Is it hypocritical?

[CanadaJohn]

Circumstances don't change whether or not someone is a person. Assuming the fetus was still at an age that it could be aborted, then how is this murder? In the eyes of the government it's not a person, so how is the guy being charged?

Quite simply, in the eyes of someone who supports abortion, the fetus isn't a person. However, in the eyes of the murdered woman, the one who was carrying the fetus, the fetus was her baby, her child, and in states where the law provides, prosecutors are going to respect the murdered mother's opinion over the agenda of someone else.

 

[Cardinal]

I know, sorry about that but I can't find another way to word it.

Alright, well, if you can think of a different way to word feel free to try again.

 

[CanadaJohn]

I told you; these laws are specifically designed to set the stage for a Roe challenge by creating a precedent of ZEF's being legally treated as persons. It is hypocritical by design.

That's one view that may be credible. There's also the view that when a pregnant woman is murdered, her child is murdered too. You cannot argue that a woman who is carrying a child doesn't believe that fetus is a person - try confronting a pregnant woman and tell her she's carrying a sac of tissue and see what she says. As a result, as I said above, perhaps the laws are attempting to reflect the views of the murdered woman not the views of abortion advocates.

If you demand respect for pro-choice views, as is your right, surely you must also demand respect for women who are pro-life in the sense that they are carrying their child to term.

 

[Removable Mind]

Is it hypocritical to give an unborn child "person-hood" when they are killed in an auto-accident and not give them "person-hood" in the case of abortions?

For example, in Tuscaloosa, Al a man is getting tried for 3 charges of murder because there was 2 women in a car and one was pregnant.

How is it murder in this instance, but not in the case of abortion?

I haven't read much of the other posts, but...

The answer lies in the "Unborn Victim's Act of 2003.

It clearly defines the differences between a fetus killed in what is consider to be an event that is considered to be related to felony acts verses non-felony events.

It also states why the word "child" is used like it is...and it is not in anyway meant to imply "person".

It also makes clear why a fetal death is not considered to be punishable if it is the result of a legal medical procedure that aborts a fetus.

So to you question: No, there's no hypocrisy in the law or otherwise. Any feelings you might have for the fetus in any of the cases described within the law...to bluntly put it...is subjective.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Alright, well, if you can think of a different way to word feel free to try again.

If it helps, pro-choice doesn't mean pro-abortion - it means that the woman gets to choose if she'll have a child or not once she becomes pregnant. If you're truly pro-choice and not just pro-abortion, then you should respect the fact that a woman who is carrying her child to term has made the choice to give birth and anyone, in any manner, who takes that child from her either by harming her or killing her must be made to suffer consequences for substituting their choice over hers.

 

[Cardinal]

If it helps, pro-choice doesn't mean pro-abortion - it means that the woman gets to choose if she'll have a child or not once she become pregnant. If you're truly pro-choice and not just pro-abortion, then you should respect the fact that a woman who is carrying her child to term has made the choice to give birth and anyone, in any manner, who takes that child from her either by harming her or killing her must be made to suffer consequences for substituting their choice over hers.

I agree. It's the reason why many people opt to call it "pro-abortion-rights" in an attempt to clarify that position, though I personally feel that it's unnecessary. Anybody who's prochoice know what it means. It's a war of words, nothing more.

 

[CanadaJohn]

I agree. It's the reason why many people opt to call it "pro-abortion-rights" in an attempt to clarify that position, though I personally feel that it's unnecessary. Anybody who's prochoice know what it means. It's a war of words, nothing more.

Well, lots of people, myself guilty on occasion, use the term pro-abortion pejoratively when debating with people who are adamant about their descriptions of human life at certain stages. From the other side, they pejoratively call me pro-life even though I self-identify as pro-choice although I don't like the choice some women make. It's all a matter of painting your opponent in a certain unflattering light.

 

[Removable Mind]

If it helps, pro-choice doesn't mean pro-abortion - it means that the woman gets to choose if she'll have a child or not once she becomes pregnant. If you're truly pro-choice and not just pro-abortion, then you should respect the fact that a woman who is carrying her child to term has made the choice to give birth and anyone, in any manner, who takes that child from her either by harming her or killing her must be made to suffer consequences for substituting their choice over hers.

The following is kind of a repeat of my post, which is probably above yours...but...

You comment above is pretty much right on, John. However, the law does state why it uses the word "CHILD" within the Unborn Victim's Act And clearly states that using the word "child" in no way implies "person" or personhood".

 

[sawyerloggingon]

The unborn are obviously life's like the rest of the lives we destroy every day to make room for the human lives pro lifer's want relentlessly born. The question is, do they matter? or not? As for the rest of your claim, it has to do with what bush signed when he got elected back into office. However though when debating someone like myself who happens to live in Canada where our law is not inconsistent in this matter, bringing this up is pointless since when it comes to actual debate, it doesn't matter what the law says about it at the moment. You wouldn't for example say to someone who is in Belgium that ''child euthanasia is illegal in my country'' while discussing to the Belgium guy about child euthanasia where it is legal in his country.

