Women have a responsibility to more than themselves

And the argument could also still be made that, even if the fetus was not a person, the woman might still have responsibility to it.
Just because it's not a person doesn't mean it's an inanimate clump of sells either.

 

Nope, a person only has the responsibility they want to have.

- - - Updated - - -

It isn't murder regardless of whether the entity is a person or not at any stage through pregnancy.

 

What is murder is what society defines murder to be. The current definition is intentional killing of a living human.

The courts have in fact defined killing a fetus as murder in the case of a violent attack against a pregnant woman. Then they turn around and contradict this by saying killing a fetus in an abortion is not murder.

Things are extremely messed up (obviously) in relation to the various claims on whether or not killing a fetus is murder.

The reason things are so messed up is because Politicians are not using the findings of Biology, Philosophy, and Bioethics (subject matter Domains) in their consideration of whether or not the entity during pregnancy is a living human.

 

No, it isn't "messed up" IF you view it from the point that the WOMAN decides, it's HER choice, SHE either gives consent ...or not.

You:""The courts have in fact defined killing a fetus as murder in the case of a violent attack against a pregnant woman. Then they turn around and contradict this by saying killing a fetus in an abortion is not murder.""

There is no contradiction. The UVVA excludes abortion. In an attack on a woman if the fetus is killed something of value has been taken from her without CONSENT , her CHOICE was taken away....and that's a crime in any situation..

 

There is a clear contradiction in law. Either the fetus is a "living human" such that it can be murdered or it is not.

There is no .. "its a human in one case and not in the other". Either it is a living human or it is not.

The point I have been making has zero to do with the issue of choice. That is a different issue and a different argument.

The question the courts have not come to grips with nor answered is whether or not a single human cell at conception constitutes a living human.

If it is classified (rightly or wrongly) as a living human then, by definition, killing a living human is murder. Period

If this killing was done intentionally it is first degree murder.

 

I did post that "IF you view it from the point that the WOMAN decides, it's HER choice, SHE either gives consent ...or not.""....and you can't view the woman as having rights like everyone else it will seem "messed up" to you.


I have a feeling you're going for "Oh! Poor men! They are murderers but women aren't and that's not FAIRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!"


....am I close? Just askin'....

 

No .. you are not close and I made this clear in the last post. I am not discussing the woman's right to choose. This is a separate issue and a separate question.

Further - You have read at least 100 of my posts defending the a woman's right to choose.

The whole point of calling out the hypocrisy in Law is to "DEFEND" the woman's right to choose. Allowing the courts to sidestep the requirement to prove that a single human cell somehow constitutes a living human weakens the pro choice position.

If we let the courts call "ending a pregnancy" murder, it opens the door for a group of pro life/religious fanatics who manage to get power in the future to calling abortion "ending a pregnancy" murder and making it a crime.

Christ you are a pain sometimes.

 

You: ""If we let the courts call "ending a pregnancy" murder, it opens the door for a group of pro life/religious fanatics who manage to get power in the future to calling abortion "ending a pregnancy" murder and making it a crime.""

No, that won't happen....(unless Muslim extremists take over, they hate women too).... ....they'd never get past the embarrassment of having to sentence women to death or life in prison........ look what a rough time they gave Trump for simply saying women should be punished if abortion was banned.

Besides, there's still that Constitution which should preserve women's rights....The Droolers would have to have control of the Supreme Court...

 

Nope!

Someone other than the woman herself does NOT get to demand that she assume some arbitrary responsibility.

Only the woman herself, and no one else, can decide what is best for her and act accordingly. If she wants to remain pregnant then sobeit and if she wants to terminate the pregnancy within the first 2 semesters then sobeit.

So no, that "argument" cannot be made without violating her Constitutional rights.

 

I think I see what you mean. The courts (and the authors of the UVVA) left the question of personhood unresolved. It would have been more useful if they had clearly expressed the position that the unborn child is not actually a person (or citizen), but if it was injured or killed without the consent of the mother the law will prosecute the offender as if it was already a person (or citizen). I'm no lawyer, so I am sure there is a better way to phrase that.

Fortunately, every jurisdiction that enacts a UVVA type law is admitting that they recognize the fetus is NOT a person already protected by existing laws that cover the murder of an actual person. I don't suppose the pro-life lobbyists thought that through before they started pressing for those laws.

