assault on the mother? (assuming the mother still lives, other wise murder is still a valid charge) possibly fiscal distress depending on how long the mother was pregnant and the inconvenience factor of getting a new one. Yes it is only murder after the child is born. Until then its only biomass of the mother.
assault on the mother? (assuming the mother still lives, other wise murder is still a valid charge) possibly fiscal distress depending on how long the mother was pregnant and the inconvenience factor of getting a new one. Yes it is only murder after the child is born. Until then its only biomass of the mother.
That would not sit well with the majority of parents/expecting parents. Whether or not you think a fetus is a child, the parents of that fetus very likely already think of it as a child and would react to it's death no differently than if it were a new born.
assault on the mother? (assuming the mother still lives, other wise murder is still a valid charge) possibly fiscal distress depending on how long the mother was pregnant and the inconvenience factor of getting a new one. Yes it is only murder after the child is born. Until then its only biomass of the mother.
That would not sit well with the majority of parents/expecting parents. Whether or not you think a fetus is a child, the parents of that fetus very likely already think of it as a child and would react to it's death no differently than if it were a new born.
In some states, this has led to the alteration of the statutory definition of murder from the unlawful killing of another person to expressly include the unlawful killing of a fetus (I'm not sure on the exact wording used). So, that is how some states have addressed the issue.
assault on the mother? (assuming the mother still lives, other wise murder is still a valid charge) possibly fiscal distress depending on how long the mother was pregnant and the inconvenience factor of getting a new one. Yes it is only murder after the child is born. Until then its only biomass of the mother.
That would not sit well with the majority of parents/expecting parents. Whether or not you think a fetus is a child, the parents of that fetus very likely already think of it as a child and would react to it's death no differently than if it were a new born.
I disagree with both of you.
@draftguy - The qualifier of a baby being born to be a person is pretty arbitrary. There is no real difference between a baby about to be born and a newborn. Most fetuses are viable well before birth. At 6 months, it's at least a 50% whether or not a fetus is viable outside the mother's womb, and those chances rapidly climb by month 7. Further, it doesn't get to the heart of what makes a person, or at least a life worth caring about? I find it's much better to define a person by the capacity for self-aware, conscious thought - which fetuses are at least capable of sometime in the second trimester. It also captures artificial intelligence and highly intelligent animals, and it makes the most sense in the context of brain death.
@Fluffy_Bunny - Many couples believe their pet is the equivalent of their child. Their opinions are irrelevant. Viability is the 'switch' point in many states for whether or not the death of a fetus is considered murder. Destroying a cluster of cells is not the same thing as killing a person. It's the mind that makes a person, not a body. So for me it would entirely depend on what stage of brain development the fetus had reached.
@Fluffy_Bunny - Many couples believe their pet is the equivalent of their child. Their opinions are irrelevant to facts. Viability is the 'switch' point in many states for whether or not the death of a fetus is considered murder. Destroying a cluster of cells is not the same thing as killing a person. It's the mind that makes a person, not a body.
Would you agree or disagree that an assault that results in a terminated pregnancy should be punished more harshly than an assault that does not? What if the pregnancy was started via costly medical methods?
@Fluffy_Bunny - Many couples believe their pet is the equivalent of their child. Their opinions are irrelevant to facts. Viability is the 'switch' point in many states for whether or not the death of a fetus is considered murder. Destroying a cluster of cells is not the same thing as killing a person. It's the mind that makes a person, not a body.
Would you agree or disagree that an assault that results in a terminated pregnancy should be punished more harshly than an assault that does not? What if the pregnancy was started via costly medical methods?
Wow, you're fast. I made some minor modifications to my argument above just FYI.
Here's the thing: I don't necessarily disagree with your idea, just how you framed your point. It really depends, for me, on what stage the fetus had reached as to how the punishment is treated.
If the pregnancy was started via costly medical methods should be irrelevant, unless you're making a property claim on the fetus. That seems like a dangerous path to go down.
@Fluffy_Bunny - Many couples believe their pet is the equivalent of their child. Their opinions are irrelevant to facts. Viability is the 'switch' point in many states for whether or not the death of a fetus is considered murder. Destroying a cluster of cells is not the same thing as killing a person. It's the mind that makes a person, not a body.
Would you agree or disagree that an assault that results in a terminated pregnancy should be punished more harshly than an assault that does not? What if the pregnancy was started via costly medical methods?
