Infanticide and Late Term Abortion

[Belthazor]

PS: I think we are kind of devolving to just responding to eachothers responses and not really going anywhere.

Sorry you feel this way. I thought we had made some progress and I still sense some room left to go, but I am out of time tonight.

I will get to the rest of this post shortly and endeavor to keep your attention firmly gripped at my response ;0
IOW, I will attempt to keep it fresh!

[Sigfried]

Sorry you feel this way. I thought we had made some progress and I still sense some room left to go, but I am out of time tonight.

I will get to the rest of this post shortly and endeavor to keep your attention firmly gripped at my response ;0
IOW, I will attempt to keep it fresh!

Sounds good. Ya I think what we may need to do is kind of re-draw the lines of argument here. Summarize what you think are the relevant points on any given side.

There are perhaps three areas at this point

1. What does the law say about abortions and fetuses
-We seem to be engaging in a factual debate here, what is the law, what does it say

2. What is my personal moral view of abortion (and yours)
-Here you mostly seem to think my view is too arbitrary for your liking so we have something of an impasse because I claim it is not arbitrary only subjective.

3. How do other people form moral views about abortion
-Mostly you just misunderstood this line of argument for #2 so perhaps it's best to just drop it.

Each is connected, but these seem to be the lanes we are driving in.

[mican333]

To chime in:

I'd say an increasing respect for the legal rights of the unborn as the unborn develops is definitely not an arbitrary standard.

An arbitrary standard would be completely random. I'll pick three random numbers from 1 to 100. 74,39,12 and apply them to the three trimesters. So if we apply actual arbitrariness, one feels that the fetus is entitled to 74% of a legal right to life in the first trimester, 39% during the second trimester, and 12% in the third trimester.

With Sig's standard though, I KNOW the numbers will increase as the fetus develops. If the numbers will predictably increase with time, then they are not chosen arbitrarily. I might not know how significantly they will increase at certain stages but I can accurately predict the pattern of increased concern for the unborn and therefore the pattern is not arbitrary.

[Belthazor]

To chime in:

I'd say an increasing respect for the legal rights of the unborn as the unborn develops is definitely not an arbitrary standard ...….

At the risk of being redundant, since I have shown the folly and inconsistency of this position, it is an important point probably worth repeating.

When a pregnant woman gets murdered, the perpetrator is commonly charged with two murders with no regard whatsoever as to the age of the baby/fetus/tissue blob to consider it a human life. There re no varying degrees of humanity involved at all. It is a human or it is not. No "part human, almost human, kinda human, close enough to human, and human".

So unless you can show why a human baby/fetus/tissue blob/whatever should have "increasing respect for the legal rights of the unborn" that only apply to the mother and no one else this point is crushed...

---------- Post added at 04:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:22 PM ----------

Who said it was needless?

You did, not many posts ago...

Body autonomy is the right to choose what to do with your body. The right to life is not the same thing.

Ok, then as with any other time in a persons life, as long as the mother doesn't infringe on the bodily autonomy of the baby/fetus/tissue blob/whatever, I think we are good here as this criteria should apply generally, to all humans, not just select ones.

No, it contains my DNA, it can live outside my body, it can live inside someone else's body. It's made of the same kinds of materials I am. It's human, its life, but it's not a person.

Heavy sigh...

You said if he gave it to her, not if he tricked her into taking it.

Sorry :(
"He gave it to her without her knowing and the baby/fetus/tissue blob/whatever died though the mother was not injured otherwise"

It only applies to intentional harm, your situation was a car accident. It's manslaughter.

Um, the pertinent part of this is "how many counts" of manslaughter/whatever?

The legal why for restricting abortion is the state's interest in protecting the life of the fetus. The limiting why's are the civil rights of the mother of the unborn child.

HUH? I don't understand??

Apparently you haven't had much sex in your life, that or you have an awful lot of children.

I like humor!
Was this an attempt at it?

Cause otherwise you have a job here to do to overcome this point so let me state it again for ease:
"Unless a person is totally ignorant of how pregnancy occurs and what it entails, they do indeed give tacit acceptance!!!
IOW, if you know it's a possible outcome, you have DEFINATELY agreed to that outcome explicitly!"

Because it is better than the alternative.

HUH?

Generally, no I wouldn't.

Even though you know abortion is commonly used in ways you disagree with...
Ok, I guess...

I didn't say that. I said that the reason she has this right is NOT due to getting pregnant and carrying the child for X amount of time as you suggested.

Of course you didn't say it that way (neither did I BTW), but materially how does it differ?

Your point'ish:
"during the time the mother is pregnant (up to a certain "stage/age"), she is the sole moral/legal authority if it could/should be killed or allowed to live only because she is the one carrying it"

No one else has this right per you...

[mican333]

At the risk of being redundant, since I have shown the folly and inconsistency of this position, it is an important point probably worth repeating.

But you have not shown that his position is arbitrary. Therefore my argument regarding that particular issue (that an increasing pattern of value for the fetus as time goes on shows that the respect is not arbitrary) stands. But I will address the rest of your point.

