"it" doesn't have the same or similar history or connotation for most people that "nigger" does. Could I say that for you to say "it" is as bad as "nigger" offends me so I demand that you never say it? Yes I could, but you would be in your rights to say it anyway.
ferrous wrote:sozobe wrote:ferrous, the problem with laws is that they have to be the right thing in all possible permutations.
If a law is made that says that people can be prosecuted for killing a fetus, it is a very short hop skip and a jump away from prosecuting people who seek an abortion. You, for example, say that life begins at conception. So if a woman is 12 weeks pregnant, and is punched in the stomach, and loses the fetus, that should be criminal, right? The person who punched her should be prosecuted for murder, right?
But what if a woman is raped, and finds out at 12 weeks that she is pregnant, and chooses to abort. Should she be prosecuted for murder?
In no way do I support this bill. I transposed one extreme "the title of this article, with the opposite extreme in the body of the text.
Hopefully, somewhere in between, there is a workable solution.
Yes, if someone punches a woman in the stomach, it is a crime, and that person should be punished to the full extent of the law. Was it a misdemeanor or a felony? Was the child harmed? Was is an accident, manslaughter, or premeditated? Did the assailant, know that the woman was pregnant? A court of law would decide these things.
If a woman finds that she is pregnant, and decides she doesn't want the child, then she is entitled to seek an abortion. That is the law. There are already time lines established in determining when it is too late to abort. I support these laws. Even though, I believe that life begins at the time of conception, this Point X is only valid for me, and I live my life by it. We have already seen, that this Point X is arbitrary. I was hoping to get some dialogue in this article, to established some agreed upon point, when the fetus becomes a viable human being, but the discussion seems to have mired in "better to have no law, than to regulate laws inside a woman's womb.
I find it ironic, that liberal California has one of these laws on the books, while the Federal government, fails to act. Like I said, a law could be written satisfy the needs, while safe guarding a woman's right to "Choice."
I have written a letter to Senator Feinstein (D-CA), asking her not to support this bill, but to see what can be done to resolve this issue.
Darn, this is a qoute within in a qoute, within a qoute... Oh well.
At this point, all other tangents, moral and/or religious, regarding the outcome of such an occurence, are irrelevant to this issue, unless someone wants to start another post in another forum, say philosophy and debate, or religion, or even politics. My apologies for being grumpy, it's been a long day
She did in the post that I responded to. Go back and read it and the quotes of her post in our intervening posts here.
It's absurd? Is that a fact or your personal opinion?
Can you name for me one single law that that is currently in existance that DIDN'T come about as the result of a percieved need to correct what someone saw as an injustice or miscarriage of justice?
We have thousands of laws that exist because someone committed an act which others thought an affront to society.
And umm.. Why did you feel the need to change your statement here?
The original comment that I addressed was "This is unmitigated bull, protecting the woman's right to bear her child is covered under other unreated laws." Now it's "Explain how a person can willfully kill an unborn child against the mother's consent with impunity."
You claimed there were "other unrelated laws" that cover the issue - What are they? What other laws address an attack and punishes the act of harming the fetus?
Charging the attacker with killing the mother doesn't do it.
The law and penalty is identical if the woman isn't pregnant in that case.
Again, what other Federal law creates a punitive criminal damage for involuntarily terminating another persons fetus?
And please.. explain this one to me: "Your example does not illustrate impunity. It illustrates the lack of a law that is the subject at hand."
What?? It doesn't illustrate impunity (Merriam-Webster definition: "exemption or freedom from punishment, harm, or loss") yet it illustrates the lack of a law? If there is no law then aren't you pretty much free from punishment? You are debating yourself here...
Again, show me. Find me a single sports team (the example you chose) where the value of the team is based on the flesh of the members of that team. I've seen things like projected ticket sales revenue, players salaries, advertising revenue and a lot of other things included in those sorts of numbers but I've yet to see a price tag put of human flesh on any balance sheet.
It's called slavery - a practice that the entire world has agreed is an abhorant practice and outlawed on the basis that humans AREN'T property!
There are also numerous international laws against selling body parts (for those who don't consider a fetus to be "human"). Those who traffic in either are in violation of those laws.
And whether or not the issue is exclusive to this subject or not is irrelevant (or as you prefer, a red herring..). The issue WAS raised in this thread.
Craven de Kere wrote:fishin' wrote:Charging the attacker with killing the mother doesn't do it.
This is the central issue and precisely the opposite opinion is what others are espousing. Can you elaborate on why it is not enough? Since this is what it all biols down to it wold be nice to state reasons why.
An example for those who maintain the the law is not needed is that they think current laws that can be used to prosecute acts that harm a fetus are enough and that defining this legally will set a precedent that can be capitalized elsewhere.
