believe the fetus qualifies as life, it has the potential to become a human being and murdering it infringes on the rights of the mother to have a baby (but not on the rights of fetus itself, as personally I believe the fetus does not have rights until it is 20 weeks old or so).

Here's the problem with that logic. The U.S. is a common law nation (except Louisiana), and the common law definition of homicide is "the unlawful killing of a human being". In order for it to be legally possible to murder a fetus, you would have to accept that it is a human being. Now the state can make "forced abortion" a crime without having to acknowledge the fetuses' humanity, but they cannot make it punishable by death, like murder is in the states that still have the death penalty (which is the majority of them, as well as the federal government). This was decided in the U.S. Supreme Court case Kennedy v. Louisiana, where the Court struck down Louisiana laws the made child rape punishable by death, stating that only murder can be punishable by death because "punishments must be proportionate to the crime".

 

[Eliminator Jr.]

Here's the problem with that logic. The U.S. is a common law nation (except Louisiana), and the common law definition of homicide is "the unlawful killing of a human being". In order for it to be legally possible to murder a fetus, you would have to accept that it is a human being. Now the state can make "forced abortion" a crime without having to acknowledge the fetuses' humanity, but they cannot make it punishable by death, like murder is in the states that still have the death penalty (which is the majority of them, as well as the federal government). This was decided in the U.S. Supreme Court case Kennedy v. Louisiana, where the Court struck down Louisiana laws the made child rape punishable by death, stating that only murder can be punishable by death because "punishments must be proportionate to the crime".

I see where you're getting at, I was moreso just looking at it being an (what's the legal word?) incentive for juries to give somebody who has already murdered the mother the death sentence as opposed to just life in prison or a certain amount of years in prison. I wouldn't give somebody the death penalty for example if they slipped a drug that killed the fetus into the mother's drink or somehow intentionally forced a miscarriage or whatever - sure I'd definitely give them punishment, but not the death penalty.

Is it possible for forced abortion to be integrated into a case such as this to encourage jurors to opt for a harsher penalty for criminals who murder a pregnant woman? Through statute law obviously (that's unless a judge wants to set a precedent, which from what I've gathered won't happen any time soon, either because it hasn't been seen as necessary or the case just hasn't turned up in the courts yet). I'm not that good on the US legal system and I only know basics of the Australian system so you're going to have to help me here XD

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I see where you're getting at, I was moreso just looking at it being an (what's the legal word?) incentive for juries to give somebody who has already murdered the mother the death sentence as opposed to just life in prison or a certain amount of years in prison. I wouldn't give somebody the death penalty for example if they slipped a drug that killed the fetus into the mother's drink or somehow intentionally forced a miscarriage or whatever - sure I'd definitely give them punishment, but not the death penalty.

Is it possible for forced abortion to be integrated into a case such as this to encourage jurors to opt for a harsher penalty for criminals who murder a pregnant woman? Through statute law obviously (that's unless a judge wants to set a precedent, which from what I've gathered won't happen any time soon, either because it hasn't been seen as necessary or the case just hasn't turned up in the courts yet). I'm not that good on the US legal system and I only know basics of the Australian system so you're going to have to help me here XD

Yes there is, but the woman would have to be murdered. Terminating the pregnancy itself while the mother survives would not allow for capital punishment unless the unborn's humanity is recognized by the law.

Whether a defendant convicted of murder is sentenced to death or not is determined by a jury. The prosecution presents factors to the jury to persuade them to impose a harsh sentence such as death or life without the possibility of parole, while the defendant' attorney(s) present mitigating factors to the jury to persuade them to be leinient on the defendant. The woman's pregnancy can be brought up as an aggravating factor in the sentencing phase of the trail, but it cannot be used as a charge in itself to warrant capital punishment.

 

[twocows]

I think it should carry a similar punishment to murder, but it shouldn't be called murder. It's essentially depriving the mother of the right to raise her child. A heinous crime that deserves a punishment equivalent to murder, but I don't believe it technically is murder itself. But the law is as it is, and at least the criminal gets punished. Still, do the ends justify the means? I think the law should be rewritten to be more specific.

However, this assumes my opinions on the subject of abortion (I'm very much pro-choice). Obviously some people will feel very differently.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I think it should carry a similar punishment to murder, but it shouldn't be called murder. It's essentially depriving the mother of the right to raise her child. A heinous crime that deserves a punishment equivalent to murder, but I don't believe it technically is murder itself. But the law is as it is, and at least the criminal gets punished. Still, do the ends justify the means? I think the law should be rewritten to be more specific.

However, this assumes my opinions on the subject of abortion (I'm very much pro-choice). Obviously some people will feel very differently.

I would agree to a different title. 25 years to life is the max penalty in my state for non capital crimes. Both death and life without the possibilty of parile are considered capital punishment here. If a crime isn't classified as murder, than capital punishment is off limits. If it is murder, than abortion doesn't make sense because consent is not a valid defense to murder. See the legal inconsitency?

 

[Dawn]

I hope you aren't insinuating that the doctor deserved being murdered, for starters, and I was under the impression murder was murder? That's the same. A life being taken is life being taken, regardless of the circumstances, so that was totally valid point. And usually the pro life people say all life is sacred, yet the death penalty somehow isn't killing.