I read that three times trying to make sense of it. I guess it's true what they say about Canadians, you like your pot and beer.:lol:

 

[CanadaJohn]

The following is kind of a repeat of my post, which is probably above yours...but...

You comment above is pretty much right on, John. However, the law does state why it uses the word "CHILD" within the Unborn Victim's Act And clearly states that using the word "child" in no way implies "person" or personhood".

This is true, and I believe the wording or qualification is used to survive the Supreme Court and constitutional challenges - any other interpretation would likely be struck down and I believe has been in the past.

 

[CanadaJohn]

I read that three times trying to make sense of it. I guess it's true what they say about Canadians, you like your pot and beer.:lol:

Now, don't go labelling all Canadians with the same brush - many Canadians on here would be mortified if you claimed they were all like me!!

 

[Removable Mind]

This is true, and I believe the wording or qualification is used to survive the Supreme Court and constitutional challenges - any other interpretation would likely be struck down and I believe has been in the past.

"Child in utero" is the actual term used in the Act. And most all states have used the term in creating their respective "feticide laws" for the very reason you state above.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Now, don't go labelling all Canadians with the same brush - many Canadians on here would be mortified if you claimed they were all like me!!

I go to BC alot to back pack and mt bike and have noticed a laid back get high attitude up there especially around Nelson. "suds and buds".:lol:

 

[CanadaJohn]

I go to BC alot to back pack and mt bike and have noticed a laid back get high attitude up there especially around Nelson. "suds and buds".:lol:

Now, if you'd said British Columbians instead of Canadians, I would have had no problem - everyone in Canada knows BC is "special".

 

[1750Texan]

The following is kind of a repeat of my post, which is probably above yours...but...

You comment above is pretty much right on, John. However, the law does state why it uses the word "CHILD" within the Unborn Victim's Act And clearly states that using the word "child" in no way implies "person" or personhood".

Basically [a] state, any state, can write legislation using any wording it wishes. The state, in its legislation, can refer to the unborn as a "baby", bambino, pappus, or anything else it wishes. The state's wording has no effecrt on the decision to allow first term abortions on demand; or on the "personhood" of the unborn fetus.

State legislation can not reverse the Constitutuionally protected right of a woman to have an abortion. It is that state that classifies criminal act committed in their jursdiction. Murder, manslaughter, vehicular homicide, or infatacide are state crimes punishable in state prisons.

 

[tres borrachos]

The same way that it is illegal for you to shoot my dog but I can take her to the vet and have her euthanised.

In my country, though, the unborn does not have personhood at all.

Terrible analogy.

 

[tres borrachos]

Is it hypocritical to give an unborn child "person-hood" when they are killed in an auto-accident and not give them "person-hood" in the case of abortions?

For example, in Tuscaloosa, Al a man is getting tried for 3 charges of murder because there was 2 women in a car and one was pregnant.

How is it murder in this instance, but not in the case of abortion?

I don't know that I'd define it as hypocritical but yes, I don't think there should be a distinction between who ends the life of an unborn human - its mother, or someone else. If the common census among the pro-choice people is that the fetus not a human/person and therefore has no rights, then an external person causing the termination of a chance of life for that fetus has committed a victimless murder.

I see it as being more contradictory that hypocritical.

 

[minnie616]

Circumstances don't change whether or not someone is a person. Assuming the fetus was still at an age that it could be aborted, then how is this murder? In the eyes of the government it's not a person, so how is the guy being charged?

A fetus is not a person and has no right to life.
However, feticide laws are about states rights not fetus rights.

 

[DashingAmerican]

Because your law is being inconsistent on the matter saying killing the ''ZEF'' is murder in these particular circumstances while in the case of abortion is not. Glad I don't live in the USA so when those like yourself want to pull the law into a debate about a topic, it doesn't work with me since I'm in Canada where this is not the case. If you want to have an actual meaningful discussion about personhood, just let us know.

I'm open to the idea on a debate of personhood.

Don't see why I wouldn't be. I haven't really given any information on to which way I'm leaning on the matter.

 

[DashingAmerican]

A fetus is not a person and has no right to life.
However, feticide laws are about states rights not fetus rights.

That is well said.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Is it hypocritical to give an unborn child "person-hood" when they are killed in an auto-accident and not give them "person-hood" in the case of abortions?

For example, in Tuscaloosa, Al a man is getting tried for 3 charges of murder because there was 2 women in a car and one was pregnant.

How is it murder in this instance, but not in the case of abortion?

If you rip a baby out of a woman's body it is abortion.

Shoot and kill a pregnant woman and it is a double homicide.

Someone needs to square that one...

 

[Removable Mind]

Basically [a] state, any state, can write legislation using any wording it wishes. The state, in its legislation, can refer to the unborn as a "baby", bambino, pappus, or anything else it wishes. The state's wording has no effecrt on the decision to allow first term abortions on demand; or on the "personhood" of the unborn fetus.

