1
   

NOW Spokeswoman asks, "Was It Born?"

 
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Apr, 2003 03:48 pm
sozobe wrote:
Fishin', I hadn't seen any specifics about the bill. I just did a Google search, and this was the first hit:

Quote:
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.


http://www.msnbc.com/local/wsaz/M277997.asp?cp1=1

Declaring a fetus a person starting at fertilization has clear implications for abortion, far more immediate than 3 to 6 steps' remove.


That MSNBC story covers a bill proposed at the state level in KY. It isn't the Federal Proposal which doesn't include the defining of the word "person". Whoever wrote the bill in KY tried to change the definition of the exiting word "person" in their exsisting homicide law to include "unborn fetuses" (dumb idea!). The Federal Bill stands on it's own (i.e. doesn't modify the exsisting laws on other homicides..) and uses the terms "unborn child" and/or "child who is in utero". They avoided the term "person" at all costs. The definition they use is "`(d) As used in this section, the term `unborn child' means a child in utero, and the term `child in utero' or `child, who is in utero' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."
0 Replies
 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 May, 2003 05:57 am
There IS a great deal of hostility here, and it distresses me. Cav's attempt to defuse the situation didn't work, and value loaded words such as "nonsense" and "bologna" certainly don't.

In reading the responses here, I am once again reminded how important it is for America, and any other country who professes to support democracy, to keep church and state totally separate.

Legislatures have defined when life ends, but have yet to determine when life begins. The important thing that preoccupies me is, does the state have a right to do so? That dilemma is what we all should be considering whether we are Walter Mitty's or not.
0 Replies
 
ferrous
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 May, 2003 07:41 am
Banging One's Head Against A Wall
Frank Apisa wrote:
ferrous wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:



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?



It is your comment: "And who are you to suppose that a human being cannot be referred to as an It," that I find offensive and not referring to a non-specific gender fetus as "It."


Frank Apisa wrote:



If you find the word "It as offensive as the word "nigger" -- you probably are not bright enough to be discussing the kinds of topics being discussed here.

A fetus is an IT. Live with that -- and stop the inappropriate indignation about the word.

In any case, my comments went much further than the question about use of the word "it."

If you want to address the remainder of my comments, do so. I'll respond.


So right now, the main question for you, is to clearly define this statement: "And who are you to suppose that a human being cannot be referred to as an It?" Seems your aguement on refering to a fetus as an "It" has no bearing on what you said. Care to explain?
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 May, 2003 09:06 am
Letty, I think at least the Craven-Fishin' exchanges were not so much hostile as high dudgeon -- Craven asked Fishin' if he'd prefer that he tone it down, and wasn't told to do so.

Fishin', I agree with what you're saying about my first cite, but my second was more specific. Thanks for getting the language used in the bill... I was curious about that. At this point, my questions are A) is the bill really necessary? and B) what will be the likely effects of the bill? My feeling thus far is "no" to A and "to contribute to an erosion of Roe vs. Wade on B. I understand what you're saying about it being a matter of steps, but if it is unnecessary, why take any steps at all down that slippery slope?
0 Replies
 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 May, 2003 09:34 am
Well, low dudgeon, then.neat thing. Smile

Please continue, yawl.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 May, 2003 09:42 am
Ferrous

Your last post directed to me was so convoluted, I'm not sure what you are saying or asking.

If you a problem with a person calling a fetus an "it" -- then you simply do not understand the use of pronouns. "It" is a perfectly appropriate designation for a fetus.

The fact that you find it offensive is a yawner.

You comment...

"So right now, the main question for you, is to clearly define this statement: "And who are you to suppose that a human being cannot be referred to as an It?" Seems your aguement on refering to a fetus as an "It" has no bearing on what you said. Care to explain"

...makes no sense to me at all. If you truly want an answer -- please rephrase your question so I know what you are asking.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 May, 2003 09:57 am
sozobe wrote:
At this point, my questions are A) is the bill really necessary? and B) what will be the likely effects of the bill? My feeling thus far is "no" to A and "to contribute to an erosion of Roe vs. Wade on B. I understand what you're saying about it being a matter of steps, but if it is unnecessary, why take any steps at all down that slippery slope?