Rampant Hypocrisy.

If someone is pro-life and is for the death penalty= hypocrite. A big contradiction.

<Insert long drawn out groaning tone here>
Ignorance...

Murder A is not Murder B because circumstance matters and generalizing would be wrong. But why am I telling this to someone who has the nerve to generalize the debate as either pro-life or pro-choice? There can't be any grey areas in this debate! Nope!

I believe Pro Life is not realistic enough and Pro Choice is too practical at the expense of morals and culture. Oooh look. A grey area. Scary.

 

[Livewire]

<Insert long drawn out groaning tone here>
Ignorance...

Murder A is not Murder B because circumstance matters and generalizing would be wrong. But why am I telling this to someone who has the nerve to generalize the debate as either pro-life or pro-choice? There can't be any grey areas in this debate! Nope!

I believe Pro Life is not realistic enough and Pro Choice is too practical at the expense of morals and culture. Oooh look. A grey area. Scary.

Ignorance?

Murder is Murder. Are the circumstances different? Yes. Its a convicted criminal and a mass of not fully formed bodily tissues that eventually will become a baby. But the end result is the same. Killing is killing, no matter what the moral justification (or lack therof) is. Logically, one cannot be pro-Death Penalty and pro-life. Note the paradox.

I am Pro-Choice. What a woman does concerning her body and with her life is none of my business, and it would be ill-advised to force my personal beliefs concering abortion on her. I'm not fuly aware of her situation, I don't know her or what it's like to be in her situation. I may not like abortion, but the service needs to be available to the people who need it.

And Roe V. Wade is the way the law should be. And the law will most likely stay that way.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Ignorance?

Murder is Murder. Are the circumstances different? Yes. Its a convicted criminal and a mass of not fully formed bodily tissues that eventually will become a baby. But the end result is the same. Killing is killing, no matter what the moral justification (or lack therof) is. Logically, one cannot be pro-Death Penalty and pro-life. Note the paradox.

I am Pro-Choice. What a woman does concerning her body and with her life is none of my business, and it would be ill-advised to force my personal beliefs concering abortion on her. I'm not fuly aware of her situation, I don't know her or what it's like to be in her situation. I may not like abortion, but the service needs to be available to the people who need it.

And Roe V. Wade is the way the law should be. And the law will most likely stay that way.

If fetal homicide is considered murder, than consent is not a valid defense or justification to fetal homicide. No one on trial for murder or other forms of homicide can claim consent as a basis for acquital.

 

[Amai]

Abortion should be allowed in some cases. But if some rich girl comes in to get an abortion just because she doesn't want to stop partying, that shouldn't be allowed. The same thing goes for a teenage mother who was an idiot.

Rape and incest are the only times I support abortion. Maybe if the baby has a disease. And by that I mean, a disease that will kill it right when it is born or make it suffer for a few days than kill it. (And if you say "Then we should find a cure!" you're an idiot because it's not that easy.)

Or when it's going to kill the mother (which in turn, kills the baby as well. No point in making two people die for no reason.)

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Abortion should be allowed in some cases. But if some rich girl comes in to get an abortion just because she doesn't want to stop partying, that shouldn't be allowed. The same thing goes for a teenage mother who was an idiot.

Rape and incest are the only times I support abortion. Maybe if the baby has a disease. And by that I mean, a disease that will kill it right when it is born or make it suffer for a few days than kill it. (And if you say "Then we should find a cure!" you're an idiot because it's not that easy.)

Or when it's going to kill the mother (which in turn, kills the baby as well. No point in making two people die for no reason.)

The law cannont prevent rich girls from getting abortions, because that would violate their right to equal protection of the laws. In my point of view, the only situations where abortion is acceptable are rape, and when labor would pose a serious health risk to the mother.

 

[Amai]

The law cannont prevent rich girls from getting abortions, because that would violate their right to equal protection of the laws. In my point of view, the only situations where abortion is acceptable are rape, when labor wuld pose a serious health risk to the mother.

And incest is just jolly good to you?

 

[twocows]

And incest is just jolly good to you?

I know I'm probably going to get a lot of flack for this, but I don't think incest is a problem so long as (a) the two people are of age, and (b) the two people are consenting individuals. If one is not consenting, then it falls under the category of rape (though as I'm pro-choice in almost all cases, rape doesn't factor in as much). And before anybody jumps to any conclusions, I am able to be tolerant of a lifestyle despite being disgusted by it. So long as no harm is done, it's none of my concern what people do amongst themselves.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

And incest is just jolly good to you?

Incenst between consenting adults is a private matter. Government has no business interferring. If the woman was a minor, the rape provision covers that, since all sex with minors is legally rape regardless or consent or the lack thereof.

Whether is legal for two minors close in age to have sex varies from state to state. Here in California, if two minors, regardless of their age difference, have consensual sex with each other, both are guilty of committing statutory rape against each other. These cases are rarely prosecuted, but it is still possible for two consenting 17 year old individuals to be charged and convicted or statutory rape against each other, and both may have to register as sex offenders for the rest of their lives here.