State legislation can not reverse the Constitutuionally protected right of a woman to have an abortion. It is that state that classifies criminal act committed in their jursdiction. Murder, manslaughter, vehicular homicide, or infatacide are state crimes punishable in state prisons.

I won't disagree fundamentally, however...

The Constitutional rights defined in Roe v. Wade outlines the parameters in what stage of development that a woman's right to abortion WITHOUT individual state interests might be used to attempt to overrule or intervene in the issues of abortion.

The language or term used "Child in Utero" in the Unborn Victims Act would not have passed Congress without legal definition. There were a lot of legal battles regarding this term while it was debated in committee and on the floor. Without the definition, there would have abortion rights organizations and individuals flooding the courts irregardless of what Roe v. Wade stated.

The S.C. would have been hammered with pleas that a new precedence had been created because the fetus is being seen as an equal victim to that of the woman who carried it and that use of the word "child" is an admission to the fetus being "a person", just as the woman who carried it.

Thus the Act had to clearly define its use and clearly state that it in no way implied person or personhood.

Just take a look at what happens in DP when the word "child" is used to describe the unborn.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

That's one view that may be credible. There's also the view that when a pregnant woman is murdered, her child is murdered too. You cannot argue that a woman who is carrying a child doesn't believe that fetus is a person - try confronting a pregnant woman and tell her she's carrying a sac of tissue and see what she says. As a result, as I said above, perhaps the laws are attempting to reflect the views of the murdered woman not the views of abortion advocates.

If you demand respect for pro-choice views, as is your right, surely you must also demand respect for women who are pro-life in the sense that they are carrying their child to term.

But it doesn't matter what she believes, because we're not talking about that. By all legal precedent (except these new and intentional fetal murder cases) the ZEF is not a person. This is designed to challenge that legal precedent. The reason is because, by popular America discourse, whether a ZEF is a person is the primary factor in whether it should be legal to abort (a premise I find flawed, as I explained in my first post).

But just so you know, there are plenty of happily pregnant women who don't believe a ZEF is a person, just a potential person.

I respect what the woman believes absolutely. But that does not change the way this works legally. Considering a ZEF a person is neither here nor there to me. I am simply saying that as the law stands, it is not.

 

[1750Texan]

I won't disagree fundamentally, however...

The Constitutional rights defined in Roe v. Wade outlines the parameters in what stage of development that a woman's right to abortion WITHOUT individual state interests might be used to attempt to overrule or intervene in the issues of abortion.

I wholeheartedly agree with this contention.

The language or term used "Child in Utero" in the Unborn Victims Act would not have passed Congress without legal definition. There were a lot of legal battles regarding this term while it was debated in committee and on the floor. Without the definition, there would have abortion rights organizations and individuals flooding the courts irregardless of what Roe v. Wade stated.

The federal statute[UVA] did not pass because it defined "child in utero"...it passed because of subsection c.

Unborn Victims Act
US code 18 sec. 1841:

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

Eventhought the wording is "unborn child"[fetus], this statute can not be used to procecute lawful abortions, those that peroform them, or the woman having the abortion.

The S.C. would have been hammered with pleas that a new precedence had been created because the fetus is being seen as an equal victim to that of the woman who carried it and that use of the word "child" is an admission to the fetus being "a person", just as the woman who carried it.

Or the supreme court could have denied hearing any cases based on this statute...instead letting lower court rulings stand.

Thus the Act had to clearly define its use and clearly state that it in no way implied person or personhood.

Just take a look at what happens in DP when the word "child" is used to describe the unborn.

 

[Removable Mind]

I wholeheartedly agree with this contention.


The federal statute[UVA] did not pass because it defined "child in utero"...it passed because of subsection c.

Unborn Victims Act
US code 18 sec. 1841:

Eventhought the wording is "unborn child"[fetus], this statute can not be used to procecute lawful abortions, those that peroform them, or the woman having the abortion.

Or the supreme court could have denied hearing any cases based on this statute...instead letting lower court rulings stand.

I've read the statue a number of times. It's been dissected in the Abortion forum a number of times.

I'm not fighting with you on this.

I'm simply conveying to you a number of arguments that I read about the dissension within Congress about using the term "Child in Utero"...and that clearly they wanted to preempt future legal fights, but at state level S.C. courts, Federal courts, etc.

And many vowed if the language not been clearly defined...it wouldn't be a law. Laws are funny that way. Some laws actually do include clarification for abstract words and terms. So this law is somewhat of an anomaly. Usually nobody gives a rats ass.

There were real and serious arguments about the use of the term.

In other words...organizations and people would indeed flood the court with pleas that were not relevant to the law...nor was it setting a precedence for personhood.

There are those in DP who consider the words Zygote, Embryo, and Fetus sacrilegious. They demean the poor little unborn child.