I guess I'd ask the question "Should the involuntary termination of a fetus be considered a crime?". IMO, the answer to that is "yes" - based on the existing social and legal status and considerations accorded to women based on their carrying a fetus.

I also don't see any erosion of Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade decided that the choice of carrying a child or seeking an abortion was up to the woman and that the states could place some minor limits on those choices after the point of viability was reached. This bill in no way interferes with any choice made by the woman and exludes the application of the law to any choice that woman may make. I don't see how it is any more of a slippery slope than the law authorizing the WIC program or other programs that provide medical support to the fetus do.
0 Replies
 
ferrous
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 May, 2003 06:53 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:
Ferrous

Your last post directed to me was so convoluted, I'm not sure what you are saying or asking.

If you a problem with a person calling a fetus an "it" -- then you simply do not understand the use of pronouns. "It" is a perfectly appropriate designation for a fetus.


I never stated that I found it offensive to refer to a fetus as an "It." That is your argument from nowhere.

I find offense with your statement of : And who are you to suppose that a human being cannot be referred to as an It?"

Your use of the term "Human Being" rather that "fetus" is highly offensive and incorrect.
Taken literally, you have over stepped the boundaries of describing a "Fetus," and have implied that it is simply okay to refer to a human being as an "it." Your intention might have had merit, but your choice and use of the structure of your words were inappropriate, thus regulating this quoted statement of yours as false. You failed to take note of your mistake, and repeatedly misquoted my responses to fit your argument.

Care to rephrase this offensive, quoted statement of yours? "And who are you to suppose that a human being cannot be referred to as an It?"
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 May, 2003 07:13 pm
ferrous wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
Ferrous

Your last post directed to me was so convoluted, I'm not sure what you are saying or asking.

If you a problem with a person calling a fetus an "it" -- then you simply do not understand the use of pronouns. "It" is a perfectly appropriate designation for a fetus.


I never stated that I found it offensive to refer to a fetus as an "It." That is your argument from nowhere.

I find offense with your statement of : And who are you to suppose that a human being cannot be referred to as an It?"


Ferrous, I understand that you find it offensive to refer to a human being as an "it."

I don't.

If you feel like taking offense -- do so.

I stand by what I said -- and any offense you are taking is the result of something going on in you -- and not any offense I intended for offense's sake.

Quote:
Your use of the term "Human Being" rather that "fetus" is highly offensive and incorrect.


As I said above, I certainly mean no offense, but you seem determined to be offended -- and that is your prerogative.

Quote:

Taken literally, you have over stepped the boundaries of describing a "Fetus," and have implied that it is simply okay to refer to a human being as an "it." Your intention might have had merit, but your choice and use of the structure of your words were inappropriate, thus regulating this quoted statement of yours as false. You failed to take note of your mistake, and repeatedly misquoted my responses to fit your argument.


Once again, I am not sure what you are getting at here, but you are making a mountain our of a molehill.

Quote:
Care to rephrase this offensive, quoted statement of yours? "And who are you to suppose that a human being cannot be referred to as an It?"