 

You do realize that two "semesters" would effectively be equivalent to the entire pregnancy? Which, I suspect, is not too far off from what you actually believe.

 

If you have a gift for numbers, does the government have the right to force you to become an accountant?

If you have a gift for music, does the government have the right to force you to become a musician?

If you have type O negative blood (nearly universal donor) does the government have the right to lock you in a hospital and force you to give blood on a regular basis?

The argument could be made that it is so important to keep the blood banks filled that those with (nearly) universal blood types have a responsibility to donate their blood as often as possible. Perhaps they should be collected in a safe place because they have a responsibility not to go off doing anything dangerous that might put a drop of the nation's blood supply at risk.

We don't do those things because we respect the rights of actual persons (the clumps of cells who have already passed the threshold of birth).

 

No, that is not the definition of murder. Murder is the ILLEGAL killing of a person by a human. If it's legal, it CANNOT be murder.

Not in my country.

 

Typo! That should read TRIMESTERS instead.

 

To over-ride enshrined legal principles on the basis of "That won't Happen" is

1) in of itself, an anathema to having a legal principle to begin with and
2) Something that just would not fly with any principled legal mind.

The second problem is that what you claim "will never happen" (Criminalization of Abortion) is happening as we speak. It is not just happening in Muslim nations. It is reality in liberal western style democracies such as Ireland and Finland and Iceland. Poland and much of Latin America criminalize abortion.

I agree with you that in the current political climate in the US outright criminalization of Abortion is not likely to happen but, some states like Texas have sure tried hard. Further there have been numerous bills proposed which "sanctity of human life act" which lift the status of the zygote to that of a living human. These bills are likely supported by Muslim's but, it is the religious right that has been behind these bills.

We have Trump stating that abortion should be criminalized.

Who knows what the political climate of the future is going to look like ?

1) Your argument is the poorest of legal arguments "That won't happen"
2) Even if your argument somehow addressed the legal issue at hand (contradiction in law), which it doesn't, your claim "that won't happen" is one massive assumption.

Law based on massive and, in this case, pretty much demonstrably false assumptions .. is not good law.

Women in many places throughout the world are suffering on the basis of such bad law.

 

You're right, the Constitution could be destroyed and violent Right wingers could take over the country with their vast arsenals and then women will meekly enter their breeding barns and live the lives of breeding cattle and some women will have forced sterilization so they can cook and clean for men and be killed if they don't comply along with any unattractive women ....


It COULD happen.....


I could win the lottery, too...



BTW, you stated : "" We have Trump stating that abortion should be criminalized. ""

Did he? I only heard he wanted women punished if abortion was banned, which makes sense and is perfectly logical.....even though now, those big brave Conservatives who you think can take over the country are too afraid to admit they want to punish women for getting abortions...

 

Your suggestion does not much help resolve the inherent contradiction in law - Prosecution "as if" it was a person. (as you kind of allude to).

This does nothing to resolve the inherent hypocrisy and seems a clear violation of the principle of "Equal Justice Under Law”. These are the words emblazoned on the front of the United States Supreme Court building.

To say to one person - If you kill this fetus it is "Murder" and to another "If you kill this fetus it is not murder" is not equal justice.

Think of it this way. If the Fetus is a "Person/Citizen" and as such entitled to equal justice (as the Sanctity of Life Act states - tabled but not passed) then the principle of equal justice applies to the Fetus.

It is then an absurd nonsense to claim, this person can kill you but that person can not and turn around and claim that Equality under the law has been upheld.

Same logic applies each of the other parties.

If the fetus is a person, in both cases - be it by the mother or the violent criminal - a person was killed.
If the fetus is not a person then, in both cases a person was not killed.

Either the fetus is a person or it is not. Either the fetus has rights, including the right to life, or it does not.

Try telling someone- you have the right to protection from murder in this society - except from these people... they are special, they have the right to kill you anytime they want but, we have equal justice under the law.

 

Murder in general is intentional killing of a living human. (Exceptions such as war or preventing a crime obviously do not count)

One citizen killing another citizen (when that other citizen has done nothing) is Murder ... unless of course the court wants to make up a new definition. Something they have done in the case of the Victims of Violence Act.

 

Let me say it clearly... The fetus does not have rights. It is not a person yet. It is a potential person, not an actual person. But the law can punish a person for harm done to the fetus without the mother's permission.