I understood that and have just as many concerns about what may happen and whether or not this is a step in that direction but it seems a bit foolish to me to oppose legislation because of what may or may not happen 6 steps further on down the road.
Right now there is a disconnect in the laws and that disconnect needs to be closed one way or the other. The proposed law itself has clear exemptions for actions taken by a medical professional and doesn't ban or limit abortions in any way so claims that THIS law would ban abortions don't hold water. The majority of arguments being listed don't provide justification for opposition to THIS law - they are arguments against future laws that may or may not ever happen.
Quote:dlowan wrote:
Fishin' - I am not especially au fait with how the law works in America - but I would have thought that a possible concern for pro-choice people would be that, if the law were changed as proposed, once the first successful prosecution under such a law occurred, then lawyers acting for pro-life groups would be able to cite this as a relevant precedent re murder/manslaughter of a foetus and take it as far as the Supreme Court?
I'd guess that it probably is a concern as well but the proposed Federal Bill is pretty much identical to the laws that exist right now in 24 states (7 states have other laws that change the sentencing as you mentioned as well..) and there have been numerous convictions under the laws in those 24 states since the 1970s already. If someone wanted to appeal a case to the Supreme Court they could do so in any of those cases so adding the Federal level law doesn't create any new legal opportunity that I can see. I did a quick search and there have been appeals of some of these cases as high as the CA, LA, DE and SC State Supreme Courts and all have upheld the convictions although none of the appeals have challenged the validity of the law itself.
Quote:fishin' wrote:And please.. explain this one to me: "Your example does not illustrate impunity. It illustrates the lack of a law that is the subject at hand."
What?? It doesn't illustrate impunity (Merriam-Webster definition: "exemption or freedom from punishment, harm, or loss") yet it illustrates the lack of a law? If there is no law then aren't you pretty much free from punishment? You are debating yourself here...
Is the person in your example going to be tried for the act that resulted in the fetus's death?
No. He will be tried for the act that resulted in the mothers death and the fact that she was pregnant can not be entered into the courtroom..
Quote:I'too lazy to find you an article but many sports allow you to "buy a player". You actually buy the "pass" or the rights to the player but you can trade the player or sell him/ for money. It would not be too much trouble to find but I think you know what I'm talking about and intend to argue that semantics say they are sold while the law makes it less implicit.
Come on now Craven. You're being intellectually dishonest here. Are you trying to say that there is no difference between property (which has zero rights, has no say, has no right to any compensation and is not given any consideration in matters) and someone that signs a contract and agrees to sell their personal services? Sports teams don't buy or sell the player's flesh. They are buying the players services and the player has full say in whether or not they want to be involved.
Quote:The re-emergence of slavery would be a terrible thing. It's a splendid principle that no human be owned. What some contend is that until the baby is born (or reaches a certain stage) it is not yet a viable human. It sounds like a rather cold distinction to me but there is some basis for defining the baby and the mother as an individual until the baby is no longer carried by the mother.
That is no different than picking a random "Point X" as was done before in this thread and holds no more water than the idea of the fetus being a "person" at conception.
There are 2 USSC decisions that define "viability":
In Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 160 (1973), the Court said that a fetus is viable if it is "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid"
In Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 388-389 (1979), the Court said, "Viability is reached when, in the judgment of the attending physician on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of the fetus' sustained survival outside the womb, with or without artificial support."
Viability is reached when the fetus is capable of being sustained outside the womb - not when they actually leave the womb. Any other "Point X' is a wish and has no standing in current law.
Society as a whole has determined that pregnant women deserve special status/treatment. We have US and International laws/treaties that accord pregnant women special status recognizing that the woman is both carrying another human (or potential human as some may see the situation..) and in a weakened position to defend herself. The recognition of the pregnancy of women is present in US law in 30+ states but not in Federal law and in some state's laws where the murder of that pregnant women ignores the pregnancy. Let's be consistent. If we are going to recognize that there is something "special" about a woman being pregnant then that recognition should carry throughout the legal system. If the decision is that there is nothing "special" then lets drop all the other pretenses.
No. He will be tried for the act that resulted in the mothers death and the fact that she was pregnant can not be entered into the courtroom..
Come on now Craven. You're being intellectually dishonest here. Are you trying to say that there is no difference between property (which has zero rights, has no say, has no right to any compensation and is not given any consideration in matters) and someone that signs a contract and agrees to sell their personal services?
The re-emergence of slavery would be a terrible thing. It's a splendid principle that no human be owned. What some contend is that until the baby is born (or reaches a certain stage) it is not yet a viable human. It sounds like a rather cold distinction to me but there is some basis for defining the baby and the mother as an individual until the baby is no longer carried by the mother.