When a pregnant woman gets murdered, the perpetrator is commonly charged with two murders with no regard whatsoever as to the age of the baby/fetus/tissue blob to consider it a human life. There re no varying degrees of humanity involved at all. It is a human or it is not. No "part human, almost human, kinda human, close enough to human, and human".

Actually, these laws very much treat the fetus differently than humans when it comes to protecting their life. In these states, it is legal for the fetus to be killed with the mother's consent (during an abortion) and illegal to kill it without her consent (in a situation where the mother and fetus are both killed). With born human beings, it is illegal to kill a person even if their mother consents to it.

So even in states with fetal homicide laws (which is not every state, BTW, so there isn't even a national legal consensus on charging someone for murder for killing a fetus without the mother's consent), the fetus is still legally "lesser" than a born human.

But either way, the fetal homicide law doesn't really add anything to what the laws SHOULD be, which is the crux of the abortion debate. Such laws exist because people think they should exist. So the whole thing still boils down to the subjective opinion of the issue on both sides.

While I am pro-choice, my position in abortion debates is that it's unresolvable because both sides position is ultimately rooted in opinion and you really can't change someone's opinion with your opinion.

If you want to say "The fetus should have full legal rights upon conception", I say "your opinion is noted but I don't see how you can prove you are right about that". And the same goes for the other side. If someone says to you "The fetus should not have full legal rights until it is born", you can say "your opinion is noted but I don't see how you can prove you are right about that." And neither side can prove they are right.

So even if the legislature says "The fetus has the right to life upon conception", it is no less an opinion than if you or anyone else says it.

So unless you can show why a human baby/fetus/tissue blob/whatever should have "increasing respect for the legal rights of the unborn" that only apply to the mother and no one else this point is crushed...

No problem.

What makes the Mother unique is that the fetus is part of her body. And therefore to do ANYTHING with, for, or to the fetus requires a medical procedure of some kind. A person's personal medical records and such are clearly covered under the right to privacy. Typically it's absolutely none of the government's business what you, I, or anyone else does in that respect. Therefore it's none of the government's business if a woman has an abortion.

But weighed against the clear right to privacy is a concern for the right of the unborn.

So the crux of the abortion debate is whether the fetus' right to life is more important than the woman's right to privacy. And currently, the law favors the woman's right to privacy more so abortion is generally legal.

And since the "value" of the fetus increases as it grows, compromises to the Mother's right to privacy tend to get overridden as the fetus grows and then there are some restrictions on late-term abortions.

Now, if someone who is not the Mother kills the fetus outside of a medical setting (like someone murders the mother in her home), there is no conflict between the right of the fetus and the Mother's medical privacy. Therefore the state is free to punish that person for killing the fetus.

And this pretty much contradicts your assertion that the fetus is not "part human". Whether fetus is considered "human" (as in human enough to deserve legal protection resulting in the arrest of someone who kills it) is very much dependent on who kills and that is not the case for a born human. So Fetal Homicide Laws do not grant full "human status" to the unborn.

[Belthazor]

But you have not shown that his position is arbitrary.

I showed it is inconsistent and incorrect.

Mican, I am much more interested in a well reasoned post than how fast that response is.

Actually, these laws very much treat the fetus differently than humans when it comes to protecting their life. In these states, it is legal for the fetus to be killed with the mother's consent (during an abortion) and illegal to kill it without her consent (in a situation where the mother and fetus are both killed). With born human beings, it is illegal to kill a person even if their mother consents to it.

non sequitur

So even in states with fetal homicide laws (which is not every state, BTW, so there isn't even a national legal consensus on charging someone for murder for killing a fetus without the mother's consent), the fetus is still legally "lesser" than a born human.

This does not refute my point nor the support of my links.

While I am pro-choice, my position in abortion debates is that it's unresolvable because both sides position is ultimately rooted in opinion and you really can't change someone's opinion with your opinion.

WE have agreed that the fetus/tissue blob/whatever is objectively a human with at least some worth as a human.
No opinion there.
As such a caring/inclusive/empathetic/etc society would need a very compelling and well reasoned argument for it to be killed. And because our laws generally lean toward protecting innocent life, there should be a sound reason why it can be killed for any reason (up to whatever arbitrary time frame in the pregnancy).
Some opinion there I suppose, but I haven't heard either side disagree.

If you want to say "The fetus should have full legal rights upon conception", I say "your opinion is noted but I don't see how you can prove you are right about that".

If we were talking about any other animal than humans, I doubt you would make this same distinction.

How can a life start at any other time than conception? IOW, how would this even be possible?

No problem.

Apparently it is as I am still waiting...

What makes the Mother unique is that the fetus is part of her body.

The fetus is unique from the mother. That they have different DNA is probably connected to morning sickness/etc.

And therefore to do ANYTHING with, for, or to the fetus requires a medical procedure of some kind. A person's personal medical records and such are clearly covered under the right to privacy.

Yes, your medical situation is legally not supposed to be public information, and for damn good reasons!