Since the fetus is not a person, in both cases a person was not killed. However, jurisdictions that enact UVVA laws recognize that destroying an unborn child without the consent of the mother can be considered a criminal act and be punished with the same penalty as a murder. They also recognize that NONE of the prior laws relating to murder apply to the destruction of a fetus (confirming that pro-life advocates are wrong when they say abortion is murder).

You seem to be under the delusion that the law is not permitted to use the same penalty for two different crimes. Do you have any idea how many different crimes will typically get you 20 days in jail? Do you realize that a person who hires a hit-man to commit a murder can be punished as if they had committed the murder themselves?

If the law ever decides to consider the unborn child a citizen then you have a whole new set of concerns to address:
(1) If any other citizen crawled inside your body without your permission you would have every right to evict them.
(2) You cannot admit to the public that you would execute a woman (or send her to prison for life) for getting an abortion.

I do not argue that issue as much because I see the way politicians back away whenever they are faced with the realization that they would have to stand up and admit they would send a woman to prison (or to an execution) for getting an abortion. I think it is an unlikely scenario.

 

You are welcome to treat criminalization of abortion as some joke by pretending some fantasy world that forces wanting to criminalize abortion exit only in small numbers and have almost zero chance of succeeding during the present or in the future.

The reality is that just had a vote over the de facto criminalization of abortion in Texas and the Supreme Court came ruled 5-3. Had Scalia not died it would have been 5-4.

The reality is that we are just a couple of SC nominations away.

Try a hearing aid. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUClmJN4HhI The abortion part starts just after 9:30.


Trump is just one voice (and a rather moderate one) in the Conservative movement.

Further, the "big brave Conservatives" are not going to tell you what they really think. They use underhanded and nefarious tactics like in Texas.

Trump made the mistake of airing their dirty laundry in Public. It is not that these wing nut's do not want abortion criminalized - They just do not want talk about "what this actually means" in the public domain until after they get power.

If you criminalize abortion that means there must be punishment. Conservatives, almost to a person, want to criminalize abortion.

 

I don't need a hearing aid, Gramps, I heard Trump say on video with sound on TV that women should be punished for having an abortion. This was in answer to the interviewer asking him if abortion was banned should women be punished....

I have also heard quite clearly that he is pro-Choice so don't argue when you don't provide an exact up to the minute quote from the flip flop king.

 

No one denies that the Court will do what the court will do.

Punishment "as if" it was murder to kill a fetus makes a mockery of not punishing the woman "as if" it was murder.

It is the hypocrisy in law that you do not seem to get.

I agree that a violent offender who does harm to a woman resulting in the death of the fetus should be punished. The problem is when you claim "This is Murder" or "As if" it was Murder.

There a thing in law (a whole arena actually) called "Justification of Punishment" There are supposed to be principles that govern punishment. One general principle is that "the punishment should fit the crime"

Judges are not supposed to be making things up willy nilly. Another principle is that the law is applied equally.

What then is the justification for giving a person a punishment "as if" the crime of killing a fetus was murder ?

The justification is that the fetus is a living human and so it is not "as if" the crime was murder. The crime "IS" murder. If the fetus is not a living human then claiming we will treat this as if it was murder violates the law of having the punishment fit the crime as it is NOT murder in this instance.

What is the crime here ? Killing a Fetus.

What is the punishment for this crime ? Punishment for killing fetus is (X)

It does not matter who did the crime ... Punishment is still (X).

Sure we have different levels based on other principles. For example First degree murder requires that Intent be proven.

The Prosecution must prove two things 1) actus rea - that the person actually committed the crime and 2) mens rea that the person intended what they did. This is why criminal insanity is a defense as the Prosecution can not prove intent.

In the case of killing a fetus .. the woman is guilty of intent (as is the doctor).

In the case of the violent criminal it is more likely a lesser charge unless it an be shown that the criminal intended to kill the fetus.

This is how law works (or is supposed to). Once we claim in law that a fetus is a living human, intentional killing of that fetus is first degree murder.

We can not say " in this case the fetus is a human and in this case it is not" and claim to not be in hypocrisy.

Either the moon is made of green cheese or it is not.

We can make a law that says "violent crime against a pregnant woman is punishable by 20 years to life" Fine.