That is no different than picking a random "Point X" as was done before in this thread and holds no more water than the idea of the fetus being a "person" at conception.
There are 2 USSC decisions that define "viability":
In Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 160 (1973), the Court said that a fetus is viable if it is "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid"
In Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 388-389 (1979), the Court said, "Viability is reached when, in the judgment of the attending physician on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of the fetus' sustained survival outside the womb, with or without artificial support."
Viability is reached when the fetus is capable of being sustained outside the womb - not when they actually leave the womb. Any other "Point X' is a wish and has no standing in current law.
Quote:
The re-emergence of slavery would be a terrible thing. It's a splendid principle that no human be owned. What some contend is that until the baby is born (or reaches a certain stage) it is not yet a viable human. It sounds like a rather cold distinction to me but there is some basis for defining the baby and the mother as an individual until the baby is no longer carried by the mother.
That is no different than picking a random "Point X" as was done before in this thread and holds no more water than the idea of the fetus being a "person" at conception.
There are 2 USSC decisions that define "viability":
In Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 160 (1973), the Court said that a fetus is viable if it is "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid"
In Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 388-389 (1979), the Court said, "Viability is reached when, in the judgment of the attending physician on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of the fetus' sustained survival outside the womb, with or without artificial support."
Viability is reached when the fetus is capable of being sustained outside the womb - not when they actually leave the womb. Any other "Point X' is a wish and has no standing in current law.
My gosh, 8 pages and a lot of nonsense, before we get to the point of this article. I simply wanted it defined, when the fetus is a viable human being. Now we have come up with a definitive legal definition to Point X. The only problem is, that modern medicine is not stagnant, and sometimes are laws, are.
The point that a fetus can live outside the mothers womb (Point X,) is heading all the way back to conception. Is our present laws dealing with this fact?
If this is true, I can see why Pro-Choice advocates are so worried.
Could the pregnant mother be charged with murder, if the fetus was killed during the commission of a crime, she was perpetrating?
Frank Apisa wrote:
ferrous wrote
Quote:Your argument was too quick to split hairs rather than deal with the intent of the article.
New Haven simply wrote "It? Since when is a human being with a God-given human soul referred to as "it"?
Once again -- who are you to say that a human being has God-given virtures. And who are you to suppose that a human being cannot be referred to as an It?
Who am I: An activist/supporter for the care and treatment of Intersexed Persons.
According to Apisa: even though I find the word "It" just as offending as the word "Nigger," I have no right to demand that people stop using such a derogatory word to describe another human being.
Fishin', I made a point a while back that I'm not sure registered, so I'll try making it again. The "late term abortion" debate contains many parallels to this debate, and what is happening (the bill hasn't been passed yet) is that the language of the bill goes beyond the scope of what is being debated. That's not 6 steps removed, that is much more direct -- "You agree that there's nothing wrong with making medically unncessary abortions illegal? Great. We'll go ahead and attempt to get a bill passed that not only does that, but due to vague wording probably makes several other types of abortions illegal, too."
In creating the crime of ``fetal homicide,'' the measure would declare a fetus to be a person, starting at fertilization. Under current law, a fetus is not considered a person until the live birth occurs.
Abortion rights groups have fought the laws, arguing that there are ways to toughen penalties for perpetrators without undermining Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that made abortion legal. Sondra Goldschein of the American Civil Liberties Union's Reproductive Freedom Project, cited a North Carolina provision that adds to the length of a prison sentence for assault if it causes a miscarriage.
"That way you are able to recognize the real victim, who is a woman who has experienced the devastating loss of a wanted pregnancy, without bestowing independent rights on a fetus," said Goldschein.
Although North Carolina does not have a fetal homicide law, it does have laws providing punishment for harming a fetus. Former pro football player Rae Carruth, convicted of plotting the murder of his pregnant girlfriend, was also found guilty of "using an instrument with intent to destroy an unborn child." His girlfriend eventually died from gunshot wounds, but her baby was delivered by Caesarean section 10 weeks early and survived.
Frank, I'd agree that at the earliest stages, until we come up with a gender-neutral equivalent to "him" and "her", a fetus is an "it". But Laci was pregnant with a boy, which she knew, and which the NOW spokesperson knew when she made that statement, so "Was he born?" would have been fine. I think it was a rhetorical choice made since one reacts differently to wondering whether "he" was a person with rights than whether "it" was a person with rights.
My gosh, 8 pages and a lot of nonsense, before we get to the point of this article. I simply wanted it defined, when the fetus is a viable human being. Now we have come up with a definitive legal definition to Point X.
