Why killing a fetus is fine.

Point is, there is no unalienable right to life.

Fetal homicide laws do not need to be consistent with abortion laws.

There is no unalienable right to life and so the state is free to legislate under what circumstances the killing of another human being is legal or illegal.

I don't see an inconsistency.

In abortion it's a "woman's right to choose", so to speak.

In the case of fetal homicide she is not making a choice, she has been assaulted and that has resulted in the "death" (or whatever) of the fetus.

 

Sure there is, the State does not decide who lives or dies...a jury of one's peers do. The State merely carries out the wishes of society.

Sure they do.

I have already proven to you that the State does not decide anything. A jury of your peer's does.

you are not paying attention.

Abortion is assault upon the fetus. If fetal homicide laws are going to define a fetus as a human being (cant murder anything other than a human being) then abortion is the murder of that human being.

 

They just refuse to see the obvious.

 

Irrelevant, the right is not unalienable. Legislation determines under which circumstances you have this right. A jury determines whether those conditions are met for a specific case (self defense, property protection, accidental, etc).

You have merely stated something.

Abortion is a specific circumstance under which the killing of a fetus is decriminalized. Fetal homicide is another specific circumstance in which the killing of a fetus occurs, and it is criminalized. There is no inconsistency in law imo.

 

The right was granted by society via the US Constitution. Society later decided that if someone murders another that they have given up their right to life...if someone does not accept this, they can move elsewhere.

As have you?

So you admit that abortion is simply decriminalized murder?

 

A right is not unalienable if it can be taken away. Society has deemed that the deliberate "termination" of a fetus by the woman is not a criminal offense. It has also deemed that the assault of a pregnant woman resulting in the death of a fetus is a criminal offense.

I don't see the problem.

I did not claimed to have "proven" anything though.

"Decriminalised murder" is a contradiction in terms, it cannot exist. It is the decriminalised killing of a fetus, yes. The law makes a distinction between a fetus and a "person".

 

Then we are back to the fact that murder means a right is not unalienable. If your definition is that a right is not unalienable if it can be taken away. Murder takes away that right to life. Lets do try to avoid going in circles.

It makes a distinction between a fetus and person only when convenient. You can only murder a "person"...for a fetal homicide law to deem something "murder" it is saying a "fetus" and "person" are the same.

 

No we don't get back to that. A right is a legal right. It does not mean it cannot be violated, it just means that it cannot be violated without breaking the law. An "unalienable right to life" does not make someone immortal. It means that the legal right to life cannot be taken away.

Fetal homicide laws obviously mean that you can murder a fetus. A fetus is not the "same thing" as a person in law, or else it would come under normal homicide laws.

Fetal homicide laws I believe generally apply from when the fetus is 5 or 6 weeks old until it's about 24 weeks old.

Fetal homicide laws make an exception for abortion, medical treatments, any action taken by the mother and I think some other special circumstances.

Much the same way that Homicide law makes an exception for self defense and various other circumstances. And murder very much hinges around intent, where as fetal homicide does not even require that the assailant be aware that the woman is pregnant. Presumably the punishment for fetal homicide is not the same as it is for murder either, though would have to check each state individually.

 

The legal right to life cannot be taken away, but it can be given up. Take the right to liberty, it is given up when a crime is committed and someone is sent to prison. These rights are only given up when they infringe upon anothers, now the case can be made that a fetus is infringing upon the mothers rights...but the difference is that the fetus is there through no choice or fault of its own...so that brings up a new set of issues.

You cannot commit homicide on anything other than a human being...so that is self evidentally false.

Depends on the State.

They make exception for abortion to not create direct conflict with Roe v. Wade...but that does not negate the contradiction.

There are a multitude of criteria that must be met for there to be a valid self defense claim.

Most States have the same penalities as regular homicide. Murder does indeed hinge around intent and abortion very much hinges on the fact that a fetus is not considered a person. That is my gripe, that fetal homicide laws define something as a person for the purposes of that law, yet ignore that definition when it comes to abortion.

 

I have raised the same issue before and they just play stupid and act like they don't see the conflict, but it is screaming in their face if they just read.