Now all you need to do is show:
a doctor killing the fetus at the mothers request and not having it known publicly she had it killed changes the legality of the killing from murder to a legal killing
(since it would be murder for anyone else but the mother)

IOW, how does this "privacy"(that the killing is not to be shared publicly) shield one from it being murder and make it a legal killing?
Or would it be murder if it were public information?

So the crux of the abortion debate is whether the fetus' right to life is more important than the woman's right to privacy. And currently, the law favors the woman's right to privacy more so abortion is generally legal.

How does a:
right to privacy (your medical records not being publicly available) = a right to kill
???

The "crux" is, is it human or not. If yes, there are laws to protect it and no compelling reasoning has been offered for killing an innocent human as of yet.

And since the "value" of the fetus increases as it grows, compromises to the Mother's right to privacy tend to get overridden as the fetus grows and then there are some restrictions on late-term abortions.

Support of this has not been offered and it has been refuted already.

Now, if someone who is not the Mother kills the fetus outside of a medical setting (like someone murders the mother in her home), there is no conflict between the right of the fetus and the Mother's medical privacy. Therefore the state is free to punish that person for killing the fetus.

What of the fetus' right to medical privacy?

Again, you have not supported how the mothers medical issues not being public knowledge, allow her to legally kill her own baby/blob/whatever since no one else can?

And this pretty much contradicts your assertion that the fetus is not "part human". Whether fetus is considered "human" (as in human enough to deserve legal protection resulting in the arrest of someone who kills it) is very much dependent on who kills and that is not the case for a born human. So Fetal Homicide Laws do not grant full "human status" to the unborn.

I really don't know what you are trying to say here...…...

[mican333]

I showed it is inconsistent and incorrect.

Mican, if you want to keep discussing this with me, I am much more interested in a well reasoned post than how fast that response is.

Including editing, I took about an hour in my last response so I don't consider my response to be "fast". And I personally think my own arguments are much more well-reasoned than yours and that you sometimes don't take the time to fully understand my argument before replying. Now, I typically would keep such a comment about your debating to myself as what I just said is admittedly rude. But then so is your comment about how well-reasoned you think my arguments are.

So how about we both keep such arguments about each other to ourselves and just attack the actual arguments instead of the person making the arguments.

Deal?

WE have agreed that the fetus/tissue blob/whatever is objectively a human with at least some worth as a human.
No opinion there.

If you mean that it objectively has human DNA, it does. "At least some worth" is very open to interpretation but I can't say that you are incorrect about that, so fine.

As such a caring/inclusive/empathetic/etc society would need a very compelling and well reasoned argument for it to be killed. And because our laws generally lean toward protecting innocent life, there should be a sound reason why it can be killed for any reason (up to whatever arbitrary time frame in the pregnancy).
Some opinion there I suppose, but I haven't heard either side disagree.

And the pro-choice side has a solid argument for why sometimes it should be killed. It's because a person has the right to medical privacy and interfering with their choice on whether to have an abortion overrides the concern for the fetus.

So we have a conflict.

1. A woman's right to medical privacy
vs.
2. The life of a fetus.

I do not argue that 2 has no value whatsoever. But I do argue that, at least in first trimester, 1 is of a higher concern.

And this is the crux of the abortion debate.

If we were talking about any other animal than humans, I doubt you would make this same distinction.

And you would be incorrect.

How can a life start at any other time than conception? IOW, how would this even be possible?

That does not address what I'm saying. Let me repeat my argument.

If you want to say "The fetus should have full legal rights upon conception", I say "your opinion is noted but I don't see how you can prove you are right about that".

That argument does not address when life starts but when the fetus should have full legal rights.

Apparently it is as I am still waiting...

Please don't deny that I made my argument. If you aren't impressed, so be it. But I did make it.

The fetus is unique from the mother. That they have different DNA is probably connected to morning sickness/etc.

Which is utterly irrelevant to my point. I am talking about what makes the Mother unique from anyone who may kill the fetus.

Yes, your medical situation is legally not supposed to be public information, and for damn good reasons!

Now all you need to do is show:
a doctor killing the fetus at the mothers request and not having it known publicly she had it killed changes the legality of the killing from murder to a legal killing
(since it would be murder for anyone else but the mother)

IOW, how does this "privacy"(that the killing is not to be shared publicly) shield one from it being murder and make it a legal killing?
Or would it be murder if it were public information?

It's not about public information. It's about it being none of the government's and law enforcement's business. If the government has to stay out of the issue, it can't make laws against it.

How does a:
right to privacy (your medical records not being publicly available) = a right to kill
???

The "crux" is, is it human or not. If yes, there are laws to protect it and no compelling reasoning has been offered for killing an innocent human as of yet.

I offered the compelling reason. A woman's right to medical privacy.

You can't both outlaw abortion and not interfere with a woman's medical decisions (such as the decision to have an abortion).

So you have to choose:

1. Respect a woman's right to medical privacy
2. Respect the right to life of the unborn.

Pick 1. You can't have both.

