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

[FreakyLocz14]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Eliminator Jr.]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Rogue planet]

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!]

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]

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.

 

[Shanghai Alice]

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?

 

[FreakyLocz14]

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]

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

 

[Rogue planet]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Shanghai Alice]

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.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

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.