Wow, you're fast. I made some minor modifications to my argument above just FYI.
Here's the thing: I don't necessarily disagree with your idea, just how you framed your point. It really depends, for me, on what stage the fetus had reached as to how the punishment is treated.
If the pregnancy was started via costly medical methods should be irrelevant, unless you're making a property claim on the fetus. That seems like a dangerous path to go down.
That's what they tell me oh wait....
I just think in general people who have the "until it's born it's just a worthless cluster of cells" mentality are out of touch with reality. Yes, if you distill an unborn child down enough it is "just a cluster of cells" I could also call someone nothing more than a collection of highly organized atoms... pretty worthless. While a fetus may not be a person to the rest of the world, that fetuses parents have probably invested a lot emotionally and possibly financially into that fetus. Yes, this can also be true of pets... but it is illegal to kill someone's dog. If I am carrying my dog and someone assaults me resulting in my dog dying, I am pretty sure that the person who assaulted me can also be charged with killing my dog (whatever crime that is). So it seems to me, that draftguy is saying a fetus is/should be less important/valuable/protected than a family pet.
I have not fully thought out the medical costs issue, but I think it may be pertinent in actions that result in the loss of earlier term pregnancies. In a sense, if the fetus is not protected as a person then it could be looked at as an investment by the parents.
Yes, this can also be true of pets... but it is illegal to kill someone's dog. If I am carrying my dog and someone assaults me resulting in my dog dying, I am pretty sure that the person who assaulted me can also be charged with killing my dog (whatever crime that is). So it seems to me, that draftguy is saying a fetus is/should be less important/valuable/protected than a family pet.
There are two issues at play with someone killing your pet: Cruelty to animals and property rights. A pet is your property, so if someone kills your pet randomly, you could sue them for the value of the animal, and/or they may face a fine. The cruelty aspect is more in the cases of causing suffering and distress.
So let me put it like this, if someone kidnapped your pet and took it to the vet to be put down, they're really only guilty of theft in most states (my Dad is a vet, although he hasn't worked in a practice in decades, which is why I know this stuff).
I have not fully thought out the medical costs issue, but I think it may be pertinent in actions that result in the loss of earlier term pregnancies. In a sense, if the fetus is not protected as a person then it could be looked at as an investment by the parents.
Two questions to help suss this one out:
If an implanted egg is frozen by a clinic, and then taken from the clinic, is it theft or kidnapping?
If parents spend hundreds of thousands on treatments for their child's cancer, and the child is healthy again, and then someone shoots the kid, is the murderer on the hook for the child's medical bills?
To me, you can't view someone as both an investment AND a person. One implies an ownership, rather than a guardianship, of a human being.
You may not see a fetus as a person... but I would be willing to bet that most parents, grandparents and other close family of a fetus would already consider the fetus a person.
If we regulate fetuses to non-person status what do we charge someone with that attacks a pregnant mother and kills the fetus? Is it not murder? At what point in a pregnancy does that event switch from not murder to murder? Is it only murder after the fetus has been born?
This is why I'm ambivalent with legal abortion.
I can't reconcile the fact that the fetus is considered a legal non-entity, and so women can abort them at certain trimesters, and yet the fetus is considered a legal entity (or at least considered an involved individual) when the mother loses said fetus due to some accident/crime/ what have you.
I can't reconcile the fact that the fetus is considered a legal non-entity, and so women can abort them at certain trimesters, and yet the fetus is considered a legal entity (or at least considered an involved individual) when the mother loses said fetus due to some accident/crime/ what have you.
Seems like a double standard to me.
Let's say I own a car. I have the right to sell that car, or smash it into pieces if I want. If you come and steal my car and sell it, or you smash it into pieces without my permission, you are held legally responsible, even though I would not be for the same kind of acts.
How is this a double standard at all?
Or how about this? I can get a wide range of body modifications, including tattoos, piercings, etc. But if you run up to me and forcibly pierce my eyebrow, you can be held legally responsible for your action.
Just because a fetus is not a person does not mean it is meaningless and that nobody should ever be made to recognize its value. But there is a huge, huge step between making that statement and telling a woman that she does not have the right to abort her own fetus. It's not a decision that should be made lightly, but it's her decision. Were I a woman, I would have the option of having a pre-emptive mastectomy to prevent myself from possibly contracting breast cancer in the future (as Angelina Jolie recently did). They'd be my breasts to remove, and nobody would have the right to tell me otherwise, but I would obviously think hard about making that decision and only do it if I thought it were truly necessary.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Moderator Helpdesk
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
In any case, you're completely wrong. When a woman aborts a fetus, it has no legal rights. When a fetus dies due to some accident or violent crime, it suddenly has legal rights and is considered an individual. This is the issue I wanted to raise and it has absolutely nothing to do with the examples you gave.