If you pick 1, then you have to allow abortion. And while I understand people will put 2 over 1, even then they should understand the importance of 2 and consider it a dilemma of sorts (unless one doesn't actually respect the concept of medical privacy for women).

In other words, there is no win-win. It's a tough decision if one has respect for both the life of the fetus and a woman's right to medical privacy. I can't blame one for falling on either side of the issue. And as I argued before, since subjective morality will be the basis of one's view, there really is no way to solve the controversy and both sides will have to agree to disagree.

Support of this has not been offered and it has been refuted already.

Not when it was offered by me.

It's an objective fact that by today's laws, the fetus gains more legal rights as it develops. It's an absolute objective fact that it's legally easier to get an abortion in the first trimester of a pregnancy than in the third trimester. Therefore it's an objective fact that our current laws give the later-term fetus more legal protections than an early-term fetus. Therefore it is plainly obvious that our current legal system respects the right to life of a third trimester fetus than a first trimester fetus and therefore gives the fetus more value as it develops.

When you've defeated THAT argument is when you can say that you have defeated my support.

What of the fetus' right to medical privacy?

It doesn't have it (in a legal sense)

Again, you have not supported how the mothers medical issues not being public knowledge, allow her to legally kill her own baby/blob/whatever since no one else can?

I didn't say public knowledge had anything to do with it. It's government interference that she is being protected from. And when someone else kills her fetus, the government can prosecute them without violating anyone's right to medical privacy.

So to sum up:

1. The government cannot prosecute a mother for killing her fetus because of her right to medical privacy
2. The government can prosecute someone else for killing that woman's fetus because the right to medical privacy does not forbid it.

I really don't know what you are trying to say here...…...

What I'm saying is that even in situations where someone is prosecuted for killing a woman's fetus without her consent, the fetus is still not considered "fully human" (as in has the right to life like a born person) because the mother could still have aborted the fetus with no legal consequences. Once someone has the full legal right to life, no one can legally kill him/her, not even his/her mother.

[Belthazor]

So we have a conflict.

1. A woman's right to medical privacy
vs.
2. The life of a fetus.

I will just address the main points of your post:

So an abortion can not be murder because the gov't shouldn't legally know it's taking place?
Correct?

---------- Post added at 02:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:02 PM ----------

If you want to say "The fetus should have full legal rights upon conception", I say "your opinion is noted but I don't see how you can prove you are right about that".

Actually so far, it is you and Sig that are giving an opinion on how a fetus acquires human rights based on arbitrary/subjective criteria.

I haven't seen supported that giving a fetus human rights at any other time than when it's life starts is not arbitrary/subjective....

---------- Post added at 02:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:07 PM ----------

What I'm saying is that even in situations where someone is prosecuted for killing a woman's fetus without her consent, the fetus is still not considered "fully human" (as in has the right to life like a born person) because the mother could still have aborted the fetus with no legal consequences. Once someone has the full legal right to life, no one can legally kill him/her, not even his/her mother.

Then please show the sentencing of some one convicted of murdering a fetus being less than that of an adult.

[mican333]

I will just address the main points of your post:

So an abortion can not be murder because the gov't shouldn't legally know it's taking place?
Correct?

Kind of. The accurate way to say it is that abortion cannot be murder because it's not illegal and the reason it's not illegal is because the government cannot interfere with a woman's private medical decisions. So it's not so much "not knowing" (although the government should not know) but because the government should not interfere.

Actually so far, it is you and Sig that are giving an opinion on how a fetus acquires human rights based on arbitrary/subjective criteria.

I have supported that it's not arbitrary but yes, it is subjective. And I have yet to see ANYONE give something other than an opinion on how how a fetus acquires human rights that is based on anything other than subjective criteria, including me, Sig, or YOU.

I agree that it is an objective fact that something with unique human DNA exists at the moment of conception but I do not see any non-subjective reasoning that that is when the fetus has acquired human rights. If you disagree, then please give me a reason that supports that the fetus has gained the right to life upon its conception that is devoid of any subjective reasoning.

I haven't seen supported that giving a fetus human rights at any other time than when it's life starts is not arbitrary/subjective....

I haven't seen support that giving a fetus human rights at when life starts is not arbitrary/subjective.

Then please show the sentencing of some one convicted of murdering a fetus being less than that of an adult.

That's not how I am supporting my argument. I'm supporting my argument by showing that unlike a born human being, a fetus can be legally killed by its mother. If your mother killed you, she would be arrested but if she killed you when you were a fetus, she wouldn't be arrested. Therefore now you have a greater legal protection than you did when you were a fetus.

So I have supported my argument that born human beings have, legally speaking, a greater right to life than a fetus even where fetal homicide laws exist.

[Belthazor]

Kind of. The accurate way to say it is that abortion cannot be murder because it's not illegal

We are discussing the legality of abortion, you can't use abortion being legal as support for why abortion is legal....
tiresome

and the reason it's not illegal is because the government cannot interfere with a woman's private medical decisions.

