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

[Dawn]

Rape and incest are the only times I support abortion.

Incest does not cause any sort of birth defect or impairment. That's an old wives tale. There is no significant increase in the rate of defections and impairment among babies born from incest parents.

Therefore, incest parents should not be treated any differently from regular parents.

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.

I agree wholeheartedly. The extremist pro-choice laws we have currently are not satisfying. Not at all. There must be appropriate limits.

 

[Richard Lynch]

<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.

While I agree that Murder A =/= Murder B, don't forget that you can factor out the Murder and reach the conclusion that Murder(A=/=B). The Murder is the same, but circumstance may be different. Murder is Murder, whether it be your neighbor or the man who tried to rob your house and didn't realize you have a gun. There is still a life being taken; you of all people I'd expect to agree with that.

And there's that "moral" debate again. I'm a moral relativist, have been for a long time. Cultures differ (and most of 'em, including our own, are down right weird), but it's, err, ignorant? to force morals where they are not wanted.

Need I remind you that there is a big difference between abortion being legal than illegal? When it's legal, it gives you the choice, and some people (pro-lifers) may opt out of it, and their own morals will remain unscathed, while when it's illegal, the morals are being forced. No one seems to understand this... people act as if when it's legal, everyone MUST have an abortion.

Incest does not cause any sort of birth defect or impairment. That's an old wives tale. There is no significant increase in the rate of defections and impairment among babies born from incest parents.

Therefore, incest parents should not be treated any differently from regular parents.

I dunno about that... ever been to Alabama? :P

I agree wholeheartedly. The extremist pro-choice laws we have currently are not satisfying. Not at all. There must be appropriate limits.

Why do you care so much about what others do? Whenever an abortion occurs, do you get tingly around the ears? How does a woman having an abortion affect your life in such a way that you demand stricter limits on it? Because they're acting against your morals? That's not much of a reason, if you ask me.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

While I agree that Murder A =/= Murder B, don't forget that you can factor out the Murder and reach the conclusion that Murder(A=/=B). The Murder is the same, but circumstance may be different. Murder is Murder, whether it be your neighbor or the man who tried to rob your house and didn't realize you have a gun. There is still a life being taken; you of all people I'd expect to agree with that.

And there's that "moral" debate again. I'm a moral relativist, have been for a long time. Cultures differ (and most of 'em, including our own, are down right weird), but it's, err, ignorant? to force morals where they are not wanted.

Need I remind you that there is a big difference between abortion being legal than illegal? When it's legal, it gives you the choice, and some people (pro-lifers) may opt out of it, and their own morals will remain unscathed, while when it's illegal, the morals are being forced. No one seems to understand this... people act as if when it's legal, everyone MUST have an abortion.



I dunno about that... ever been to Alabama? :P



Why do you care so much about what others do? Whenever an abortion occurs, do you get tingly around the ears? How does a woman having an abortion affect your life in such a way that you demand stricter limits on it? Because they're acting against your morals? That's not much of a reason, if you ask me.

So than why do we care what murderers do? What they do doesn't effect me directly? Scott Peterson acted against my morals when he killed his wife and his unborn child. Should I view what he did for the moral relativism point-of-view? Maybe murder is acceptable in his culture, so who am I to say he was wrong?

I'm all for Libertarianism, but I use the harm principle to determine where I draw the line. Since I believe that a fetus is a human being, abortion is murder in my view.

That being said, exceptions for the life of the mother and rape, and parental notification laws for underage abortion seekers are reasonable concessions to the pro-choice crowd from us pro-lifers.

 

[KanadeTenshi]

And incest is just jolly good to you?

Flame me but I don't see any problems with incest at all. They just need to know what they're getting into. What's so different than a brother and sister having sex than a husband and wife? I don't see much difference.

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.

..Rich girls? What the heck now?
Hmm, let's see. I'll reply to this guy as well:

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.

..Okay. Do you even know what kind of responsibility that is for a teen girl to take hold of a baby? Have you ever thought how much work needs to be done, especially at that age? Sure "I can't party with this!" isn't a valid reason, but that's just a selfish (I think) reason, however if a girl came and asked herself (and, let's add up the reader to the question too) if taking responsibility for a baby at this age would be easy.. let's see, buying things, need to work, there's school too, there's no husband / guy to take care of the baby.. and I don't think adoption might be a solution, since he girl would still be 9~ months pregnant. Isn't that around a school year or something?
Point is: taking hold of a baby, especially giving birth at that age is.. something not to be taken lightly. I dunno about all of this abortion thing but what I think it should be up to the woman who'll decide.
Just my two cents. I've probably stated stupid things but heck I don't care.
tl;dr = It's up to the woman, not some "abortion should/shouldn't be" crap.