In any case, you're completely wrong. When a woman aborts a fetus, it has no legal rights. When a fetus dies due to some accident or violent crime, it suddenly has legal rights and is considered an individual. This is the issue I wanted to raise and it has absolutely nothing to do with the examples you gave.
"Legal rights" is disingenuous language here. A person can be held responsible for causing the wrongful termination of a fetus. But that is because that person is impinging on the rights of the woman to determine whether or not to terminate a fetus. A fetus cannot go to court and press charges for being threatened. A fetus is protected by the law from a person other than the mother from making the decision to terminate it, but it is the mother who carries the benefit of that "legal right".
This is absolutely, 100% analogous to anything I mentioned above. My vehicle does not have a "right to life". What I have is a right to do what I please with my property, and to be protected from other people impinging on that. My breast tissue does not have a right to life. I have a right to remove it, and to not have someone else remove it without my permission. My fetus does not have a right to life. I have a right to terminate it, and not to have someone else terminate it without my permission.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Moderator Helpdesk
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
In any case, you're completely wrong. When a woman aborts a fetus, it has no legal rights. When a fetus dies due to some accident or violent crime, it suddenly has legal rights and is considered an individual. This is the issue I wanted to raise and it has absolutely nothing to do with the examples you gave.
I dont think we have to give a fetus rights to provide it with legal protections. When it comes down to it we're protecting the parents more so than the fetus. If somebody kills a parent's fetus the people most affected are the parents. We don't have to recognize a fetus as a person to recognize that an assault that results in killing a pregnant woman's fetus is probably worse than a regular assault on that same woman.
Made up scenario... would you consider these 2 crimes equivalent?
1) Someone runs around public places injecting random women with saline solution. (they just feel the stab of the needle, no other effects)
2) Someone runs around public places injecting early term pregnant women with a hormone that will terminate their pregnancy. (they still only feel the stab of a needle and then they lose the fetus, no other effects)
I can't reconcile the fact that the fetus is considered a legal non-entity, and so women can abort them at certain trimesters, and yet the fetus is considered a legal entity (or at least considered an involved individual) when the mother loses said fetus due to some accident/crime/ what have you.
Seems like a double standard to me.
We've always held a legal distinctions between a medical procedure and acts by a non-medical third party. A Medical Examiner can cut up a body legally, but a random person gets charged with a crime. Medical professionals can remove someone from life support, but if someone sneaks in to do it it's a crime. It doesn't seem that strange to me.
That said, states are really inconsistent with their definitions related to feticide. Some states will define feticide as first-degree murder, but others don't. I don't really agree with the current state of the law, but as long as we allow superstition to guide our law we're going to have a wide range of inconsistencies.
But honestly, the choice to have a child shouldn't be taken from a woman - either by the state or by a third party in an act of violence.
"Legal rights" is disingenuous language here. A person can be held responsible for causing the wrongful termination of a fetus. But that is because that person is impinging on the rights of the woman to determine whether or not to terminate a fetus. A fetus cannot go to court and press charges for being threatened. A fetus is protected by the law from a person other than the mother from making the decision to terminate it, but it is the mother who carries the benefit of that "legal right".
The states don't apply your logic and rationale. If they did (fetus have no rights and any damages to them is considered a damage to a woman and her rights) then I wouldn't really have a problem.
Afaik, none of them apply the logic you apply. Rather, they consider the fetus a legal individual who was murdered. The only real difference lies in gestation period. And states that have legal abortion have to specifically mention that legal abortions are exempt from this law. But note that they say LEGAL abortion. Thus, abortions done by an expectant mother in her own home/by an unlicensed medical professional would be considered ILLEGAL and thus murder.
We've always held a legal distinctions between a medical procedure and acts by a non-medical third party. A Medical Examiner can cut up a body legally, but a random person gets charged with a crime. Medical professionals can remove someone from life support, but if someone sneaks in to do it it's a crime. It doesn't seem that strange to me.
But then you'd have to apply the logic that Wildfire393, or something similar to it, instead of the logic that most state laws do.