This is sooooooooooo not true.
The gov't makes all kinds of medical decisions for its citizens. Perhaps you are unaware people travel out of the US all the time for treatment that is not legal here.

So it's not so much "not knowing" (although the government should not know) but because the government should not interfere.

Unless it is murder of an innocent human, then the gov't has a responsibility to intervene.

I agree that it is an objective fact that something with unique human DNA exists at the moment of conception but I do not see any non-subjective reasoning that that is when the fetus has acquired human rights.

There is nothing subjective about a human being a human from the time it is conceived/comes into existence and the only right we are really discussing is the right to not be by your mother killed for any reason.

I haven't seen support that giving a fetus human rights at when life starts is not arbitrary/subjective.

Because once it is alive it is a unique human. There is nothing subjective about that.

That's not how I am supporting my argument. I'm supporting my argument by showing that unlike a born human being, a fetus can be legally killed by its mother. If your mother killed you, she would be arrested but if she killed you when you were a fetus, she wouldn't be arrested. Therefore now you have a greater legal protection than you did when you were a fetus.

Problem is, once again you are using abortion being legal as support for abortion being legal.....

Also, if any one else kills a fetus they will most likely get the same sentence as if they killed someone that has been born as supported by the links from a few posts ago.
The fetus death was counted the same as the others in court.

So I have supported my argument that born human beings have, legally speaking, a greater right to life than a fetus even where fetal homicide laws exist.

No you have not!!!
.....you have supported that abortion being legal supports abortion being legal with no other support/argumentation.....tiresome...

---------- Post added at 04:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:33 PM ----------

I have supported that it's not arbitrary but yes, it is subjective.

Then you will have no issue if public opinion should change it's subjective opinion on abortion and make it illegal since that is what subjective is about, majority opinion???

I prefer to be able to back my stance with at least a little more than emotional/subjective/arbitrary opinion...

[mican333]

We are discussing the legality of abortion, you can't use abortion being legal as support for why abortion is legal....
tiresome

And I didn't. I argued that outlawing abortion would be a violation of a woman's right to medical privacy. IOW, outlawing abortion would be unconstitutional. So no, I did not say it's legal because it's legal.

And PLEASE keep your editorializing (like complaining that an argument of mine is "tiresome") to yourself. I could likewise complain about your arguments (like I could really make hay out of you misinterpreting my argument and complain that you need to pay better attention to my arguments or accuse you of intentionally misrepresenting my argument) but OBVIOUSLY us getting snotty with each other will have a detrimental effect on the debate.

This is sooooooooooo not true.
The gov't makes all kinds of medical decisions for its citizens. Perhaps you are unaware people travel out of the US all the time for treatment that is not legal here.

There are exceptions to every constitutional right - there are some specific restrictions to free speech as well.

But the exceptions do not invalidate our general rights and do not allow the government to violate them willy-nilly. And I'm just stating the facts in this case. The reason the government does not outlaw abortion is because it is an unconstitutional violation of medical privacy. This is an objective fact.

Unless it is murder of an innocent human, then the gov't has a responsibility to intervene.

If if is a human who has the legal right to life which the government must protect, yes. But a fetus does not have the legal right to life under our current laws (which should not be misconstrued as a justification of current law - I'm just telling what the law is).

There is nothing subjective about a human being a human from the time it is conceived/comes into existence and the only right we are really discussing is the right to not be by your mother killed for any reason.

Right. And the issue is whether you can support/argue that should be protected from being killed by his/her mother (or anyone else) without using subjective reasoning at all.

Because once it is alive it is a unique human. There is nothing subjective about that.

True. But your argument is that this unique human should be entitled to full legal protection of the law. So let's hear a non-subjective argument that supports that position.

Problem is, once again you are using abortion being legal as support for abortion being legal.....

Incorrect. I am using the state of the law to support that currently the fetus does not have the same legal protections as a born human, even in states where there is a fetal homicide law.

Do you disagree with the notion that when killing a fetus is legal but killing a born human is illegal, the law has a greater respect for the born human than the unborn human? If you disagree, please say so. Also explain your reasoning for the disagreement.

Also, if any one else kills a fetus they will most likely get the same sentence as if they killed someone that has been born as supported by the links from a few posts ago.
The fetus death was counted the same as the others in court.

Okay. But that does not rebut my argument.

No you have not!!!
.....you have supported that abortion being legal supports abortion being legal with no other support/argumentation.....tiresome...

What's TIRESOME is you misrepresenting my argument instead of actually providing a relevant rebuttal to it.

I guess I need to repeat my argument (this time in caps for emphasis. THE REASON ABORTION IS LEGAL IN THE U.S. IS BECAUSE BANNING ABORTION WOULD INTERFERE WITH A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO MEDICAL PRIVACY. Nowhere did I just say "abortion is legal because it's legal". So if you find it tiresome attacking your own straw man arguments, I suggest you not make them in the future.

[CowboyX]

But a fetus does not have the legal right to life under our current laws (which should not be misconstrued as a justification of current law - I'm just telling what the law is).

