| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Killing Unborn Humans; Are our laws consistent? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 30 2005, 10:32 AM (262 Views) | |
| who | Jul 30 2005, 10:32 AM Post #1 |
|
Have light saber. Will travel.
|
I do not mean this thread to be a discussion of pro-live vs. pro-abortion. I find that our laws are not consistent on this topic and would like to understand it better. If someone else other than the pregnant woman kills the unborn human then they are charged with murder. If someone killls a pregnant woman they are charged with double murder. If a woman has the same unborn human killed then the woman is not charged with murder. I do not understand this. It does not make sense to me. It seems like either the legal system is allowing a pregnant woman to murder or others are being charged with murder when they did not murder anyone. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| psyfi | Jul 30 2005, 10:37 AM Post #2 |
|
psyfi
|
It is an inconsistency in the sense that it essentially takes the same act and assigns criminality to it depending upon the circumstances. We do the same thing with killing in general. If somebody breaks in my home and tries to attack me and I shoot him, that is self-defense. If I kill that same person while he is walking down the street on his way to a 7-11, it's murder. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| who | Jul 30 2005, 11:13 AM Post #3 |
|
Have light saber. Will travel.
|
I understand that killing in self defense is different. It is also different if it is an accicent. I am not talking about abortion when the mother's life is at risk. What I do not understand is that in one case we seem to be defining an unborn child as a person and in the other we are defining it as not a person. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Franko | Jul 31 2005, 08:35 PM Post #4 |
|
Shower Moderator
|
Yup. If it's a wanted unborn child then it's human. It it's unwanted or considered an "inconvenience" or "in the way" then it's no longer human. It's something else. What that else is, I have no idea. It's status is reduced to "parasite" I guess. It kind of begs an interesting question: if a woman was on her way to the abortion clinic (health centre) for her "extraction" appointment and was punched in the stomach by some thug which led to the death of the fetus before the doctors removed it, would that still be murder? BTW, I'm not necessarily against abortion rights for women; nor is that really relevant here. I just find it interesting that the term "human" has now become a "floating concept" in our "enlightened" society. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Jul 31 2005, 09:17 PM Post #5 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
Yes, there is an inconsistency that the courts have not managed to actually pick up on to this point. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Aug 1 2005, 06:51 AM Post #6 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
One theory I've seen put forth - and the person saying it called it a "theory" - has to do with the acceptance of responsibility. Most of us would probably say that we should stop and help a person who has been injured. With the exception of policemen and people in a few other professions, the law does not require us to do so however. We may legitimately fear being harmed ourselves or we may just not care and our reasons don't make a difference. We are not obligated to stop, but, if we do stop, we then have a legal responsibility to continue to help unless some very specific conditions are present. (For example, if we are helping someone after an accident ... originally the scene looks safe and we are helping someone trapped in the vehicle. If we suddenly realize the car is going to explode, we aren't required to stay although we cannot extract the victim without professional help. If there is no danger to us and the victim requires that we continue CPR in order to live long enough for further help to arrive, we cannot simply walk away because we are late for a date.) The theory is that a woman who has chosen to keep her baby has accepted that legal responsibility and therefore can be held liable for any deliberate actions she takes that can be reasonably expected to harm the baby. A woman who chooses to end her pregnancy is not accepting the responsibility for the baby and therefore the law has a different expectation. That really doesn't respond to your scenario, but that's the theory. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Aug 1 2005, 07:28 AM Post #7 |
|
Time to put something here
|
or conveniently over look. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dr. Noah | Aug 1 2005, 08:36 AM Post #8 |
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
|
The new law regarding the killing of an unborn was recently passed regarding the Lacy case here in the Bay Area. It has been seen as a step to undoing Roe vs. Wade by many groups. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| psyfi | Aug 1 2005, 08:40 AM Post #9 |
|
psyfi
|
I don't quite understand the hysteria about Roe v. Wade. If it were overturned tomorrow, abortion would still be legal in whatever states wanted to make it legal and that would probably be almost all 50 states. The only thing that would really change is that there would be at least some restrictions on it which seem reasonable. Abortion on demand at any stage of pregnancy for any reason is repugnant and I say this as somebody who is pro-choice. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dr. Noah | Aug 1 2005, 08:44 AM Post #10 |
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
|
I agree. This is a states rights issue, just as euthanasia, gay marriage and medical marijuana. Unfortunatley, the Supreme Court oversteps it's power at times when states approve their own laws. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Aug 1 2005, 08:48 AM Post #11 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
I'm pro-life and I agree that, if Roe v Wade were overturned, your scenario is the most likely one. There would be some restrictions on late-term abortions in many states and stronger parental notification laws in some states, but, otherwise, things would remain pretty much the same. Currently, abortion clinics are not required to maintain the same standards as other medical facilities - that may change. Also, even the French require follow-up physician visits after the use of the abortion pill (I would use the name of the medication if I remembered it) while many US clinics do not. In several of the deaths in the US after use of the pill, it was determined that the individual clinics had recommended the pill be administered differently than the manufacturer suggested. There may also be tigher controls on that. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| psyfi | Aug 1 2005, 09:06 AM Post #12 |
|
psyfi
|
Well the new nominee, from what I hear, is a strong states' rights guy. Hopefully, we will have to worry less about the Supreme Court making laws with him---again I say, hopefully. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dr. Noah | Aug 1 2005, 09:08 AM Post #13 |
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
|
The damage has been done. Voter approved laws have been struck down because of this Supreme Court. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |



2:08 PM Jul 11