FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years
This is mainly a focus on U.S. law, but other relevant law from other countries is welcome for discussion.

As we all know, women have the right to have an abortion in all 50 states in the United States as of now. The level of restriction on abortion rights, such as waiting periods, parental notification laws, legality of late-term abortions, public subsidization of elective abortions, etc. vary from state to state, but in all states, a woman generally has the right to have an abortion.

Even though I am pro-life, I am not trying to argue that abortion is wrong in this thread. I am merely pointing out the inconsistency in the laws of the State of California (where I am studying law).

One of the most well-known cases involving fetal homicide was People v. Scott Peterson (2005). Scott Peterson was convicted of two counts of capital murder (California Penal Code section 189). One for murdering his wife Laci, and the other for murdering his unborn child, whom the couple had decided to name Connor.

California criminal law defines murder as the "unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought" (California Penal Code section 187). So killing a fetus is murder under California law?

Captain Fabio

Age 33
London, UK
Seen November 4th, 2021
Posted November 2nd, 2021
12,193 posts
17.1 Years
Abortion is one of these grey areas that no one really wants to talk about.

Personally, I say abortion is up to the woman who is carrying the fetus. Laws can say it is wrong to abort because the act is killing a human, well, in my eyes, you aren't really.
Before, about, 20 weeks, the fetus's brain hasn't fully developed, so it is really an empty shell till then.

Once you start going after 20 weeks, this is where it gets to the grey area, because it moves, can feel and such.

My overall opinion is it is down to the woman and should be left that way. People who moan and complain, you want to put the woman in a position where they have to stop their life for 9 months and she still doesn't want it, but is being forced by some stupid law?

Meh, IMO I guess.

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years
Abortion is one of these grey areas that no one really wants to talk about.

Personally, I say abortion is up to the woman who is carrying the fetus. Laws can say it is wrong to abort because the act is killing a human, well, in my eyes, you aren't really.
Before, about, 20 weeks, the fetus's brain hasn't fully developed, so it is really an empty shell till then.

Once you start going after 20 weeks, this is where it gets to the grey area, because it moves, can feel and such.

My overall opinion is it is down to the woman and should be left that way. People who moan and complain, you want to put the woman in a position where they have to stop their life for 9 months and she still doesn't want it, but is being forced by some stupid law?

Meh, IMO I guess.
So it's not fetal homicide under the California definition if the fetus in under 20 weeks old? Then no one should be able to be prosecuted for it right.

Remember that the law should be free of inconsistency and contradiction.

Captain Fabio

Age 33
London, UK
Seen November 4th, 2021
Posted November 2nd, 2021
12,193 posts
17.1 Years
So it's not fetal homicide under the California definition if the fetus in under 20 weeks old? Then no one should be able to be prosecuted for it right.

Remember that the law should be free of inconsistency and contradiction.
The law isn't perfect.
A lot of it is pretty God dam stupid if you ask me.

Abortion should just be left to the person in question and the doctor dealing with the person. Simple.
Age 30
Male
Melbourne, Australia
Seen January 8th, 2013
Posted April 30th, 2012
1,031 posts
14.1 Years
Does the law recognise the right of a woman to choose whether to have an abortion or not? Perhaps the person who killed her was charged for the murder of the fetus because it died without the mother's consent? Just putting it out there, I wouldn't have a clue what the law is in California.

Melody

Banned

Female
Cuddling those close to me
Seen March 4th, 2018
Posted March 2nd, 2018
6,459 posts
18.6 Years
My theory is this:

The rights of the citizen transcends criminal law. In this case, the rights of the mother to an abortion quite simply overrules the legal definition of murder. The abortion law in California essentially is worded this way to allow abortions, but PUNISH abusive husbands, or anyone who assaults a pregnant woman and causes her to miscarry, even if she survives.

Livewire

Male
Sunnyshore City
Seen December 3rd, 2022
Posted August 2nd, 2019
14,091 posts
13.8 Years
So it's not fetal homicide under the California definition if the fetus in under 20 weeks old? Then no one should be able to be prosecuted for it right.