Has this actually been decided somewhere? I don't think so but you may know something I don't. The Roe decision said a woman has the ultimate say whether her body is going to be used as an incubator or not, right? And that that supersedes an embryo's right to gestate inside her.

Plan B also prevents the implantation of the embryo so there's not even a pregnancy in those cases.

[Sigfried]

Has this actually been decided somewhere?

Yes, it's at least partly in the Roe v Wade decision. Unborn children are not legal persons under the eyes of the constitution.

That doesn't mean the government can't have an interest in protecting their life, but it does mean they are not explicitly protected by the bill of rights.

Roe v Wade weighs the right of privacy of the mother against the state's interest in protecting the life of the fetus.

[CowboyX]

Roe v Wade weighs the right of privacy of the mother against the state's interest in protecting the life of the fetus.

Indeed, but does that come from a conclusion that a fetus is not a human life or just that that life's need for continuance is not greater than the mother's right over her body?

For example, let's say my neighbor had complete kidney failure and I was a match for him with two viable kidneys. I couldn't be forced to give him a kidney could I? Even though my not giving him kidney means a death sentence.

No, right? But such a decision doesn't say anything about whether my neighbor is a human life or not.

[Sigfried]

Indeed, but does that come from a conclusion that a fetus is not a human life or just that that life's need for continuance is not greater than the mother's right over her body?

Neither. It comes from the fact that the fetus is not a legal person. That doesn't mean they are not human. A corporation is a legal person, its not a human being.

For example, let's say my neighbor had complete kidney failure and I was a match for him with two viable kidneys. I couldn't be forced to give him a kidney could I? Even though my not giving him kidney means a death sentence.

You are both legal persons in the eye of the law. You cannot be compelled to give your kidneys to anyone.

o, right? But such a decision doesn't say anything about whether my neighbor is a human life or not.

Correct, because human life is not really a legal term of art.

---------- Post added at 07:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:56 AM ----------

Ok, then as with any other time in a persons life, as long as the mother doesn't infringe on the bodily autonomy of the baby/fetus/tissue blob/whatever, I think we are good here as this criteria should apply generally, to all humans, not just select ones.

A fetus is incapable of making choices.

Sorry :(
"He gave it to her without her knowing and the baby/fetus/tissue blob/whatever died though the mother was not injured otherwise"

The death of the fetus is an injury to the mother. The case hinges on infanticide laws. And states are allowed to have those. But they don't make the fetus a legal person.

Um, the pertinent part of this is "how many counts" of manslaughter/whatever?

No, not really. What is pertinent is you are trying to establish the legal personhood of the fetus. This doesn't do that. It only shows that the state can make a low with respect to committing violence against a fetus. They can also make laws about vandalism and many other acts. That does not impart rights as in the bill of rights, to the fetus.

HUH? I don't understand??

Indeed. Let me give you a citation to a legal explanation of the Roe-V-Wade decision.

A. A fetus is not a legal person under the US constitution. (See Roe V Wade and other decisions on this point)
B. The State does have the power to create criminal statues for various behaviors, and those can include protecting a fetus, or protecting a statue, or protecting nearly anything.
C. The Roe V Wade decision looks at a mother's right to privacy and weighs it against the interest of the state to make a statute designed to protect a fetus from harm.

With a road accident or someone effectively poisoning their girlfriend, the mother's right to privacy is not a barrier to the state's interest in protecting the life of the fetus. In an abortion, it is. And most of the time, a person's rights will trump state interest unless that interest is deemed "compelling" which is a strict legal standard.

I like humor!
Was this an attempt at it?

Cause otherwise you have a job here to do to overcome this point so let me state it again for ease:
"Unless a person is totally ignorant of how pregnancy occurs and what it entails, they do indeed give tacit acceptance!!!
IOW, if you know it's a possible outcome, you have DEFINATELY agreed to that outcome explicitly!"

I accept the possibility of being hit by a drunk driver when I go out on the street. But that doesn't mean I agree to be hit by one. Just because there is a chance of something, doesn't mean I agree that this is the outcome I am seeking or that I accept it. The vast majority of sexual encounters don't result in children, nor are they intended to.

HUH?

Letting a tiny fetus die is better than forcing its mother to bare it to term.

Even though you know abortion is commonly used in ways you disagree with...
Ok, I guess...

That is correct. There are many things I don't like or think are moral but which I also don't think should be illegal. I have the view that society requires an amount of personal liberty and personal moral culpability that people have to take on for themselves and shouldn't be enforced through law.

Your point'ish:
"during the time the mother is pregnant (up to a certain "stage/age"), she is the sole moral/legal authority if it could/should be killed or allowed to live only because she is the one carrying it"

Yes, it is inside her body. She is its sole source of sustenance and life. It is incapable of living without her. She is legally sovereign over her body and consequentially its body. But it has nothing to do with gestation time or the effort needed to bare a child or any of that.

It's a bit like, "Why does the US have any authority over one of its citizens?" Because we are born in the US, live in the US, and have no other sovereign home.

