Situational Fetus Murder

[xXThePrimeDirectiveXx]

So I was thinking today about how people are charged with two counts of murder sometimes if a pregnant mother is killed. Yet at the same time, aborting the fetus is legally ok. It seems like a contradictory situation logically. It's ok to terminate a life because the mother decides to, yet if someone else terminates it without her consent, it's murder. Any thoughts on this?

 

[Patashu]

Why is it that when I take a man's car from him it's stealing, but if I take the car from him with his permission or if he has the car destroyed no crime is commited?

WHY IS THAT?!?

I just don't understand!

 

[DieHappy]

Why is it that when I take a man's car from him it's stealing, but if I take the car from him with his permission or if he has the car destroyed no crime is commited?

WHY IS THAT?!?

I just don't understand!

So, you admit that the fetus is an alive person but it only deserves rights if his mother wants him to have them?

Since when does one person get to assign human rights to another? I thought the idea that human rights being assigned arbitrarily ended with the 13th amendment.

 

[variant]

So, you admit that the fetus is an alive person but it only deserves rights if his mother wants him to have them?

Since when does one person get to assign human rights to another? I thought the idea that human rights being assigned arbitrarily ended with the 13th amendment.

I think the post you were quoting was making the claim that a fetus is property. Which I think is the wrong way to go about it.

In my opinion it is the woman’s uterus that is her property. She has the right to decide if another human being is allowed to live inside of her.

This means that if someone kills the fetus and the mother they killed two human beings.

If the mother decides to abort, she is not charged because she was simply withdrawing her body as a life support mechanism.

 

[xXThePrimeDirectiveXx]

So, you admit that the fetus is an alive person but it only deserves rights if his mother wants him to have them?

Since when does one person get to assign human rights to another? I thought the idea that human rights being assigned arbitrarily ended with the 13th amendment.

Very good post.

 

[flicka]

I think the post you were quoting was making the claim that a fetus is property. Which I think is the wrong way to go about it.

In my opinion it is the woman’s uterus that is her property. She has the right to decide if another human being is allowed to live inside of her.

This means that if someone kills the fetus and the mother they killed two human beings.

If the mother decides to abort, she is not charged because she was simply withdrawing her body as a life support mechanism.

This is a good post too.

 

[xXThePrimeDirectiveXx]

I think the post you were quoting was making the claim that a fetus is property. Which I think is the wrong way to go about it.

In my opinion it is the woman’s uterus that is her property. She has the right to decide if another human being is allowed to live inside of her.

This means that if someone kills the fetus and the mother they killed two human beings.

If the mother decides to abort, she is not charged because she was simply withdrawing her body as a life support mechanism.

I haven't thought of it this way before. I need to contemplate this more. Is there anymore to add to the idea? I'm just trying to take emotion out of the equation and see it for purely logical reasons.

 

[variant]

I haven't thought of it this way before. I need to contemplate this more. Is there anymore to add to the idea? I'm just trying to take emotion out of the equation and see it for purely logical reasons.

Yes, quite a bit, but it's complicated and ties into a lot of other ideas.

What do you want me to expand upon?

I'll try though.

Legally, I think the basis for the idea that someone’s body is their property would be the Fifth Amendment (rather than the ninth like the Supreme Court says). The government is only allowed to take your property with just compensation. I simply don't believe you can be compensated for the loss of your body, or the loss of free use of it.

The exceptions of this would be if you committed some sort of crime, or if you were drafted for the national defense. I hardly think these situations are comparable.

In legal traditions you simply are never compelled to offer up a part of the whole of your body. I am not forced to donate blood even if I have a rare blood type. I am not forced to donate kidneys, even though I have one more than I need. I am not forced to donate organs, my hair, teeth, skin, bone marrow, or any other things that might be useful to others.

The mother has a right to control what goes on in her body. The child has no natural right to exist within it simply because it existsany more than I would have the right to exist if I needed constant direct life support from another human beings organ. The use of government force to make her bring her child to term would basically be taking away her most precious property and yielding absolutely no compensation.

Once the Child is no longer dependant on the mother for sheer survival, the Government can intervene to take care of the child in the best interest of society without requisitioning a piece of someone’s body.

The child is always a human and always a baby no matter what you call it. When someone kills a pregnant woman they kill two human beings. When you have competing claims between the rights of the mother to control their body and the right of the baby to survive inside of her, the real problem is that the baby can not exist independent of the mother, and that it depends almost entirely on her bodies active support.

If you want to mandate the mother’s choice in this matter you must take control of her body.

 

[burrow_owl]

I think it's fairly simple: pro-life folks put that provision into the law in order to make people think, "doesn't that seem contradictory? Maybe a fetus is a life!"