And aren't we getting a bit offtopic now too?

 

[Amai]

Flame me but I don't see any problems with incest at all. They just need to know what they're getting into. What's so different than a brother and sister having sex than a husband and wife? I don't see much difference.

You don't know anything about genetics, do you?

 

[KanadeTenshi]

I knew I should add a "jumping to conclusions is bad" there.. I never really said there was going to be a baby. Or maybe sex between brother and sister is just different but I have no idea. Or I just didn't get you.

 

[Melody]

You don't know anything about genetics, do you?

Well this is only relevant if they are both carrying genetic defects that are not active traits. Sure the risks of birth defects are higher, but that doesn't make incest suddenly a crime. If both of them are adults, consenting and WANT that kind of a relationship despite the risks, then they ought to be expected to be mature enough to handle the consequences if something goes wrong.

That being said...consensual sex between a brother and sister does not imply that they WANT a child...sex is a form of expressing love. If proper contraceptive tactics are used, the chances of pregnancy are vastly reduced.

There is no crime in incest...it's just not recommended. Kinda like an appliance, it's one of those things that 'voids your warranty' but isn't necessarily harmful. :p

Ok, back to the topic at hand here. Abortion itself isn't murder. If you look at how we define the lifespan of a human, we count it from the day it was born...not from the day it was conceived.

With that firmly in mind...it's not born yet, and therefore is not granted the same rights as a human until birth.

I really don't give a damn what anyone else thinks...I feel the mother DOES have rights to abortion. It's her body, it's her life that's gonna change if she births this child...we should not interfere with that.

Sure, it's perfectly fine to offer adoption as an option to any pregnant woman considering abortion, but if she REALLY wants to abort, then that is HER decision. NOT THE GOVERNMENTS, NOT THE CHURCHES' AND NOT ANYONE ELSE'S DECISION! Only the doctor can make STRONG recommendations or prohibitions against it IF AND ONLY IF the procedure would threaten her health.

You cannot consider an abortion as murder unless it is forced upon the woman without her consent...by causing enough damage to her body that the baby dies. THEN and ONLY THEN can it be considered a "Double Murder" (Really, that ought to just be a separate charge. Rather than charging them with two counts of "Murder __" just make it a simple, single charge with it's own minimum penalties and such.

 

[Amai]

Well this is only relevant if they are both carrying genetic defects that are not active traits. Sure the risks of birth defects are higher, but that doesn't make incest suddenly a crime. If both of them are adults, consenting and WANT that kind of a relationship despite the risks, then they ought to be expected to be mature enough to handle the consequences if something goes wrong.

That being said...consensual sex between a brother and sister does not imply that they WANT a child...sex is a form of expressing love. If proper contraceptive tactics are used, the chances of pregnancy are vastly reduced.

There is no crime in incest...it's just not recommended. Kinda like an appliance, it's one of those things that 'voids your warranty' but isn't necessarily harmful. :p

Ok, back to the topic at hand here. Abortion itself isn't murder. If you look at how we define the lifespan of a human, we count it from the day it was born...not from the day it was conceived.

With that firmly in mind...it's not born yet, and therefore is not granted the same rights as a human until birth.

I really don't give a damn what anyone else thinks...I feel the mother DOES have rights to abortion. It's her body, it's her life that's gonna change if she births this child...we should not interfere with that.

Sure, it's perfectly fine to offer adoption as an option to any pregnant woman considering abortion, but if she REALLY wants to abort, then that is HER decision. NOT THE GOVERNMENTS, NOT THE CHURCHES' AND NOT ANYONE ELSE'S DECISION! Only the doctor can make STRONG recommendations or prohibitions against it IF AND ONLY IF the procedure would threaten her health.

You cannot consider an abortion as murder unless it is forced upon the woman without her consent...by causing enough damage to her body that the baby dies. THEN and ONLY THEN can it be considered a "Double Murder" (Really, that ought to just be a separate charge. Rather than charging them with two counts of "Murder __" just make it a simple, single charge with it's own minimum penalties and such.

Um, apparently you don't know anything about genetics either.

When a brother and sister have a kid, there is a very high probability of genetic mutation which can lead to thousands of disfiguring and even deadly diseases. It has nothing to do with what traits they have. It has everything to do that they are brother and sister.