Remember that the law should be free of inconsistency and contradiction.
The law is full of inconstancy and contradictions though. :/ This is such a gray area, that people could argue over the abortion particulars for years. And that's all that will probably ever happen, seeing as this isn't exactly a hot topic for discussion.
Age 29
Seen November 5th, 2017
Posted November 5th, 2017
3,499 posts
14.9 Years
It seems redundant to even bother charging the culprit for the murder of an unborn child. The sentence for murder is life imprisonment, is it not? He should just be charged for one murder (his wife), sentenced to life and that would be the end of it.

As Eliminator Jr. Said, it is likely because it was without the consent of the mother, who seems to have all the rights when it comes to abortion. Really though, it seems silly to charge people for murder when it's an unborn fetus. In this case I don't see why they even bother looking into it seeing as he's facing the same sentence regardless of whether killing an unborn fetus 'counts' as murder or not.

I Laugh at your Misfortune!

Normal is a synonym for boring

Male
YOUR MOTHER! (aka: England)
Seen August 1st, 2016
Posted August 22nd, 2011
2,629 posts
14.9 Years
Maybe a new term needs to be introduced, to prevent this inconsistency. Rather than refer to it as murder, maybe call it..."forced abortion". Would that theoretically solve the problem? When it comes down to it, the problem is in the letter of the law, not the spirit of it.

Amai

やった! 私はあまい

Age 30
Male
東京
Seen November 13th, 2020
Posted December 13th, 2010
137 posts
12.6 Years
Although, contradictions in law are inevitable, especially over things like this. Take my states policy on gay marriage (and don't turn the thread into a gay marriage debate, this is just an example): All people have the right to marry. Except gay people. That's basically what the constitutional ban on gay marriage says.

"I'm voting republican because I believe women should never be trusted with their own bodies. Never. Ever. Ever." (Sarcasm)

That's my stance.
My Shiny Pokemon
Recent Shiny
Munna
36 eggs hatched
Day 1

Currently Hunting
Tsutarja
600 eggs hatched
Day 8
Chobomaki
30 eggs hatched
Day 1
Section Eight
Seen May 19th, 2012
Posted May 18th, 2012
1,069 posts
13 Years
Although, contradictions in law are inevitable, especially over things like this. Take my states policy on gay marriage (and don't turn the thread into a gay marriage debate, this is just an example): All people have the right to marry. Except gay people. That's basically what the constitutional ban on gay marriage says.

"I'm voting republican because I believe women should never be trusted with their own bodies. Never. Ever. Ever." (Sarcasm)

That's my stance.
Okay, that's sarcasm. Noted, before I get yelled at.

However, there is still the question of, "Is it still just over their own body?"

Saying that the fetus is "Just an empty shell" or "Just a hunk of tissue" ties this issue in with the question of whether or not comatose patients should be kept alive.

So, I ask you this:

If the law prevents the killing ("Murder" is too politically incorrect) of a patient in a coma (Empty shell, no brain activity), as they cannot consent to their own death (And even if they could, it's still illegal, but that's a REALLY sticky subject, so...), then is it right to kill a fetus, which is an "empty shell with no brain activity"?

Why is it unlawful to kill a man who is brain dead, and is consuming resources, after he has lived...

But it's legal to kill (or "destroy, as it never was alive," if that makes you sleep at night) a fetus, who hasn't even gotten a chance to be born?


"I don't find my name tasteful next to Shanghai Alice."
-STRATOS99

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years
It seems redundant to even bother charging the culprit for the murder of an unborn child. The sentence for murder is life imprisonment, is it not? He should just be charged for one murder (his wife), sentenced to life and that would be the end of it.

As Eliminator Jr. Said, it is likely because it was without the consent of the mother, who seems to have all the rights when it comes to abortion. Really though, it seems silly to charge people for murder when it's an unborn fetus. In this case I don't see why they even bother looking into it seeing as he's facing the same sentence regardless of whether killing an unborn fetus 'counts' as murder or not.
Actually, he was sentenced to death by lethal injection. The fetal murder was used as an circumstance to persuade the jury to sentence him to death instead of a life sentence. In California, juries decided if the death penalty is warranted or not in a capital case.

Although, contradictions in law are inevitable, especially over things like this. Take my states policy on gay marriage (and don't turn the thread into a gay marriage debate, this is just an example): All people have the right to marry. Except gay people. That's basically what the constitutional ban on gay marriage says.

"I'm voting republican because I believe women should never be trusted with their own bodies. Never. Ever. Ever." (Sarcasm)

That's my stance.
I would disagree that the woman's body is the only body involved, but that is besides the point.