[CowboyX]

Neither. It comes from the fact that the fetus is not a legal person.

Ok, so that comes from Roe? Do you have a reference for that? If it was earlier in the thread just say so and I'll go look for it.

---------- Post added at 11:19 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:06 AM ----------

You are both legal persons in the eye of the law. You cannot be compelled to give your kidneys to anyone.

Ok, I wouldn't have to give him both though (trading one life for another). Can I be compelled to give blood? If not are we talking about bodies and bodily products and a person's dominion over them. Right? Women do surrogate for others - even for pay. So does it really comes down to the mother's willingness? I can give my kidney to someone if I wanted (it's not legal to sell them, right?...you can sell your blood though).

Let's say I have a company and I have a life saving drug but I refuse to provide it or I charge a million dollars a dose. Does it come down to whether or not there are other alternatives or not? A rare blood type versus a not-so-rare one. Kidney donors that match are rare, no? (people who are organ donors and die in an accident or whatever I mean)

---------- Post added at 11:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:19 AM ----------

The death of the fetus is an injury to the mother.

Interesting. Is there a citation for this?

---------- Post added at 11:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:21 AM ----------

Indeed. Let me give you a citation to a legal explanation of the Roe-V-Wade decision.

A. A fetus is not a legal person under the US constitution. (See Roe V Wade and other decisions on this point)
B. The State does have the power to create criminal statues for various behaviors, and those can include protecting a fetus, or protecting a statue, or protecting nearly anything.
C. The Roe V Wade decision looks at a mother's right to privacy and weighs it against the interest of the state to make a statute designed to protect a fetus from harm.

With a road accident or someone effectively poisoning their girlfriend, the mother's right to privacy is not a barrier to the state's interest in protecting the life of the fetus. In an abortion, it is. And most of the time, a person's rights will trump state interest unless that interest is deemed "compelling" which is a strict legal standard.

Ah, ok.

[Belthazor]

Neither. It comes from the fact that the fetus is not a legal person. That doesn't mean they are not human. A corporation is a legal person, its not a human being.

Yes, our legal system can be quite convoluted...

A fetus is incapable of making choices.

How does this relieve someone of their bodily autonomy as in it's ok to kill them?
This criteria applies to other groups as well....

No, not really. What is pertinent is you are trying to establish the legal personhood of the fetus.

Not really. I am showing inconsistencies in the law.

Indeed. Let me give you a citation to a legal explanation of the Roe-V-Wade decision.

1. Yes I understand their legal opinion on that case. I thought we had been discussing it were was a sound decision. After all if we are just going to go by that decision, there ain't much to talk about Scotty...
2. It was a 7-2 vote. Lots of people believe they erred, some of them lawyers and judges and some of them may be on the current court. That court has changed quite a bit since then (not to mention society as a whole).

I accept the possibility of being hit by a drunk driver when I go out on the street. But that doesn't mean I agree to be hit by one. Just because there is a chance of something, doesn't mean I agree that this is the outcome I am seeking or that I accept it. The vast majority of sexual encounters don't result in children, nor are they intended to.

Swing and big miss! We weren't talking about the actions of another affecting you.
We were talking about making a decision that you know has two possible outcomes:
1. you don't get pregnant.
2. you do get pregnant.

Knowing this means you have given explicit consent to the outcome!

Letting a tiny fetus die is better than forcing its mother to bare it to term.

Why is a dead human preferable to the mother, having caused the pregnancy of her own free will, carrying it for some months?

That is correct. There are many things I don't like or think are moral but which I also don't think should be illegal. I have the view that society requires an amount of personal liberty and personal moral culpability that people have to take on for themselves and shouldn't be enforced through law.

Fair enough, I guess everyone takes personal conviction/right and wrong at vastly different levels....

Yes, it is inside her body.

Yet pregnancy is quite temporary, her decisions caused the pregnancy, and the fetus had no choice nor alternatives and is a human.
Pretty shaky ground for a legal decision allowing a human to be killed.

It's a bit like, "Why does the US have any authority over one of its citizens?" .

The US gov't has authority over it's current citizen's because people in the past voted it into existence with that authority and at this point it just plain uses force to keep authority.

[CowboyX]

Pretty shaky ground for a legal decision allowing a human to be killed.

Do you have such a legal decision?

[Sigfried]

Ok, so that comes from Roe? Do you have a reference for that? If it was earlier in the thread just say so and I'll go look for it.

Yes, it was mentioned in the majority decision. Texas claimed they were legal persons, the supreme court rejected this claim. Find a copy of it and do a text search to find the exact quotation and context. I don't know if there is earlier case law on this question.

Ok, I wouldn't have to give him both though (trading one life for another). Can I be compelled to give blood?

No, not generally. Perhaps if there were some deadly pandemic and they needed to screen people for quarantine, or if you joined the military and agreed to this etc...

If not are we talking about bodies and bodily products and a person's dominion over them. Right? Women do surrogate for others - even for pay. So does it really comes down to the mother's willingness? I can give my kidney to someone if I wanted (it's not legal to sell them, right?...you can sell your blood though).