So I guess it's okay to potentially torture a baby for it's entire life to come (even though that life may be just a few years) but not okay to kill it.

That is just..flawless reasoning.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

It's pretty straightforward in the terms of the law.

But not that I agree with it. Abortion is a right more to a woman's body than a murder, especially if preformed in a case where the mother's life is at risk if the pregnancy is not terminated.

 

[Livewire]

Incest does not cause any sort of birth defect or impairment. That's an old wives tale. There is no significant increase in the rate of defections and impairment among babies born from incest parents.

Yes, it does. Incest increases the risk for genetic disorders being present in the incestuous relationships' children. Look at the case of Patrick and Susan Stübing for one example, siblings who lived totally seperate lives, then met and got married, and had 4 children. All of those children were born with severe developmental disorders, two have Autism and they all have varying levels of mental retardation as a result. Incest increases the risk for genetic problems, that's a fact.


And the laws governing abortion are far from "extremist pro choice" Note the limitations placed on abortions after a certain Trimester is over/starting. The law allows for abortions, yet limits them at the same time, and that's why Roe V. Wade has stood for 30+ years.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Yes, it does. Incest increases the risk for genetic disorders being present in the incestuous relationships' children. Look at the case of Patrick and Susan Stübing for one example, siblings who lived totally seperate lives, then met and got married, and had 4 children. All of those children were born with severe developmental disorders, two have Autism and they all have varying levels of mental retardation as a result. Incest increases the risk for genetic problems, that's a fact.


And the laws governing abortion are far from "extremist pro choice" Note the limitations placed on abortions after a certain Trimester is over/starting. The law allows for abortions, yet limits them at the same time, and that's why Roe V. Wade has stood for 30+ years.

Abortions restrictions vary by state. There are some states that place all the restrictions they can get away with on abortion, such as limiting it to the first trimester, requiring physicians to inform women of alternatives, waiting periods, parental notification laws, not allowing for public subsidization of elective abortions, etc. And there are some states that allow an underage girl to have a late-term abortion on the taxpayer's dollar with no questions asked.

I believe that those restrictions are a good compromise. They allow for adult woman to have abortions as long as she does so before the fetus reaches the point where it might have a chance of be viable outside of the womb, they educate woman on their alternative options before they make such a big decision, and they don't use public funds to assist woman in having an elective abortions so the government isn't sponsoring the abortion. They also have laws in place to protect underage girls.

 

[Livewire]

I believe that those restrictions are a good compromise. They allow for adult woman to have abortions as long as she does so before the fetus reaches the point where it might have a chance of be viable outside of the womb, they educate woman on their alternative options before they make such a big decision, and they don't use public funds to assist woman in having an elective abortions so the government isn't sponsoring the abortion. They also have laws in place to protect underage girls.

I'll agree to that up there. ^ As long as the process remains available, by law, to people who generally need it is what matters. The way Roe V. Wade is set up, I don't think any amount of bickering or political dealing will over turn it.

 

[KanadeTenshi]

Um, apparently you don't know anything about genetics either.

When a brother and sister have a kid, there is a very high probability of genetic mutation which can lead to thousands of disfiguring and even deadly diseases. It has nothing to do with what traits they have. It has everything to do that they are brother and sister.

So I guess it's okay to potentially torture a baby for it's entire life to come (even though that life may be just a few years) but not okay to kill it.

That is just..flawless reasoning.

No. It's you who doesn't know how to read a post. If you actually read my and Pachy's posts:

Flame me but I don't see any problems with incest at all. They just need to know what they're getting into. What's so different than a brother and sister having sex than a husband and wife? I don't see much difference.

Well this is only relevant if they are both carrying genetic defects that are not active traits. Sure the risks of birth defects are higher, but that doesn't make incest suddenly a crime. If both of them are adults, consenting and WANT that kind of a relationship despite the risks, then they ought to be expected to be mature enough to handle the consequences if something goes wrong.

That being said...consensual sex between a brother and sister does not imply that they WANT a child...sex is a form of expressing love. If proper contraceptive tactics are used, the chances of pregnancy are vastly reduced.

Why do you assume they WANT a baby?
You just go and assume sex > baby. You do know people have sex for the fun of it?
I'm getting offtopic, but if you go and rant "genetics omg" and "baby" then you make your posts seem.. I have no idea.

As for the second part.. you know so much and rant about genetics and babies that you completely forgot there's protection for that kind of thing.

Oh and FreakyLocz.. what is so good about restrictions?

 

[Eliminator Jr.]