I dont think we have to give a fetus rights to provide it with legal protections.
Afaik, the act of providing something legal protection requires you to recognize that it has rights.
We give legal protections to inanimate objects... do rocks have rights? No. For these kinds things we would typically cite the legal protections as protecting public interests (like protecting trees in a public park). If we don't give a fetus person-hood, I see no reason not to treat it like an object or a pet that can be owned. Once it crosses the threshold to person-hood then the fetus is no longer own-able.
We give legal protections to inanimate objects... do rocks have rights? No. For these kinds things we would typically cite the legal protections as protecting public interests (like protecting trees in a public park). If we don't give a fetus person-hood, I see no reason not to treat it like an object or a pet that can be owned. Once it crosses the threshold to person-hood then the fetus is no longer own-able.
You're right. I forgot about trees and animals and the legal protection we give them.
The states don't apply your logic and rationale. If they did (fetus have no rights and any damages to them is considered a damage to a woman and her rights) then I wouldn't really have a problem.
Afaik, none of them apply the logic you apply. Rather, they consider the fetus a legal individual who was murdered. The only real difference lies in gestation period. And states that have legal abortion have to specifically mention that legal abortions are exempt from this law. But note that they say LEGAL abortion. Thus, abortions done by an expectant mother in her own home/by an unlicensed medical professional would be considered ILLEGAL and thus murder.
Sadly, the state of the law, especially in state legislature, does not often reflect reality and logic. This is why we have (generally Republican) legislators pushing for fetal personhood amendments which would criminalize all abortion. The very site you posted has, in its introductory paragraphs, my exact argument though:
Those on the other side feel that laws to protect a fetus could become a "slippery slope" that could jeopardize a woman's right to choose an abortion. Pro-choice advocates say such laws grant a fetus legal status distinct from the pregnant woman - possibly creating an adversarial relationship between a woman and her baby. They are also concerned that the laws could be interpreted to apply to a woman's behavior during her pregnancy (such as smoking, drinking or using drugs). They prefer criminalizing an assault on a pregnant woman and recognizing her as the only victim.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Moderator Helpdesk
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
"Legal rights" is disingenuous language here. A person can be held responsible for causing the wrongful termination of a fetus. But that is because that person is impinging on the rights of the woman to determine whether or not to terminate a fetus. A fetus cannot go to court and press charges for being threatened. A fetus is protected by the law from a person other than the mother from making the decision to terminate it, but it is the mother who carries the benefit of that "legal right".
The states don't apply your logic and rationale. If they did (fetus have no rights and any damages to them is considered a damage to a woman and her rights) then I wouldn't really have a problem.
Afaik, none of them apply the logic you apply. Rather, they consider the fetus a legal individual who was murdered. The only real difference lies in gestation period. And states that have legal abortion have to specifically mention that legal abortions are exempt from this law. But note that they say LEGAL abortion. Thus, abortions done by an expectant mother in her own home/by an unlicensed medical professional would be considered ILLEGAL and thus murder.
State Legislatures are bat***** insane, as a rule. I wouldn't really judge much of anything on them.
State Legislatures are bat***** insane, as a rule. I wouldn't really judge much of anything on them.
They represent the will of whatever people they serve. Whether you disagree with them or not, calling them "bat***** insane" is tantamount to saying their opinion doesn't matter but yours does. I don't think that's a healthy way of going about it.
Clearly there are people who believe that fetuses are alive since conception/1st trimester/etc and possess rights as human beings regardless of their mental capability or their viability as surviving organisms or what have you.
Given the lack of definitive statements on the manner, and the incredibly subjective nature of the assumptions to begin with, by what right do you and Wildfire393 claim that your claims are the correct one?
[quote from="Jay13x »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/outside-magic/water-cooler-talk/574253-mothers-ultimate-sacrifice-for-newborn?comment=73"]They represent the will of whatever people they serve. Whether you disagree with them or not, calling them "bat***** insane" is tantamount to saying their opinion doesn't matter but yours does. I don't think that's a healthy way of going about it.
No, I literally mean that many of the people who get elected to State Legislature are generally bat***** insane. What you're saying might have been true once, but no one pays attention to the state legislature anymore, it's all about the Feds. Why else do you think Midterm election turnout is so low? It means the only people voting for them are the people really, really driven by state issues, which certainly isn't going to be any of the moderates (I know I'm being a bit hyperbolic here, but you get the point). If it's the will of the people, the people's will is very apathetic. The only state politics anyone really cares about is the Governor's race. They may get a few bigger issues in line with the will of the people, but in general they definitely need watching like a hawk, because they know they can get away with a ton.