No, absolutely not. If you are offended by something as minor as this, that is a problem you should deal with. I can only surmise that this has something to do with the gender identification problem you brought up earlier -- and I will assure you (I think I've already done this) that my comments regarding the word "it" when applied to humans has nothing to do with gender.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 May, 2003 10:58 pm
I'm not sure why we're trying to count the angels on the head of a pin here. It seems obvious to me that abortion is killing. What else would it be? It's not murder, because murder involves malice. But killing it is. But one can't live without killing. The choice of potential here is killing potential there. For me the question comes down to priorities. Should we worry most about the welfare of those humans who are already here and consciously experiencing life, relating to and being loved by others? Or should we assign priority based on simple biology alone? Often these two do not conflict. And that's as it should be. But the abortion issue is really one of importance in undeveloped countries and in poor, underprivileged or traumatic situations. Those of us who can control our lives well enough to not have an unwanted pregnancy are not really the ones who suffer with repressive abortion laws. It's the poor, underprivileged, traumatized who suffer. And I've never felt good about imposing legalistic definitions of when life begins on those who will only suffer from such rigid and insensitive attempts to control the uncontrollable. When abortion is needed and for the best, I believe it should be available as an option. Anything less is letting those less privileged than ourselves suffer for our need to feel safe in our religious beliefs. It is necessary in this life to face reality and recognize that life isn't fair or simple to understand. One must sometimes choose the less damaging of bad choices. When it comes to human reproduction, reality often imposes painful and difficult choices. I've never been content to hide behind easy, legalistic defenses at the expense of others.
0 Replies
 
New Haven
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2003 12:11 am
Wonder what God thinks about all this?
0 Replies
 
ferrous
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2003 09:03 am
fishin' wrote:
ferrous wrote:


Quote:
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.


A very valid concern indeed (the bill in question doesn't affect this concern either way though..). The point of viability is the point where the USSC (in Roe v. Wade) determined that the public has an interest and government can regulate. The laws DON'T keep up with changing medical technology so one could say that the point of viability changes almost daily. At some future time point X could very well be the time of conception.

Quote:
Could the pregnant mother be charged with murder, if the fetus was killed during the commission of a crime, she was perpetrating?


No state has enacted a law that specifically criminalizes conduct by the woman during pregnancy as murder. Prosecutors have used statutes prohibiting abuse or neglect of children to charge women for actions that potentially harm the fetus. Some have also argued that pregnant women "delivered" drugs to "minor" children - fetuses - through the umbilical cord. A mother's or newborn's positive drug test has led to charges of assault with a deadly weapon (cocaine), contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and possession of a controlled substance. In cases in which infants tested positive and died soon after birth, women have been charged with homicide or feticide. Some women have even been prosecuted for drinking alcohol or failing to follow a doctor's order to get bed rest or refrain from sexual intercourse during pregnancy.

There are just over 200 cases where women have been arrested and charged on these various counts in the last 30-40 years. 30 or so survived court challanges long enough to make it to trial with convictions as a result in 22 cases. 21 of those 22 convictions were overturned on appeal with the appeals courts/State Supreme Courts ruling that prosecutions under existing criminal statutes to punish women for their conduct during pregnancy are without legal basis, unconstitutional, or both. The 22nd case is still pending appeal.

So I guess the short answer is that it's been tried but, based on existing court precedents, attempting to charge a pregnant woman doesn't hold water.


FishinÂ… Thank you for a very concise explanation of some of the questions I was seeking. The law, is still vague as to when the fetus or unborn child is a viable human being, and to pass more laws trying to regulate something that hasn't been defined, seems to only help self serving needs. Laws should be, that they provide equal protection, while not stepping on existing laws or impinging on rights, already established. We don't need more laws, we need better laws. A knee-jerk reaction to an immediate problem, not thought out to consequences, only causes more of the division that affects our country today.

I agree, that we need laws to protect the unborn from criminal actions, but I respect a woman's right to choice. Law's which are still vague, already have defined the viability of the unborn child as to time limits that a woman can terminate such pregnancies. The attempt to blur these laws, with a need to protect families, mothers, and unborn children from the cruelty of criminals willing to do harm. There really should be no problem, with drafting legislation, that would assure a woman's rights of choice, while protecting these unborn children from criminal actions. Anything else, would seem to be self serving.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2003 09:12 am
ferrous wrote:
I agree, that we need laws to protect the unborn from criminal actions, but I respect a woman's right to choice. Law's which are still vague, already have defined the viability of the unborn child as to time limits that a woman can terminate such pregnancies. The attempt to blur these laws, with a need to protect families, mothers, and unborn children from the cruelty of criminals willing to do harm. There really should be no problem, with drafting legislation, that would assure a woman's rights of choice, while protecting these unborn children from criminal actions. Anything else, would seem to be self serving.