What state are you in? I would love to research the laws behind marriages rights and gay marriage in that state.

Livewire

Male
Sunnyshore City
Seen December 3rd, 2022
Posted August 2nd, 2019
14,091 posts
13.8 Years
Okay, that's sarcasm. Noted, before I get yelled at.

However, there is still the question of, "Is it still just over their own body?"

Saying that the fetus is "Just an empty shell" or "Just a hunk of tissue" ties this issue in with the question of whether or not comatose patients should be kept alive.

So, I ask you this:

If the law prevents the killing ("Murder" is too politically incorrect) of a patient in a coma (Empty shell, no brain activity), as they cannot consent to their own death (And even if they could, it's still illegal, but that's a REALLY sticky subject, so...), then is it right to kill a fetus, which is an "empty shell with no brain activity"?

Why is it unlawful to kill a man who is brain dead, and is consuming resources, after he has lived...

But it's legal to kill (or "destroy, as it never was alive," if that makes you sleep at night) a fetus, who hasn't even gotten a chance to be born?
But the difference being that man is already alive/born. And we recently found out that in some cases of people in comas, they still maintain cognitive functions, but show no outward signs of it. So, they'd actually be physically aware that the doctors were about to take them off life support, thus killing them. Imagine being in their shoes.

But what does that say about capital punishment, then? Look at Texas, for instance. An abortion doctor was actually murdered there for doing abortions (legal ones, btw), and others were literally run out of town. Yet Texas hands out more death penalty convictions than McDonalds does cheeseburgers. /hypocrisy
Age 29
Seen November 5th, 2017
Posted November 5th, 2017
3,499 posts
14.9 Years
Actually, he was sentenced to death by lethal injection. The fetal murder was used as an circumstance to persuade the jury to sentence him to death instead of a life sentence. In California, juries decided if the death penalty is warranted or not in a capital case.
Oh right, death sentence in America... I'm not sure why the murder of two people is enough to warrant the death sentence, but the murder of one person is not. Murder is murder, and I think the highest possible sentence should be given regardless of how many people he has murdered.

What if he killed two women instead of one pregnant woman? Would he have been given the death sentence then? Maybe not. I still think it is irrelevant to take the fetus into account. In the case of abortion, it's not seen as a living, breathing creature. In this case, it counts as murder. I agree, it is a silly contradiction. But the law is not really needed, he still should have just been given the death sentence regardless of whether the woman was pregnant or not. Although you say it's up to the jury, If they knew that the woman was pregnant, it's going to affect their decision regardless of whether there's a law covering the situation or not, so in the end this law doesn't make much difference at all because it's ultimately the jury's decision.

I Laugh at your Misfortune! is correct as well, it's just the wording of the law that needs changing really.

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years
Maybe a new term needs to be introduced, to prevent this inconsistency. Rather than refer to it as murder, maybe call it..."forced abortion". Would that theoretically solve the problem? When it comes down to it, the problem is in the letter of the law, not the spirit of it.
It is classified as murder on purpose. It needs to be classified as murder so that it can be punishable by death.

Oh right, death sentence in America... I'm not sure why the murder of two people is enough to warrant the death sentence, but the murder of one person is not. Murder is murder, and I think the highest possible sentence should be given regardless of how many people he has murdered.

What if he killed two women instead of one pregnant woman? Would he have been given the death sentence then? Maybe not. I still think it is irrelevant to take the fetus into account. In the case of abortion, it's not seen as a living, breathing creature. In this case, it counts as murder. I agree, it is a silly contradiction. But the law is not really needed, he still should have just been given the death sentence regardless of whether the woman was pregnant or not. Although you say it's up to the jury, If they knew that the woman was pregnant, it's going to affect their decision regardless of whether there's a law covering the situation or not, so in the end this law doesn't make much difference at all because it's ultimately the jury's decision.

I Laugh at your Misfortune! is correct as well, it's just the wording of the law that needs changing really.
The theory behind allowing the jury to decide the sentence is that the government should not be involved in taking away another person's life. Instead, it is 12 private citizens deciding the defendant's fate.