No. It's you who doesn't know how to read a post. If you actually read my and Pachy's posts:

I think Amai was responding to the part of Pachy's post when she said "well this is only relevant if they are both carrying genetic defects that are not active traits", not the part about incest couples not having to have children. As for who's correct, I don't do biology so I wouldn't have a clue.

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?

We wouldn't be charging the criminal with murder of the fetus, we'd be charging him with infringement of the mother's right to have a baby, however the forced abortion of the fetus would be used as an incentive to give the harsher penalty (death penalty) to the criminal for the murder of the mother.

Or were you talking about the current laws being inconsistent? Sorry if I replied to this if you were just talking about what the laws are currently.

 

[Richard Lynch]

So than why do we care what murderers do? What they do doesn't effect me directly? Scott Peterson acted against my morals when he killed his wife and his unborn child. Should I view what he did for the moral relativism point-of-view? Maybe murder is acceptable in his culture, so who am I to say he was wrong?

I'm all for Libertarianism, but I use the harm principle to determine where I draw the line. Since I believe that a fetus is a human being, abortion is murder in my view.

That being said, exceptions for the life of the mother and rape, and parental notification laws for underage abortion seekers are reasonable concessions to the pro-choice crowd from us pro-lifers.

I doubt I'm helping my case when I say that I believe the only thing close to an absolute moral is murder. I agree with you on the harm thing... as long as what you do doesn't bring harm to another life, I'm all for it. But...

It all truly does boil down to the notion of "is a fetus a life?". I think we all can agree that the answer is: "I don't know". A fetus, while inside of the mother, fits the definition of a parasite perfectly. However, at the same time, after birth, it's still a bit of a parasite, because it wouldn't really survive without the mother. It's a sticky subject, and I won't deny that.

But, in a slight altercation of your words, I'll say that I do not believe a fetus is a life, therefor abortion is in no way murder.

This also gets into the idea of "is human life more important than other life?" For example, every time you wash your hands, you're killing bacteria. Why are there no laws against that? Theoretically, by Darwinism, any single-cell organism has the ability to evolve into a higher organism, so why isn't it considered murder?

 

[Amai]

No. It's you who doesn't know how to read a post. If you actually read my and Pachy's posts:


Why do you assume they WANT a baby?
You just go and assume sex > baby. You do know people have sex for the fun of it?
I'm getting offtopic, but if you go and rant "genetics omg" and "baby" then you make your posts seem.. I have no idea.

As for the second part.. you know so much and rant about genetics and babies that you completely forgot there's protection for that kind of thing.

Oh and FreakyLocz.. what is so good about restrictions?

Like someone above said, I was replying to "well this is only relevant if they are both carrying genetic defects that are not active traits". But good try.

 

[Stellar]

I believe the fine line between fetal homicide and abortion rests entirely upon the mother's wishes. A violent father shouldn't be able to take away a mother's right to give birth to their child in the same way that the country shouldn't be able to take away a woman's right to choose. To take the life of an unborn child from a mother who is clearly ready for children is murder in my eyes, if not of the fetus then of the mother's very heart and soul. But if a woman is raped and the pregnancy is forced upon them, who is to say that they are powerless to move on rather than subject themselves (and the child) to living that kind of life? Would you really call someone in that situation a murderer?

It's the woman's body and it's her choice, that's what it all comes down to. I feel as though many pro-lifers tend to see the issue in black and white and don't take into account the helpless women who are caught in the grey area. It isn't as simple as saying that all forms of abortion are equal to murder because you affect countless lives by making that assumption, some of them in very negative ways.

However, I do appreciate the point you're making. I've never seen this particular issue brought to light before, but then again I don't talk about the subject much. I have many close friends who are pro-lifers and I'd rather respect their opinion and keep to my own than start a possible fight.

 

[twocows]

Um, apparently you don't know anything about genetics either.

When a brother and sister have a kid, there is a very high probability of genetic mutation which can lead to thousands of disfiguring and even deadly diseases. It has nothing to do with what traits they have. It has everything to do that they are brother and sister.

So I guess it's okay to potentially torture a baby for it's entire life to come (even though that life may be just a few years) but not okay to kill it.

That is just..flawless reasoning.

Sorry to be contrary, but that's entirely untrue. Putting aside the straw man you created, there is no statistically significant evidence presented in any properly conducted studies (key word is properly, the oft-cited one from a few decades ago has been proven to be poorly conducted) to suggest that children of incest have any more genetic mutations than other children.