[quote from="Jay13x »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/outside-magic/water-cooler-talk/574253-mothers-ultimate-sacrifice-for-newborn?comment=73"]Clearly there are people who believe that fetuses are alive since conception/1st trimester/etc and possess rights as human beings regardless of their mental capability or their viability as surviving organisms or what have you.
Given the lack of definitive statements on the manner, and the incredibly subjective nature of the assumptions to begin with, by what right do you and Wildfire393 claim that your claims are the correct one?
By this argument, what right does anyone have to claim their views are the correct one? But obviously, we need some sort of definition, right? I prefer one that isn't exclusive to humans, and isn't contingent on the human body to define someone as a person. Most definitions of personhood as beginning at conception are highly rooted in religious beliefs (and not just Christians, I should add) that originate well before we understood anything about the development of a fertilized egg into a fetus. And they come from a time when you'd be lucky if half your children survived and spilling one's seed was also considered a grave sin.
So which definition of 'personhood' would apply to a human mind uploaded to a machine? An independent sentient machine? An Alien? A highly intelligent animal?
I guess it really comes down to whether or not you believe a person is defined by their mind or by some metaphysical aspect.
To choose to leave a newborn in the world alone because of your personal world view is selfish, yes.
How is it selfish? By what definition is it selfish? If anything, sacrificing your own life to preserve the life of another seems like the opposite of selfishness, it's selflessness.
She chose to give her life to save a fetus that was barely formed, leaving her 6-year old son to grow up without a mother or a real father (given that the article strongly suggests that the boy's biological father is not a part of his life).
For the third time, I beg to differ. If selfishness means anything at all, it must necessarily exclude actions where the self surrenders a valuable thing (it's own life) for the sake of something outside of the self (the baby's life). On it's face, that is the opposite of selfishness.
For the third time, I beg to differ. If selfishness means anything at all, it must necessarily exclude actions where the self surrenders a valuable thing (it's own life) for the sake of something outside of the self (the baby's life). On it's face, that is the opposite of selfishness.
The fact that she chose to leave her already born child and fiancee alone doesn't mean anything at all?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That would not sit well with the majority of parents/expecting parents. Whether or not you think a fetus is a child, the parents of that fetus very likely already think of it as a child and would react to it's death no differently than if it were a new born.
In some states, this has led to the alteration of the statutory definition of murder from the unlawful killing of another person to expressly include the unlawful killing of a fetus (I'm not sure on the exact wording used). So, that is how some states have addressed the issue.
I disagree with both of you.
@draftguy - The qualifier of a baby being born to be a person is pretty arbitrary. There is no real difference between a baby about to be born and a newborn. Most fetuses are viable well before birth. At 6 months, it's at least a 50% whether or not a fetus is viable outside the mother's womb, and those chances rapidly climb by month 7. Further, it doesn't get to the heart of what makes a person, or at least a life worth caring about? I find it's much better to define a person by the capacity for self-aware, conscious thought - which fetuses are at least capable of sometime in the second trimester. It also captures artificial intelligence and highly intelligent animals, and it makes the most sense in the context of brain death.
@Fluffy_Bunny - Many couples believe their pet is the equivalent of their child. Their opinions are irrelevant. Viability is the 'switch' point in many states for whether or not the death of a fetus is considered murder. Destroying a cluster of cells is not the same thing as killing a person. It's the mind that makes a person, not a body. So for me it would entirely depend on what stage of brain development the fetus had reached.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Would you agree or disagree that an assault that results in a terminated pregnancy should be punished more harshly than an assault that does not? What if the pregnancy was started via costly medical methods?
Wow, you're fast. I made some minor modifications to my argument above just FYI.
Here's the thing: I don't necessarily disagree with your idea, just how you framed your point. It really depends, for me, on what stage the fetus had reached as to how the punishment is treated.
If the pregnancy was started via costly medical methods should be irrelevant, unless you're making a property claim on the fetus. That seems like a dangerous path to go down.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
That's what they tell me oh wait....