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

That legislation was passed with the specific purpose of trying to set legal precedence to get around R v W. The problem here is mistakenly believing the unborn have Constitutional rights. An unborn is not a citizen and as such the 13th cannot apply. I abhor the practice of abortion but do respect the woman's right to choose.

 

[Conspiracy Theory]

If you're worried about being charged with a crime under such a statute, I suggest refraining from such behaviors as murder and assault.

 

[Nathan45]

I haven't thought of it this way before. I need to contemplate this more. Is there anymore to add to the idea? I'm just trying to take emotion out of the equation and see it for purely logical reasons.

To see it for logical reasons you'd have to know what the purpose of the law was, which is social order, not the law of non-contradiction. To see a contradiction here is to miss the point.

So I was thinking today about how people are charged with two counts of murder sometimes if a pregnant mother is killed. Yet at the same time, aborting the fetus is legally ok. It seems like a contradictory situation logically. It's ok to terminate a life because the mother decides to, yet if someone else terminates it without her consent, it's murder. Any thoughts on this?

It's like this: Someone who violently attacks a pregnant woman and kills her baby deserves to be locked up for a LONG time. They need to be charged with something. Would you want someone like that running loose? Trying to derive the law logically would be missing the point.

There is no contradiction, because it is easy to distinguish between abortion and murdering a fetus: In one case the woman wishes to have a baby, in the other case she doesn't -- under current law the woman is under no obligation to continue to be a baby factory if she doesn't want to be. As for why one is murder and one isn't--murder is to "kill illegally". So what constitutes murder is defined by statute.

 

[xXThePrimeDirectiveXx]

If you're worried about being charged with a crime under such a statute, I suggest refraining from such behaviors as murder and assault.

LOL best answer ever.

 

[xXThePrimeDirectiveXx]

Yes, quite a bit, but it's complicated and ties into a lot of other ideas.

What do you want me to expand upon?

I'll try though.

Legally, I think the basis for the idea that someone’s body is their property would be the Fifth Amendment (rather than the ninth like the Supreme Court says). The government is only allowed to take your property with just compensation. I simply don't believe you can be compensated for the loss of your body, or the loss of free use of it.

The exceptions of this would be if you committed some sort of crime, or if you were drafted for the national defense. I hardly think these situations are comparable.

In legal traditions you simply are never compelled to offer up a part of the whole of your body. I am not forced to donate blood even if I have a rare blood type. I am not forced to donate kidneys, even though I have one more than I need. I am not forced to donate organs, my hair, teeth, skin, bone marrow, or any other things that might be useful to others.

The mother has a right to control what goes on in her body. The child has no natural right to exist within it simply because it existsany more than I would have the right to exist if I needed constant direct life support from another human beings organ. The use of government force to make her bring her child to term would basically be taking away her most precious property and yielding absolutely no compensation.

Once the Child is no longer dependant on the mother for sheer survival, the Government can intervene to take care of the child in the best interest of society without requisitioning a piece of someone’s body.

The child is always a human and always a baby no matter what you call it. When someone kills a pregnant woman they kill two human beings. When you have competing claims between the rights of the mother to control their body and the right of the baby to survive inside of her, the real problem is that the baby can not exist independent of the mother, and that it depends almost entirely on her bodies active support.

If you want to mandate the mother’s choice in this matter you must take control of her body.

It would help me politically to see this issue differently since I am liberal in every other respect. My whole platform is the preservation/Equality of life. It's why I oppose Capital Punishment, Needless wars, support Same-sex marriage etc...so I just want to be consistent on this issue. People would say "how can you rail against Capital Punishment to save convicts, but be ok with abortion?"

I don't believe Roe V Wade is in perfect unison with at what point a fetus becomes a viable life outside the womb. I'm not opposed to abortion when it's just a mass of cells.

Thank you for that very well thought out explanation. Perhaps we can discuss if the woman owes the unborn child any responsibility after becoming pregnant. Such as knowing she has created life, and has an obligation to it at that point. It's not a great comparison but some non-religious types express bitterness to what they see the mythical God for creating us and then making us suffer. (If that God-creation situation were real.) Like, why would a God create me and then want to throw me in hell...that argument. (Don't want to go off on tangents here.) Can this be aligned with say how a fetus might feel towards the mother who wants to abort it if the fetus could possess such reasoning?

Anyway, just discussing and I appreciate your feedback.

 

[Nathan45]

I don't believe Roe V Wade is in perfect unison with at what point a fetus becomes a viable life outside the womb. I'm not opposed to abortion when it's just a mass of cells.

See LOKI's wager. The trimester system isn't specific enough to be scientifically flawless but it's good enough.

Thank you for that very well thought out explanation. Perhaps we can discuss if the woman owes the unborn child any responsibility after becoming pregnant.

After giving Birth, Yes. After becomming pregnant, I don't think so.