I find myself in the unfamiliar position of agreeing with what Ferrous is saying here.

However, as someone pointed out earlier, many of us who argue for a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy on demand -- are now very suspect when it comes to legislation designed to impose restrictions of any kind, because we see the anti-choice people as determined to undermine this right, even if they have to do it incrementially -- through seemingly innocuous laws everyone deems reasonable.

That is a major problem in these kinds of situations -- analagous to the kinds of things the NRA does to oppose any kind of restrictive legislation no matter how sensible it may seem -- because they fear the lose of the priviledge to own guns as an ultimate aim.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2003 09:15 am
frank, point well taken regarding the NRA
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2003 09:32 am
Well, motives for new legislation, and possible outcomes, are entirely relevant to what a concerned and engaged citizen ought to looking at. There are more than a few dilemmas where the interests of different parties do not converge, or even where one's own principles collide. Some stuff is not easy, and the temptation to go absolutist is clearly attractive to many.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2003 10:48 am
Well.

When you divert from the realities of abortion, killing a fetus and the law concerning Scott Peterson's possibly relation with this subject--step aside and focus on how these interwoven issues are less important than the possible motives of a group of people, seems like this is the dreaded 'red herring' ....

Possibly, the all-important straw man...

I don't get the nuances of throwing up these terms. I only know their usage seems to be a dodge of the real issue. As Blatham's argument on this subject seems to be.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2003 10:51 am
Sofia wrote:
Well.

When you divert from the realities of abortion, killing a fetus and the law concerning Scott Peterson's possibly relation with this subject--step aside and focus on how these interwoven issues are less important than the possible motives of a group of people, seems like this is the dreaded 'red herring' ....

Possibly, the all-important straw man...

I don't get the nuances of throwing up these terms. I only know their usage seems to be a dodge of the real issue. As Blatham's argument on this subject seems to be.


Sofia

I respectfully disagree. I think everything being argued here is germane -- even the nonsense.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2003 10:54 am
And many members, who have been thumped with the labels of 'straw men' and 'red herring' would surely say the same thing.

Either these terms apply evenly to all, or to no one.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2003 11:19 am
Sofia wrote:
And many members, who have been thumped with the labels of 'straw men' and 'red herring' would surely say the same thing.

Either these terms apply evenly to all, or to no one.


Only if they are equal.


Like you, I am opposed to straw men or red herrings -- and this may be a product of "whose ox is being gored." I honestly do not see any straw men or red herrings here -- but I'll keep my eyes open.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2003 11:34 am
ferrous wrote:
I agree, that we need laws to protect the unborn from criminal actions, but I respect a woman's right to choice. Law's which are still vague, already have defined the viability of the unborn child as to time limits that a woman can terminate such pregnancies. The attempt to blur these laws, with a need to protect families, mothers, and unborn children from the cruelty of criminals willing to do harm. There really should be no problem, with drafting legislation, that would assure a woman's rights of choice, while protecting these unborn children from criminal actions. Anything else, would seem to be self serving.


You'll note I haven't argued against a woman's right to seek/get an abortion anywhere in this discussion. If I thought the the bill did impact a womans choice in any way I'd be fighting it. Wink

What I have argued is that this bill does exactly as you stated in your 2nd to the last sentence here and in no way impacts a woman's freedom to make the choice of getting an abortion if that is what she wants to do. The bill doesn't define or redefine "vialbility". It doesn't define or redfine the "personhood" of a fetus. It has specific provisions that prevent the law from being applied to any medical procedure being performed by a competent medical authority including abortions themselves. It has specific provisons that prevent it from ever being used against the pregnant woman herself. This isn't knee-jerk legislation. It's built on 30+ years of state laws and hundreds of court decisions affirming those laws without one single woman having been denied the right to an abortion because of them.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/27/2024 at 08:53:36