Zet

Age 33
Male
Brisbane, Australia
Seen September 29th, 2021
Posted May 16th, 2020
7,687 posts
15.7 Years
I'm all for abortion, I know my religion frowns upon abortions or is in the gray area like a few other things, but I do know that stem cell research is something that can save more than one life just by using one fetus.

In the end it's really up to the woman and not me to say what a fetus should be used for.

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years
I'm all for abortion, I know my religion frowns upon abortions or is in the gray area like a few other things, but I do know that stem cell research is something that can save more than one life just by using one fetus.

In the end it's really up to the woman and not me to say what a fetus should be used for.
I kind of agree. Even though I'm pro-life, if abortion is going to be legal anyway, might as well try and save some lives to compensate for the one that was lost.

Dawn

Queen of Magical Girls

She/Her
East Coast, USA
Seen 20 Hours Ago
Posted December 13th, 2022
4,594 posts
14.7 Years

But what does that say about capital punishment, then? Look at Texas, for instance. An abortion doctor was actually murdered there for doing abortions (legal ones, btw), and others were literally run out of town. Yet Texas hands out more death penalty convictions than McDonalds does cheeseburgers. /hypocrisy
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.
Don't let your guard down
just 'cause we're cute!

We'll eat you right up!
Post Templates
[1] Hisui Legends
Section Eight
Seen May 19th, 2012
Posted May 18th, 2012
1,069 posts
13 Years

But what does that say about capital punishment, then? Look at Texas, for instance. An abortion doctor was actually murdered there for doing abortions (legal ones, btw), and others were literally run out of town. Yet Texas hands out more death penalty convictions than McDonalds does cheeseburgers. /hypocrisy
Someone else already tackled this. Moving on...

I'm all for abortion, I know my religion frowns upon abortions or is in the gray area like a few other things, but I do know that stem cell research is something that can save more than one life just by using one fetus.

In the end it's really up to the woman and not me to say what a fetus should be used for.
Abortion =/= Stem cell research.

There are alternative ways to gather stem cells. They're just... harder.

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.

However, embryo cells are easier to get, which is a brilliant justification for slaughtering innocents.

I kind of agree. Even though I'm pro-life, if abortion is going to be legal anyway, might as well try and save some lives to compensate for the one that was lost.
Re-read that.

Re-read it again.

And again.

Spot the contradiction?

You're not pro-life.



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.
What bugs me is that...

Well, you get a surgery. The surgeon and doctors want to give you all the information beforehand. One could even say you're entitled to it.

You buy a car. You want all the information you can get, right?

You want an abortion. The only way you're getting all the information is by asking for it, because the laws have allowed abortion clinics to just say, "Meh, we don't have to tell 'em up front."

wat.


"I don't find my name tasteful next to Shanghai Alice."
-STRATOS99

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years
Someone else already tackled this. Moving on...


Abortion =/= Stem cell research.

There are alternative ways to gather stem cells. They're just... harder.

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.

However, embryo cells are easier to get, which is a brilliant justification for slaughtering innocents.


Re-read that.

Re-read it again.

And again.

Spot the contradiction?

You're not pro-life.


What bugs me is that...

Well, you get a surgery. The surgeon and doctors want to give you all the information beforehand. One could even say you're entitled to it.

You buy a car. You want all the information you can get, right?

You want an abortion. The only way you're getting all the information is by asking for it, because the laws have allowed abortion clinics to just say, "Meh, we don't have to tell 'em up front."

wat.
I sure am pro-life. I feel you are as well.
Section Eight
Seen May 19th, 2012
Posted May 18th, 2012
1,069 posts
13 Years
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.


"I don't find my name tasteful next to Shanghai Alice."
-STRATOS99

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years
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.
Age 30
Male
Melbourne, Australia
Seen January 8th, 2013
Posted April 30th, 2012
1,031 posts
14.1 Years
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.
Section Eight
Seen May 19th, 2012
Posted May 18th, 2012
1,069 posts
13 Years
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.


"I don't find my name tasteful next to Shanghai Alice."
-STRATOS99

Amai

やった! 私はあまい

Age 30
Male
東京
Seen November 13th, 2020
Posted December 13th, 2010
137 posts
12.6 Years
: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.
My Shiny Pokemon
Recent Shiny
Munna
36 eggs hatched
Day 1

Currently Hunting
Tsutarja
600 eggs hatched
Day 8
Chobomaki
30 eggs hatched
Day 1