Legal Question RE: Abortion

[FreshlyMinted]

Just curious about what laws would fit into the following scenario

A woman, who is pregnant, is murdered. Can her killer be tried for two counts of homicide? Or just one? Do the trimesters of development play into this at all?

 

[liblady]

Just curious about what laws would fit into the following scenario

A woman, who is pregnant, is murdered. Can her killer be tried for two counts of homicide? Or just one? Do the trimesters of development play into this at all?

i think it depends upon the state, and viability.

 

[FreshlyMinted]

and those states, I assume, have compatible Abortion laws. Thanks

 

[Tsunami]

Just curious about what laws would fit into the following scenario

A woman, who is pregnant, is murdered. Can her killer be tried for two counts of homicide? Or just one? Do the trimesters of development play into this at all?

Fetal Homicide State Laws

Obviously there is no state that has outlawed all abortions, but many of them have left the wording on these laws purposefully vague so that if Roe vs. Wade is ever overturned then abortion will be immediately illegal.

 

[FreshlyMinted]

that was quite a few more than I was expecting. Doesn't that just sorta end the abortion debate right there? How can someone claim that on the one hand killing an unborn child is a crime in and of itself whereas some woman choosing to do the same thing is considered tumor extraction?

It seems like the only difference between the two is the amount that the fetus/child is wanted by the parents, and that doesn't seem like a very legally stable quantity

 

[Tsunami]

that was quite a few more than I was expecting. Doesn't that just sorta end the abortion debate right there? How can someone claim that on the one hand killing an unborn child is a crime in and of itself whereas some woman choosing to do the same thing is considered tumor extraction?

It seems like the only difference between the two is the amount that the fetus/child is wanted by the parents, and that doesn't seem like a very legally stable quantity

There's a big difference between a person seeking out antibiotics to kill some bacteria in their own body vs. having someone force it upon them. There's a difference between a person euthanizing their own pet vs. someone else's pet. There's a big difference between killing a deer on public land vs. doing it on someone else's land.

There's nothing sacred about an unwanted embryo, legally. Fertilization clinics are able to dispose of extra embryos without being tried for murder. I'm not sure, but they probably need permission even for that. But to do it to someone who wants the baby could be not only a violation of the woman's body but also of her property.

This has been the law for a long time. Exodus 21:22 (NIV)

If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows.

 

[FreshlyMinted]

There's a big difference between a person seeking out antibiotics to kill some bacteria in their own body vs. having someone force it upon them. There's a difference between a person euthanizing their own pet vs. someone else's pet. There's a big difference between killing a deer on public land vs. doing it on someone else's land.

There's nothing sacred about an unwanted embryo, legally. Fertilization clinics are able to dispose of extra embryos without being tried for murder. I'm not sure, but they probably need permission even for that. But to do it to someone who wants the baby could be not only a violation of the woman's body but also of her property.

This has been the law for a long time. Exodus 21:22 (NIV)

But as soon as you make the crime manslaughter, then it is an implicit admission that a human life has been ended and that is different from any of the situations that you cited.

I could understand if the laws involving this kind of thing and abortion were compatible in every state, but my intuition says there is at least one in which this isn't the case. (I could still be dead wrong however).

 

[Tsunami]

But as soon as you make the crime manslaughter, then it is an implicit admission that a human life has been ended and that is different from any of the situations that you cited.

I could understand if the laws involving this kind of thing and abortion were compatible in every state, but my intuition says there is at least one in which this isn't the case. (I could still be dead wrong however).

There is at least one. The Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that a fetus can be defined as a "person" as it applies to homicide laws. This has yet to be challenged in federal court.

Obviously there are many people who feel that abortion is murder, including the State of Arkansas. The people who are making this "admission" are the ones who already oppose abortion, generally, so I don't think your point is a very strong one. It wouldn't be hypocritical to say that a fetus is human life for purposes of homicide, but that a woman still has the right to have it removed from her womb. It doesn't matter whether you are an adult or an embryo, you aren't allowed inside a person's body without their permission.

 

[FreshlyMinted]

There is at least one. The Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that a fetus can be defined as a "person" as it applies to homicide laws. This has yet to be challenged in federal court.

Obviously there are many people who feel that abortion is murder, including the State of Arkansas. The people who are making this "admission" are the ones who already oppose abortion, generally, so I don't think your point is a very strong one. It wouldn't be hypocritical to say that a fetus is human life for purposes of homicide, but that a woman still has the right to have it removed from her womb. It doesn't matter whether you are an adult or an embryo, you aren't allowed inside a person's body without their permission.

I feel I may have given the wrong impression, I am not anti-abortion politically speaking. I am ethically against it, but I am completely in favor of people freely doing things that I am ethically against so long as they are willing to accept the consequences, legal or otherwise. I Just don't like this seeming double standard that I thought existed in the American legal system where a child/fetus's death is not calculated the same across the board.