 

Pretty sure that no scientific miracles have been developed to take the place of the womb. It is wonderful that modern science is saving so many prematurely born infants, but that only goes so far, say back to 24 weeks or so, and even then the child is likely to be left with lifetime disabilities from its shortened time in the womb. But I hope I live long enough to see science develop an artificial womb to be implanted in men. I know all the pro-life men are eager to see that as well, you know, saving all those babies lives.

 

Does that mean then, that you are now recognizing the potential in eggs and sperm?

 

All the 14th does imo is to stop the state from unlawfully killing citizens. As long as it follows due process it can commit state sanctioned homicides. As is the case with the death penalty. I don't see that the Constitution actually prevents the state from legislating away your right to life. IMO your legal right to life could be legislated away constitutionally, but I may be wrong.

You commit fetal homicide on a fetus, as defined in law. Sorry I didn't mean to say that you can "murder" a fetus. Murder is a legal term so that is wrong.

But again, there isn't a contradiction imo. A fetus is not treated as a person in law, which is why they have separate homicide laws and why the womans right to privacy over rides the fetus "right to life".

Yes?

A fetus is considered a fetus, please quote where the law defines a fetus as a "person"? Roe vs Wade pretty well established that a fetus did not have the same rights as a "born" child until it was deemed "viable" to live outside the womb. At which point it does not fall under fetal homicide, but homicide law.

As I've said I don't see a contradiction because fetal homicide encompasses abortion. And I don't see a conflict with Roe vs Wade because a fetus is not defined in law as having the same rights as a person and I don't think that the constitution grants an unalienable right to life anyway.

 

Giving rights to the unborn undoubtedly does infringe on a woman's rights. Pregnancy and childbirth does permanent damage to a woman's body, and can threaten her health or even her life. Only she can decide if she is willing to take those risks. It doesn't matter whose "fault" it is that the fetus is there; it certainly isn't solely the woman's fault.

We've always had homicide laws for human beings. If a fetus were considered a human being, why would we need separate "fetal" homicide laws?

Fetal homicide laws contradict each other. Some start at conception, some at viability, and others don't specify a gestational age. The Illinois feticide law specifically states that legal rights were not conferred on a fetus, and Maryland's law states that fetal personhood was not established. Not only do the laws contradict each other and Roe v. Wade, they contradict laws such as inclusion in the census and as dependents for tax deductions. Fetal homicide laws are unnecessary and do not protect the unborn or women.

 

It doesn't matter if one states law contradicts another, but there is a problem if they contradict Roe vs Wade. But do any of them actually contradict Roe vs Wade? I don't think so, as they do not establish the unborn as a "person" with full rights. They all establish their own definition of the "unborn" period of human development which by convention is not covered under common law. In any case, fetal homicide laws do not necessarily contradict Roe vs Wade, which I guess is the point.

Fetal homicide laws were demanded by society. Of course they don't protect women or the unborn because it is pretty much impossible to tell if a woman is pregnant in the early stages when the law is applicable.

 

Yet nobody is challenging their constitutionality, NOBODY!!!!!

That is total BS, blood tests show easily whether or not the women was pregnant even in the earliest stages.

 

Yes people have challenged them, but never successfully. If you google you can find many examples, here are some:

http://www.nrlc.org/unborn_victims/statechallenges.html

Fetal homicide laws are not unconstitutional. Seems that it would require and amendment to make them unconstitutional.

The point was that fetal homicide laws do not provide a deterrence. Unless you are saying that it would be usual for an assailant to test the women's blood prior to assaulting her.

 

They can legislate anything away that they want, whether to SCOTUS will allow it is another story.

You must be convicted by a jury of your peers and your peers are the ones who decide if you have given up your right to life based upon crimes committed. The State really has nothing to do with it other than setting guidelines.

Homicide and murder are interchangeable. The legal definition of homicide is - "The killing of one Human being by another Human being". So it is self evidentally true that in order to commit homicide, both parties must be Human beings.

It is my contention that by the use of the word homicide it is implied that a fetus is indeed a human being...as that is what homicide is...the killing of a human being. I also do agree that you have competing rights in the womans and the childs and that makes this a complicated issue.