It's not a great comparison but some non-religious types express bitterness to what they see the mythical God for creating us and then making us suffer. (If that God-creation situation were real.)

Been reading Frankenstein?

Like, why would a God create me and then want to throw me in hell...that argument. (Don't want to go off on tangents here.) Can this be aligned with say how a fetus might feel towards the mother who wants to abort it if the fetus could possess such reasoning?

well the fetus doesn't possess such reasoning... it never should have existed to begin with, is it somehow worse off for having almost existed?

Although if you want to argue that abortion should be illegal after the first trimester, that's a reasonable position.

 

[JudyB1169]

So I was thinking today about how people are charged with two counts of murder sometimes if a pregnant mother is killed. Yet at the same time, aborting the fetus is legally ok. It seems like a contradictory situation logically. It's ok to terminate a life because the mother decides to, yet if someone else terminates it without her consent, it's murder. Any thoughts on this?

You're right, it IS contradictory. I am very much pro-life, so I see both cases as murder.

 

[variant]

It would help me politically to see this issue differently since I am liberal in every other respect. My whole platform is the preservation/Equality of life. It's why I oppose Capital Punishment, Needless wars, support Same-sex marriage etc...so I just want to be consistent on this issue. People would say "how can you rail against Capital Punishment to save convicts, but be ok with abortion?"

You can consistently rail against capitol punishment and be ok with abortion if you dislike broad state powers.

I do not want the power of who lives and who dies to be a power of the state. I do not want them mandating that women have to bring all children they conceive to term (effectively controlling how people reproduce) or say forcing abortions on "undesirable" women. I do not want them using the death penalty to make people feel better by exacting state sanctioned revenge killings.

Needless wars are a bad symptom of an out of control, power hungry government. Marriage should be defined by people, religion and contract laws and NOT be a state/government institution to support a particular religions viewpoints.

As far as abortion goes:

It is really a difficult issue both morally and legally because it is a very unique situation, where there are valid competing value claims, and since it can be seen from many different angles.

It hinges around whether someone thinks that a unborn child has a natural right to live, and whether that right trumps the woman’s rights which it dwells inside.

I don't believe Roe V Wade is in perfect unison with at what point a fetus becomes a viable life outside the womb. I'm not opposed to abortion when it's just a mass of cells.

I am opposed to abortion past fetal viability due to the fact that the child is then being killed when it could simply be removed and placed under the care of the state, most likely with no difference in health effect to the mother.

If the state values the life more than the mother, why not give it to them? I don't see how it would serve anyone involved to abort in this instance, and I think that as medical science progresses the issue of abortion should cause fewer problems, as the women will not need to serve the purpose of life support to the infant.

I also would not have any problem with the state paying women to carry their children to term, along the lines of what a surrogate gets paid (after putting the child up for adoption)(Note the Fifth amendment again). This would encourage more women to do so. If the state really wants to say it holds the life of an unborn child to be a valuable and compelling state interest, then they should VALUE it (put their money and support where their ideological mouths are).

The only way value really exists is through action. Otherwise it is all just empty words.

Thank you for that very well thought out explanation. Perhaps we can discuss if the woman owes the unborn child any responsibility after becoming pregnant. Such as knowing she has created life, and has an obligation to it at that point.

Morally I agree completely that people should take responsibility for their actions. I am simply not in the position to make the moral judgment for everyone (And I don't think anyone else should decide for everyone either). If a woman feels obligated to carry the baby to term she probably will, or she is probably terribly conflicted. The question is whether or not she should be obligated against her will.


Legally I am not a fan of enforcing my morality on people in questionable situations like abortion (and it is very questionable moral ground for a lot of people). Legally I am not a fan of having the government mandate what a woman does and doesn’t do with her uterus, or what any of us do or do not do with our bodies in general.

What business is this of the government? To DICTATE what goes on inside a woman’s uterus?

It's not a great comparison but some non-religious types express bitterness to what they see the mythical God for creating us and then making us suffer. (If that God-creation situation were real.) Like, why would a God create me and then want to throw me in hell...that argument. (Don't want to go off on tangents here.) Can this be aligned with say how a fetus might feel towards the mother who wants to abort it if the fetus could possess such reasoning?

God in the sense that you describe probably wouldn’t create life by mistake.

There are plenty of analogies we can draw (and this is done very often in this debate), but the situation is really rather unique.

I am sure the child would be appalled, but I have no idea how that matters in the conversation (since we really have to be appalled for them). You would have to expand that. It's a really good question for someone considering an abortion to think about.

Anyway, just discussing and I appreciate your feedback.

I appreciate anyone who actually likes to discuss things.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

I disagree with the law referenced in the OP because it tries to separate the woman from the fetus. The fetus is part of the woman and inseparable until birth. If the fetus is attacked, it is the woman being attacked, not the other way around.