Furthermore, if sex with any risk of pregnancy is not considered adequate permission for an embryo that would be the logical conclusion of such an action then I don't know what is. Is a person who willfully and knowingly has sex with another person who has aids are they not to be held responsible for their disease? You might at this point say that a person has every right to attempt to cure said disease, but once again we are talking about something that in this legal hypocrisy is considered a human life.

 

[Tsunami]

I feel I may have given the wrong impression, I am not anti-abortion politically speaking. I am ethically against it, but I am completely in favor of people freely doing things that I am ethically against so long as they are willing to accept the consequences, legal or otherwise. I Just don't like this seeming double standard that I thought existed in the American legal system where a child/fetus's death is not calculated the same across the board.

Furthermore, if sex with any risk of pregnancy is not considered adequate permission for an embryo that would be the logical conclusion of such an action then I don't know what is. Is a person who willfully and knowingly has sex with another person who has aids are they not to be held responsible for their disease? You might at this point say that a person has every right to attempt to cure said disease, but once again we are talking about something that in this legal hypocrisy is considered a human life.

There are many ways you can have sex without expecting to get pregnant. But it shouldn't matter. People can change their minds. Agreeing to have sex at one point in time doesn't mean you agree to it forever, like some UN resolution that never expires.

 

[dolphinocean]

There's a big difference between a person seeking out antibiotics to kill some bacteria in their own body vs. having someone force it upon them. There's a difference between a person euthanizing their own pet vs. someone else's pet. There's a big difference between killing a deer on public land vs. doing it on someone else's land.

We are talking about a human life here and not some bacterium, pet or property (unless of course you could prove that the unborn is something other than a human being). Therefore, according to your logic, you might as well say that:

There’s a difference between someone like susan smith or andrea yates drowning her own helpless children vs doing it on someone else’s children. There’s a difference between a person abusing his/her own child vs someone else’s child.​

Isn't it absurd? It just boggles the mind how some people can go beyond the outer limit to justify abortion.

There's nothing sacred about an unwanted embryo, legally. Fertilization clinics are able to dispose of extra embryos without being tried for murder. I'm not sure, but they probably need permission even for that. But to do it to someone who wants the baby could be not only a violation of the woman's body but also of her property.

Our society is so degenerated in moral values that killing the tinest and defenseless human being is considered nothing more than getting rid of a parasite or disposal of some unwanted property.

It's not a parasite, neither is it a property. It's a human being for crying out loud! What the nazi said or did to the Jews during the holocaust did not alter the fact that they are human beings and not some subhumans as projected by the nazis. Likewise, what abortionists or the fertility clinics did to the embryos or fetuses does not change the fact that the unborns are human beings. Unless of course you can scientifically prove otherwise.

This has been the law for a long time. Exodus 21:22 (NIV)

The biblical quote you gave said no such thing.

 

[Tsunami]

Our society is so degenerated in moral values that killing the tinest and defenseless human being is considered nothing more than getting rid of a parasite or disposal of some unwanted property.

It's not a parasite, neither is it a property. It's a human being for crying out loud! ... Unless of course you can scientifically prove otherwise.

The biblical quote you gave said no such thing.

Why am I the one who has to prove something? Regardless of the facts, it is not the government's job to legislate morality. So unless you can prove that an embryo is a person and deserving of all the rights and responsibilities of such, the government should not force your opinion on someone else. And even if embryos were given rights, that still wouldn't include getting to ride around in someone else's uterus.

We as a society do not hold all human life sacred. We allow brain dead "human beings" to be removed from life support. This is the same situation as aborting an early term fetus. The only inconsistency is that we usually kill the fetus before removal, and yet we don't allow assisted suicide for those dying or in pain. I am all for changing this.

Legally an embryo is property, at least in a fertility clinic or in some contracts involving surrogate mothers. A fetus doesn't become protected until viable. All that would be required for you to end legal abortions is to prove that a zygote is viable. The onus is on you.

 

[FreshlyMinted]

I would like to know, morally speaking, which Ethical system allows abortion. I definitely don't know all of them, but I can't justify it through any that I know.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I would like to know, morally speaking, which Ethical system allows abortion. I definitely don't know all of them, but I can't justify it through any that I know.

Any which doesn't specifically prohibit it, I would imagine. My system of ethics doesn't have much to say on the matter at all, except that healthy babies are precious and shouldn't be wasted carelessly. There are certainly many reasons why abortion, under certain circumstances, might be the best moral decision.

 

[Tsunami]

I would like to know, morally speaking, which Ethical system allows abortion. I definitely don't know all of them, but I can't justify it through any that I know.

Obviously in most moral systems it depends upon whether you consider a zygote to be a person or an egg cell.

 

[kerussll]

I would like to know, morally speaking, which Ethical system allows abortion. I definitely don't know all of them, but I can't justify it through any that I know.

Really? You can't imagine a scenario where abortion would be justified?

 

[FreshlyMinted]

Really? You can't imagine a scenario where abortion would be justified?

nono, I just can't think of an established ethical system in which abortion in each and every case is considered morally "good"

 

[Tsunami]

nono, I just can't think of an established ethical system in which abortion in each and every case is considered morally "good"

Negative utilitarianism leads to the belief that the less people there are the less suffering there will be.