I just think in general people who have the "until it's born it's just a worthless cluster of cells" mentality are out of touch with reality. Yes, if you distill an unborn child down enough it is "just a cluster of cells" I could also call someone nothing more than a collection of highly organized atoms... pretty worthless. While a fetus may not be a person to the rest of the world, that fetuses parents have probably invested a lot emotionally and possibly financially into that fetus. Yes, this can also be true of pets... but it is illegal to kill someone's dog. If I am carrying my dog and someone assaults me resulting in my dog dying, I am pretty sure that the person who assaulted me can also be charged with killing my dog (whatever crime that is). So it seems to me, that draftguy is saying a fetus is/should be less important/valuable/protected than a family pet.
I have not fully thought out the medical costs issue, but I think it may be pertinent in actions that result in the loss of earlier term pregnancies. In a sense, if the fetus is not protected as a person then it could be looked at as an investment by the parents.
I hope I've made it clear I'm not that simplistic in my thinking on this
There are two issues at play with someone killing your pet: Cruelty to animals and property rights. A pet is your property, so if someone kills your pet randomly, you could sue them for the value of the animal, and/or they may face a fine. The cruelty aspect is more in the cases of causing suffering and distress.
So let me put it like this, if someone kidnapped your pet and took it to the vet to be put down, they're really only guilty of theft in most states (my Dad is a vet, although he hasn't worked in a practice in decades, which is why I know this stuff).
Two questions to help suss this one out:
If an implanted egg is frozen by a clinic, and then taken from the clinic, is it theft or kidnapping?
If parents spend hundreds of thousands on treatments for their child's cancer, and the child is healthy again, and then someone shoots the kid, is the murderer on the hook for the child's medical bills?
To me, you can't view someone as both an investment AND a person. One implies an ownership, rather than a guardianship, of a human being.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
This is why I'm ambivalent with legal abortion.
I can't reconcile the fact that the fetus is considered a legal non-entity, and so women can abort them at certain trimesters, and yet the fetus is considered a legal entity (or at least considered an involved individual) when the mother loses said fetus due to some accident/crime/ what have you.
Seems like a double standard to me.
Let's say I own a car. I have the right to sell that car, or smash it into pieces if I want. If you come and steal my car and sell it, or you smash it into pieces without my permission, you are held legally responsible, even though I would not be for the same kind of acts.
How is this a double standard at all?
Or how about this? I can get a wide range of body modifications, including tattoos, piercings, etc. But if you run up to me and forcibly pierce my eyebrow, you can be held legally responsible for your action.
Just because a fetus is not a person does not mean it is meaningless and that nobody should ever be made to recognize its value. But there is a huge, huge step between making that statement and telling a woman that she does not have the right to abort her own fetus. It's not a decision that should be made lightly, but it's her decision. Were I a woman, I would have the option of having a pre-emptive mastectomy to prevent myself from possibly contracting breast cancer in the future (as Angelina Jolie recently did). They'd be my breasts to remove, and nobody would have the right to tell me otherwise, but I would obviously think hard about making that decision and only do it if I thought it were truly necessary.
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish
EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
In any case, you're completely wrong. When a woman aborts a fetus, it has no legal rights. When a fetus dies due to some accident or violent crime, it suddenly has legal rights and is considered an individual. This is the issue I wanted to raise and it has absolutely nothing to do with the examples you gave.
"Legal rights" is disingenuous language here. A person can be held responsible for causing the wrongful termination of a fetus. But that is because that person is impinging on the rights of the woman to determine whether or not to terminate a fetus. A fetus cannot go to court and press charges for being threatened. A fetus is protected by the law from a person other than the mother from making the decision to terminate it, but it is the mother who carries the benefit of that "legal right".
This is absolutely, 100% analogous to anything I mentioned above. My vehicle does not have a "right to life". What I have is a right to do what I please with my property, and to be protected from other people impinging on that. My breast tissue does not have a right to life. I have a right to remove it, and to not have someone else remove it without my permission. My fetus does not have a right to life. I have a right to terminate it, and not to have someone else terminate it without my permission.
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish
EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
I dont think we have to give a fetus rights to provide it with legal protections. When it comes down to it we're protecting the parents more so than the fetus. If somebody kills a parent's fetus the people most affected are the parents. We don't have to recognize a fetus as a person to recognize that an assault that results in killing a pregnant woman's fetus is probably worse than a regular assault on that same woman.
Made up scenario... would you consider these 2 crimes equivalent?