And I also think you don't understand how genetics works. Nearly every person on the face of the planet has some bit of mutation; it's a natural part of the genetic process, and it's what the theory of evolution is based on. Every new generation has a little more variation because of some differences in the genetic code of the new generation. Sometimes these are harmful, and when this happens those with the harmful defects generally don't live to pass on those genes. It's kind of like trial and error on a planetary scale. However, sometimes such mutations are helpful. The sickle-cell gene became so prevalent because, though it produced other large problems, it provided a resistance to malaria, a highly common disease in the area of Africa it was most common in. Still, the vast majority of genetic mutation doesn't produce any discernible differences. Much of the genetic code is stuff that's never even used, so the mutated genes don't really do much; other times, the change is slight or something that is already common.

On a genetic level, though, there's no reason why incest would produce any different results genetically speaking than any other combination. In fact, incest is quite common in animal populations; if it was something that harmful to the offspring, it would have died off long ago.

Again, though, it's not something I support; merely something I tolerate. I think it's best to try to think about things from an objective standpoint even if I personally find such things absolutely disgusting.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I believe the fine line between fetal homicide and abortion rests entirely upon the mother's wishes. A violent father shouldn't be able to take away a mother's right to give birth to their child in the same way that the country shouldn't be able to take away a woman's right to choose. To take the life of an unborn child from a mother who is clearly ready for children is murder in my eyes, if not of the fetus then of the mother's very heart and soul. But if a woman is raped and the pregnancy is forced upon them, who is to say that they are powerless to move on rather than subject themselves (and the child) to living that kind of life? Would you really call someone in that situation a murderer?

It's the woman's body and it's her choice, that's what it all comes down to. I feel as though many pro-lifers tend to see the issue in black and white and don't take into account the helpless women who are caught in the grey area. It isn't as simple as saying that all forms of abortion are equal to murder because you affect countless lives by making that assumption, some of them in very negative ways.

However, I do appreciate the point you're making. I've never seen this particular issue brought to light before, but then again I don't talk about the subject much. I have many close friends who are pro-lifers and I'd rather respect their opinion and keep to my own than start a possible fight.

Saying that it's the woman's body; so it's her choice, just shows me how selfish the pro-choice crowd is. They completely ignore that fact that there is another person with its own body involved.

That being said. Just sticking strictly to legal inconsistency between the two laws: consent is not a valid defense to homicide, and neither is inability nor unwillingness to care for one's child. The inconsistency stems from the common law definition of homicide, which 49 states in the U.S. and federal government follow: "Homicide is the unlawful killing a human being." Thus, the term "fetal homicide" is pretty much accepting that a fetus is a human being.

I agreed earlier that classifying fetal homicide as some sort of crime would be acceptable from a legal standpoint. It could still carry some pretty harsh penalties like 25 to life or 50 to life. In my state, the only sentences that are off limits to non-murder offenses are death and life without the possibility of parole.

 

[Eliminator Jr.]

That being said. Just sticking strictly to legal inconsistency between the two laws: consent is not a valid defense to homicide, and neither is inability nor unwillingness to care for one's child. The inconsistency stems from the common law definition of marriage, which 49 states in the U.S. and federal government follow: "Homicide is the unlawful killing a human being." Thus, the term "fetal homicide" is pretty much accepting that a fetus is a human being.

I wouldn't be a fan of a fetal homicide law. Instead, we could charge the criminal with the infringement of the mother's right to have a baby and give it a penalty that reflects the views of the community (ie. a decent sentence). It doesn't state that the fetus is a human being, getting rid of the legal inconsistency, and in the end it has a similar outcome to if we did have a fetal homicide law. The death sentence/capital punishment would not be appropriate for this crime in my opinion (so the fetus does not have to be considered as life).

Relating to what you said before about somebody who murdered a pregnant woman - the facts that the woman is carrying a child makes her less able to defend herself as well as forcing an abortion, both things which can act as incentive to give the criminal the death penalty for the murder of the mother as opposed to giving the criminal a less harsh penalty.

Unrelated to the topic at hand but just to clarify, I wouldn't support an abortion past the 20 week stage; if you've left it that late you should have to go through with having the child, and if needed just put it up for adoption. You've got five months to make the decision for an abortion (probably around four of being aware of being pregnant) which is more than adequate time to get an abortion. I support legalising abortion because as well as giving the woman the choice to abort, it puts in place balances and checks to make sure the women know what they're doing and to stop dangerous home abortions (for example, using a coathanger :S) from happening. Abortion will still be happening whether it's legalised or not, and I'd rather women can get an abortion from a qualified professional instead of an amateur or even themselves.