The point is that our justification for punishment must be consistent. (Attacking a pregnant woman is so despised by the majority that a very severe punishment is warranted .. could be a possible justification)

Note that this justification does not consider whether or not the Fetus is killed. Mess with a pregnant woman and the punishment is severe ... across the board. It does not matter who commits the crime. Equality of justice is preserved.

Paying someone to kill another is a similar case. The person 1) intended the crime and 2) aided and abetted in the act through financing that act.

The rule here is that aiding/financing a crime carries the same penalty (and is a crime) just as if you did it yourself. There is no problem in law here. Anyone who does this crime is guilty. There are no exceptions... no violation of the rules of Justice or of equal justice ... there is no (the victim is a human in this case but not a human in the other case)

The UVVA defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

That's it that's all. Done. We can not turn around and say .. ummmm aaa ohhhhh .. but it is no longer a "Homo sapiens" if the woman kills it and pass the giggle test.

This is friggen stupidity, abject nonsense, an anathema to law and whole bunch principles of Justice.

This law was based on politics gone crazy. Any member of the SC who supported this law should be kicked off the court because they clearly do not have a clue what they are doing.

Where is the "justification" for magically turning the fetus into a "Homo sapiens = living human". Please... show me this justification given for this claim. Where are the subject matter experts lining up to give consensus that this is actually the case.

How is this any different from the ecclesiastical court branding Galileo a Heretic for claiming the earth went around the Sun ? (It is even worst because at least back then the court could have presented scientists of the day- fearing their head being chopped off if the said otherwise- to back up their claim.

When I open up the biology textbook, membership in the club "Homo sapiens" requires membership in a whole bunch of other clubs. Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. If you do not have membership in "ALL" these clubs you do not get in. ... But hell, what does Taxonomy - sub domain of Biology know about classification of the human species anyway?

But hey .. who needs justification for law/punishment. Lets just make stuff up as we go along. Change scientific definitions as we like ... anything goes.

This law was proposed on the basis of a Political clown show and upheld by a Kangaroo court.

 

Fair enough. In reality I do not think Trump is actually half as pro life as he touts (or flips from day to day) either. This is not the point. The point here is that the party he is running for is overwhelmingly pro life and supports criminalization of abortion.

The reality it is not some 1 in a million lottery winning chance of the GOP getting power, appointing a couple of pro life justices and if not directly upholding law (such as that proposed GOP ) criminalizing abortion, supporting law that severely restricts it (like the Texas laws).

Further ... this is not just about the political odds today (which are a hell of a lot higher than what you were purporting even now). What about your daughter or grand daughters future ?

Just as we use precedents from 200 years ago today the same is true 200 years from now. The law is an evolving creature and when you allow bad precedent (like stating that a fetus is a living human/Homo sapiens/ person such that killing it is murder) .. it is not some small possibility that the political winds will change and someone will try and use this precedent (now having more weight due to time and age).

If a (zygote, embryo, fetus) is a living human then it is a living human. Killing a human is murder and murder is a crime. Very simple argument after you have ceded the "are you sure its a human" position.

If you are not willing to cede this position then why the hell would you support legislation that does cede this position ?

capisce ?

 

You said "We can not say " in this case the fetus is a human and in this case it is not" and claim to not be in hypocrisy."

We are saying the fetus is not a person in either case, so the nature of the crime is determined by the host (the only person in the picture). It is possible to have a live human body without a person (it happens during gestation and it happens at the end of life in a few cases).

Consider a simple example: If I setup a yard sale next to the street and you take my lamp without my consent, that is theft. At the end of the day if I leave that same lamp in the same spot next to a box of trash and you take that same lamp without my consent, that is not theft. Your intent is exactly the same - you wanted the lamp but did not want to pay for it.

You say women should be punished for getting an abortion. In some jurisdictions, murder can be punished by execution. Are you going on the record as being in favor of the death penalty for any woman who gets an abortion?

 

No, murder is the ILLEGAL killing of a person by a person. You may be thinking of the word "homicide" which is the killing of one person by another.

murder
Pronunciation: /ˈməːdə/
NOUN

1The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another:
the brutal murder of a German holidaymaker
[MASS NOUN]: he was put on trial for attempted murder

2 [MASS NOUN] informal A very difficult or unpleasant task or experience:
the 40-mile-per-hour winds at the summit were murder

3A group of crows:
a murder of crows flew past the window

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/murder



BTW, a zef is not a citizen.