1) Someone runs around public places injecting random women with saline solution. (they just feel the stab of the needle, no other effects)
2) Someone runs around public places injecting early term pregnant women with a hormone that will terminate their pregnancy. (they still only feel the stab of a needle and then they lose the fetus, no other effects)
We've always held a legal distinctions between a medical procedure and acts by a non-medical third party. A Medical Examiner can cut up a body legally, but a random person gets charged with a crime. Medical professionals can remove someone from life support, but if someone sneaks in to do it it's a crime. It doesn't seem that strange to me.
That said, states are really inconsistent with their definitions related to feticide. Some states will define feticide as first-degree murder, but others don't. I don't really agree with the current state of the law, but as long as we allow superstition to guide our law we're going to have a wide range of inconsistencies.
But honestly, the choice to have a child shouldn't be taken from a woman - either by the state or by a third party in an act of violence.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
The states don't apply your logic and rationale. If they did (fetus have no rights and any damages to them is considered a damage to a woman and her rights) then I wouldn't really have a problem.
Here-
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx
Afaik, none of them apply the logic you apply. Rather, they consider the fetus a legal individual who was murdered. The only real difference lies in gestation period. And states that have legal abortion have to specifically mention that legal abortions are exempt from this law. But note that they say LEGAL abortion. Thus, abortions done by an expectant mother in her own home/by an unlicensed medical professional would be considered ILLEGAL and thus murder.
Afaik, the act of providing something legal protection requires you to recognize that it has rights.
But then you'd have to apply the logic that Wildfire393, or something similar to it, instead of the logic that most state laws do.
We give legal protections to inanimate objects... do rocks have rights? No. For these kinds things we would typically cite the legal protections as protecting public interests (like protecting trees in a public park). If we don't give a fetus person-hood, I see no reason not to treat it like an object or a pet that can be owned. Once it crosses the threshold to person-hood then the fetus is no longer own-able.
You're right. I forgot about trees and animals and the legal protection we give them.
Sadly, the state of the law, especially in state legislature, does not often reflect reality and logic. This is why we have (generally Republican) legislators pushing for fetal personhood amendments which would criminalize all abortion. The very site you posted has, in its introductory paragraphs, my exact argument though:
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish
EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
State Legislatures are bat***** insane, as a rule. I wouldn't really judge much of anything on them.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
They represent the will of whatever people they serve. Whether you disagree with them or not, calling them "bat***** insane" is tantamount to saying their opinion doesn't matter but yours does. I don't think that's a healthy way of going about it.
Clearly there are people who believe that fetuses are alive since conception/1st trimester/etc and possess rights as human beings regardless of their mental capability or their viability as surviving organisms or what have you.
Given the lack of definitive statements on the manner, and the incredibly subjective nature of the assumptions to begin with, by what right do you and Wildfire393 claim that your claims are the correct one?
No, I literally mean that many of the people who get elected to State Legislature are generally bat***** insane. What you're saying might have been true once, but no one pays attention to the state legislature anymore, it's all about the Feds. Why else do you think Midterm election turnout is so low? It means the only people voting for them are the people really, really driven by state issues, which certainly isn't going to be any of the moderates (I know I'm being a bit hyperbolic here, but you get the point). If it's the will of the people, the people's will is very apathetic. The only state politics anyone really cares about is the Governor's race. They may get a few bigger issues in line with the will of the people, but in general they definitely need watching like a hawk, because they know they can get away with a ton.
By this argument, what right does anyone have to claim their views are the correct one? But obviously, we need some sort of definition, right? I prefer one that isn't exclusive to humans, and isn't contingent on the human body to define someone as a person. Most definitions of personhood as beginning at conception are highly rooted in religious beliefs (and not just Christians, I should add) that originate well before we understood anything about the development of a fertilized egg into a fetus. And they come from a time when you'd be lucky if half your children survived and spilling one's seed was also considered a grave sin.
So which definition of 'personhood' would apply to a human mind uploaded to a machine? An independent sentient machine? An Alien? A highly intelligent animal?
I guess it really comes down to whether or not you believe a person is defined by their mind or by some metaphysical aspect.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
For the third time, I beg to differ. If selfishness means anything at all, it must necessarily exclude actions where the self surrenders a valuable thing (it's own life) for the sake of something outside of the self (the baby's life). On it's face, that is the opposite of selfishness.
The fact that she chose to leave her already born child and fiancee alone doesn't mean anything at all?