Abortion Rights and Fetal Homicide: Contradiction? In MY Law? Page 2

Started by FreakyLocz14 October 24th, 2010 9:33 PM
  • 2701 views
  • 77 replies

Livewire

Male
Sunnyshore City
Seen December 3rd, 2022
Posted August 2nd, 2019
14,091 posts
13.8 Years


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.
Age 30
Male
Melbourne, Australia
Seen January 8th, 2013
Posted April 30th, 2012
1,031 posts
14.1 Years
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

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years
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".
Age 30
Male
Melbourne, Australia
Seen January 8th, 2013
Posted April 30th, 2012
1,031 posts
14.1 Years
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

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years
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

The not-so-black cat of ill omen

Age 32
Male
Michigan
Seen February 19th, 2023
Posted April 30th, 2021
4,307 posts
14.2 Years
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.
VNs are superior to anime, don't @ me

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years
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

Queen of Magical Girls

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


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.
Don't let your guard down
just 'cause we're cute!

We'll eat you right up!
Post Templates
[1] Hisui Legends

Livewire

Male
Sunnyshore City
Seen December 3rd, 2022
Posted August 2nd, 2019
14,091 posts
13.8 Years

<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

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years

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

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
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.)
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

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years
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

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
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?
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

twocows

The not-so-black cat of ill omen

Age 32
Male
Michigan
Seen February 19th, 2023
Posted April 30th, 2021
4,307 posts
14.2 Years
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.
VNs are superior to anime, don't @ me

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years
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.

Dawn

Queen of Magical Girls

She/Her
East Coast, USA
Seen 20 Hours Ago
Posted December 13th, 2022
4,594 posts
14.7 Years
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.
Don't let your guard down
just 'cause we're cute!

We'll eat you right up!
Post Templates
[1] Hisui Legends
Age 35
Male
Pennsylvania
Seen August 14th, 2012
Posted March 29th, 2012
954 posts
16.4 Years


<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.
Exterminate All Rational Thought

Richard
0215 9525 7958

FreakyLocz14

Conservative Patriot

Male
Seen August 29th, 2018
Posted August 28th, 2018
3,497 posts
14 Years
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.
Age 29
Female
Outta the kitchen.
Seen December 28th, 2010
Posted December 23rd, 2010
2,216 posts
12.9 Years
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

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

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?
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

Melody

Banned

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

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

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.
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

Corvus of the Black Night

Wild Duck Pokémon

Age 30
Non-binary
With the Birds
Seen January 9th, 2015
Posted January 9th, 2015
3,416 posts
14.3 Years
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

Male
Sunnyshore City
Seen December 3rd, 2022
Posted August 2nd, 2019
14,091 posts
13.8 Years


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.