 

[kerussll]

nono, I just can't think of an established ethical system in which abortion in each and every case is considered morally "good"

Well if you can't establish that it is morally "bad" in each and every case, you haven't done much now have you? Nobody claims abortions are "good," just that it involves a choice we don't have a right to make for someone else.

 

[FreshlyMinted]

Negative utilitarianism leads to the belief that the less people there are the less suffering there will be.

Okay, okay, but how about one in which murdering is not also a moral good. I'm just thinking that one cannot be pro abortion (morally speaking) and have a consistent ethical rule that they follow. Except maybe moral egoism (in which murder is also a moral good if it will make YOU happy), but still none of these make pro-abortionists sound like very nice people.

I suppose one doesn't need to have a consistent rule to follow in every aspect of their lives...

 

[kerussll]

Okay, okay, but how about one in which murdering is not also a moral good. I'm just thinking that one cannot be pro abortion (morally speaking) and have a consistent ethical rule that they follow. Except maybe moral egoism (in which murder is also a moral good if it will make YOU happy), but still none of these make pro-abortionists sound like very nice people.

I suppose one doesn't need to have a consistent rule to follow in every aspect of their lives...

Who are these "pro abortionists" you speak of? They don't exist.

 

[Chuz Life]

Legally an embryo is property, at least in a fertility clinic or in some contracts involving surrogate mothers. A fetus doesn't become protected until viable. All that would be required for you to end legal abortions is to prove that a zygote is viable. The onus is on you.

Viable Zygotes

"For ethical reasons, cloning of humans is illegal, although cloning of cells (not
whole organisms) is part of research on many human diseases. Technically, human clones would be possible via in vitro fertilization (IVF). Ova are surgically removed from a woman and mixed with sperm. If fertilization occurs, viable zygotes begin to duplicate in vitro, which literally means “in glass” (i.e., a glass laboratory dish). In duplication, sometimes one cell is removed to test for abnormal genes (done only for serious genetic conditions); if the severe condition is not found, the remaining cells are inserted into the woman’s uterus to develop into a healthy baby. This is not cloning, and doing so raises no ethical issues."

 

[Tsunami]

Okay, okay, but how about one in which murdering is not also a moral good. I'm just thinking that one cannot be pro abortion (morally speaking) and have a consistent ethical rule that they follow. Except maybe moral egoism (in which murder is also a moral good if it will make YOU happy), but still none of these make pro-abortionists sound like very nice people.

I suppose one doesn't need to have a consistent rule to follow in every aspect of their lives...

Your thinking is flawed in that you assume an embryo has equal status with a person to everyone. As I already stated, the only thing inconsistent is the moral value of an embryo. If abortion is killing a person and equated to murder then you are right, no moral system allows for that. If on the other hand it is something less than a person then many moral systems allow for us to have domination over lesser beings. For example, few people consider the destruction of a living sperm cell to be murder, despite its potential to father a child.

Viable Zygotes

"For ethical reasons, cloning of humans is illegal, although cloning of cells (not
whole organisms) is part of research on many human diseases. Technically, human clones would be possible via in vitro fertilization (IVF). Ova are surgically removed from a woman and mixed with sperm. If fertilization occurs, viable zygotes begin to duplicate in vitro, which literally means “in glass” (i.e., a glass laboratory dish). In duplication, sometimes one cell is removed to test for abnormal genes (done only for serious genetic conditions); if the severe condition is not found, the remaining cells are inserted into the woman’s uterus to develop into a healthy baby. This is not cloning, and doing so raises no ethical issues."

I meant a viable human, not a viable zygote. Sorry to confuse you.

 

[Chuz Life]

I meant a viable human, not a viable zygote. Sorry to confuse you.

Yeah,.. viable human zygote = human in the zygote stage of his or her life is considered "viable" per the information I posted.

One of the meanings of the word "viable" is "able to live outside the mother's womb." Among the remaining definitions is "capable of sustaining life." Which (unless it's in the immediate act of dying) a human in the zygote,... "is viable" and must remain viable to reach the embryonic stage of his/ her life.

You ARE correct on at least one thing.

One of us is certainly confused... but it isn't me.

 

[FreshlyMinted]

Your thinking is flawed in that you assume an embryo has equal status with a person to everyone. As I already stated, the only thing inconsistent is the moral value of an embryo. If abortion is killing a person and equated to murder then you are right, no moral system allows for that. If on the other hand it is something less than a person then many moral systems allow for us to have domination over lesser beings. For example, few people consider the destruction of a living sperm cell to be murder, despite its potential to father a child.

I'd need to see the ethical criteria for a breakdown of the comparison, but at least as far as Utilitarianism goes, a sperm has much less likelihood of experiencing pleasure than a fertilized egg.

As far as dominion over lesser beings, I don't think you can really make that jump in argument from a consequentialist standpoint because animals will not BECOME equal status with humans.

Furthermore are there any ethical systems that allow for people to kill animals simply because we are being inconvenienced by them?