Yes, generally you can make a contract with others to do these things if you like. You can't make a contract for your death/life. But you could for your kidney, even if its a bit dangerous. A surrogate is interesting, I don't know much about such contracts or the law surrounding them.

Let's say I have a company and I have a life-saving drug but I refuse to provide it or I charge a million dollars a dose. Does it come down to whether or not there are other alternatives or not? A rare blood type versus a not-so-rare one. Kidney donors that match are rare, no? (people who are organ donors and die in an accident or whatever I mean)

In the first case... I'm guessing it's possible the government could get leave to make you share the drug, but it would not be easy. They would have to go to court and win if you objected and they would have to work very hard to show that they had a compelling interest to take your property. They might be able to argue its value is not one million dollars and thus "pay" you for it at a market price.

A lot of factors go into proving a "Compelling state interest"
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment...state-interest

"An interest is compelling when it is essential or necessary rather than a matter of choice, preference, or discretion." this is a good summary, but there is a lot of complication to it, and frankly it gets decided somewhat subjectively.

Interesting. Is there a citation for this?

I'm speaking in rather general terms. Each state has different rules about this. But suffice to say, you can almost always bring a civil action for any bodily harm, and having your fetus killed is definitely a kind of bodily harm. Sometimes you can bring a wrongful death claim, but it depends on the jurisdiction.

---------- Post added at 05:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:32 AM ----------

How does this relieve someone of their bodily autonomy as in it's ok to kill them?
This criterion applies to other groups as well....

Body autonomy is the ability to control your body. A fetus has no control of its body so it can't have body autonomy. Look you are better off trying to just argue its right to life (since it is indeed alive) that to try to use body autonomy as it doesn't have any meaningful autonomy.

In cases where a legal person effectively loses autonomy, someone else takes control. In the case of a fetus, the person in control defaults to it's mother.

Not really. I am showing inconsistencies in the law.

OK, I stand corrected. But in that case, you have not yet shown any inconsistencies.

1. Yes I understand their legal opinion on that case. I thought we had been discussing it were was a sound decision. After all if we are just going to go by that decision, there ain't much to talk about Scotty...

I am prone to forget the particulars of past debates. I tend to think Roe V Wade is a good legal decision and it matches pretty closely with my own moral opinion about abortion. There are some problems with it, but mostly because the situation is a moving target with regards to the science of fetal medicine.

2. It was a 7-2 vote. Lots of people believe they erred, some of them lawyers and judges and some of them may be on the current court. That court has changed quite a bit since then (not to mention society as a whole).

All true.

Swing and big miss! We weren't talking about the actions of another affecting you.

We might be. There are all kinds of circumstances. There are instances when people intentionally sabotage the birth control they are using for one reason or another.
There could also be some flaw in the birth control mechanism caused by its manufacturer.

But regardless of that, Drunk Drivers are something you can't control. The same goes for whether you get pregnant when having sex. You can take measures, but you can't control the situation 100%. Nor can you when you are driving a car.

We were talking about making a decision that you know has two possible outcomes:
1. you don't get pregnant.
2. you do get pregnant.

Knowing this means you have given explicit consent to the outcome!

No, it doesn't. I've had sex with a few women in my life. None of them agreed to be a mother. (BTW: You are using the word explicit whin you should use implicit. Explicit would be "**** me, I want a baby!"

Why is a dead human preferable to the mother, having caused the pregnancy of her own free will, carrying it for some months?

Because this particular dead human doesn't have much moral value. I think I've explained that before.

Yet pregnancy is quite temporary, her decisions caused the pregnancy, and the fetus had no choice nor alternatives and is a human.
Pretty shaky ground for a legal decision allowing a human to be killed.

You keep blurring the line between moral decisions and legal decisions.
Legally, it is not in any way shaky because said human has no rights.
Morally you have a lot more room to argue. But I would say parenthood is forever, her decision was not to have a child, and the fetus has no choice because it is inherently incapable of making choices.

The US gov't has authority over its current citizens because people in the past voted it into existence with that authority and at this point, it just plain uses force to keep authority.

And a mother has authority over the fetus because she made it, it's in her body, and she has control of it.

[mican333]

Swing and big miss! We weren't talking about the actions of another affecting you.
We were talking about making a decision that you know has two possible outcomes:
1. you don't get pregnant.
2. you do get pregnant.

Knowing this means you have given explicit consent to the outcome!

I definitely disagree with that.

I consider explicit consent to be consent that is explicit as in saying "Yes, I want to do that".

And knowing that a particular consequence may happen if you take an action is definitely, positively not consent to that consequence. If a girl goes on a date with a guy, she's aware that it's possible that he might rape her. Even if everything she knows about the guy is that he's a perfect gentleman (like her friends have dated him and has nothing but nice things to say about him), she still knows it's still possible that she will be raped. So if she's raped on that date, can the rapist say "Well, she consented to the rape because she agreed to go out with me knowing that that might happen?". Of course not.

So knowing it might happen is not consent to it happening.