Well, the use of the word homicide requires that a fetus is a human being. I know exactly what Roe v. Wade established, but it is in direct conflict with these so called fetal homicide laws.

Well, there is a conflict with Roe v. Wade so long as you agree that homicide can be committed on a fetus. Your argument about the constitution doesn't really hold water either, unless of course you want abortions decided by a jury? That is the only way a persons right to life may be taken away.

Nobody is denying the risks of pregnancy. Please leave the emotion out of it, I really could not care less about a womans feelings on the matter. I am strictly dealing with the legal aspects of abortion.

That is certainly a valid question, and one I cannot answer. All I can tell you is that fetal homicide laws define a fetus as a human being and that brings up quite a few issues.

That may be, but the fact remains that they create issues in the Abortion debate and that is what I am trying to discuss.

 

Of course, pro-lifers intended to "create issues" by the passing of Fetal Homicide Laws, and they refused alternative wording suggested that clarified more severe punishment for attacking a pregnant woman.

http://www.nrlc.org/unborn_victims/roesupportersspeakuvva.html

Professor Michael Dorf is a former Supreme Court clerk who, by some accounts, drafted some key parts of the 1992 5-4 ruling in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, which reaffirmed Roe v. Wade. This passage is excerpted from Dorf’s essay for Findlaw.com, titled “How Abortion Politics Impedes Clear Thinking on Other Issues Involving Fetuses,” under the subheading, “Why Feticide Prohibitions that Exempt Abortion Are Consistent with Roe.” http://writ.news.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=/dorf/20030528.htmlThere are two satisfactory answers to the worry that supporting anti-feticide laws undermines Roe.

First, laws treating feticide as murder do not need to define fetuses as persons. California's law is illustrative. It defines murder as the killing of a human being or a fetus.

Second, there is nothing especially troubling about permitting the law to define the word “person” differently for different purposes. Statutes routinely define various words, including “person,” so that they will mean exactly what the legislature intends in a particular context, and even general constitutional language can be interpreted differently depending upon the context. Corporations, for example, are “persons” under the Fourteenth Amendment in the sense that their property cannot be taken without fair processes, but not in the sense that they are entitled to vote on equal terms with natural persons.

 

OK, then I will correct my statement to say noone has successfully challenged them, and nobody ever will. To say it is unconstitutional is idiotic.

Murder laws do not exist solely to be a deterrent.

 

This is laughable. They simply do not.

The fact that we do solidifies that they are human beings (an obvious fact anyway)

Census? Tax deductions? That is absurd. Neither have anything to do with the basic right to live.

 

Apparently you believe women have no rights.

Quite the opposite. If the unborn were considered human beings, homicide laws would apply to them, and "fetal homicide" laws would be unnecessary.

If a fetus were a person, why isn't it counted in a census? Why doesn't it count as a dependent for tax deductions?

 

I am leaving emotion out of it. The risks of pregnancy are real and factual, not emotional. Don't you think pregnancy risks should have a bearing on a woman's right to an abortion? Shouldn't it be a consideration in determining the legal aspects of abortion? A good case has been made that abortion is a means of self defense.

Not all fetal homicide laws define a fetus as a human being. Maryland and Illinois laws specifically state otherwise. Why are you ignoring those?

 

You are talking about being convicted of a criminal offence. But what I'm talking about is decriminalized homicide. Legislation dictates in what circumstances it's OK to kill another human being. The courts just ensure that the laws were not broken and that you did not commit a crime.

I don't see why the state could not decriminalize specific medical procedures, such as abortion or euthanasia. There is no need for a courts involvement unless it is suspected that a crime has taken place.

No murder is not interchangable with homicide.

Roe vs Wade did not find that a fetus is not a "human being".

Roe vs Wade didn't say anything about whether the fetus is a "human being". If a homicide law has an exemption, such as abortion, I don't see any conflict in law. If an abortion is not a criminal offense, and it's a medical procedure, then there is no need to suspect any crime has been committed and there is no reason to go to court.

http://www.nrlc.org/unborn_victims/statechallenges.html

 

As a means of self defense? You put the fetus in your body via your actions. You escalated the situation with your actions...it is not a valid self defense claim if you take actions to escalate the situation.

I am not ignoring those.