Volkswagen Passat Forum banner

1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,407 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Ok guys, I don't mean for this to be a flame ware, but merely a discussion. I read an article about how the House of Rep's is going to vote on a a bill called "The Unborn Victims of Violence Act"

It would make a "law recognizing the killing of a fetus as a homicide"

Like for example when Scott Peterson killed his wife Laci, he actually killed her, and her unborn child. This law would allow him to be charged with two homicides.

Here is my question, I don't understand this law on a ethical or logical standpoint. Bascially to me, either an unborn child is a living being with rights, or it isn't. How can a child have rights if some one decides to kill it, but not have rights if the mother decideds to kill it?

So what if a mother has scheduled to have an abortion in a week, but before she goes to the clinic, she is mugged. And from the trauma she ends up having a miscarriage. Is that still murder of the unborn?

From the article: "28 states that have laws covering the unborn"

Does anyone else see the apparent craziness in this? Again I am not trying to open a discussion for or against Abortion (i believe that is an all together seperate discussion)

Im just looking for discussion on the matter.

http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/national/article/0,1406,KNS_350_2677782,00.html

-Nick
 
2

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
That's a hard one and I'm not against abortion, sometimes it necessary.
That said, I think the law should read like this.

Murder

1.) If the fetus is killed in an act of aggression against its mother, such as murder, rape or assault.

2.) If the fetus is killed during act of aggression buy the mother such as suicide.

3.) If the fetus is killed during the committal of a crime by the mother.

Of course i'm no law maker this just made sense to me, after some thought.

-Steve
 

·
Never forgets
Joined
·
2,380 Posts
If a fetus has rights does it...

have the right not to be exposed to alcohol when the mother drinks. Should we be arresting every woman that drinks when pregnant?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,574 Posts
I think that is the issue here: What fundamental rights does a fetus have? What is the basis for asserting those rights? If these aren't answered, it seems arbitrary to me to criminalize its death as murder.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
181 Posts
so long as abortion is legal, anybody who terminates a pregnancy should not be charged with murder or killing in terms of the fetus.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,106 Posts
Ganesha said:
Should we be arresting every woman that drinks when pregnant?
Yes, definitely. Beting the crap out of your kid seems to only be illegal after it is born, for some reason :crazy:
 

·
I got this user title because I'm old and special
Joined
·
8,552 Posts
However, the question to be asked is when is a fetus considered alive or sentient.

9 months, 6 months, 3 months, conception, still as a sperm and egg.
You will never figure it out because it is useless to try. There is to much religious distortion in this debate.

If so, than they have all the rights of a person also. Tax deductions, car pool, and other issues. You would have to change that law.

Would you put a woman up on manslaughter because she wasn't aware she was pregnant and drank which caused a miscarriage?
 
2

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
I would because she's resposible for the child inside her, and drinking while pregnant is irresponsible to say the least. But it would be proved beyond doubt to be the cause of death.

If its intentional and avoidable, and the mother does it anyway she is responsible!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
95 Posts
OCTICK - Defining a fetus as a person would work great and get rid of the gray areas that exist today due to Roe V Wade. And, you have a good chance of getting your child tax deduction a year earlier.

Problem solved.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,648 Posts
Very tough question indeed. I am pro-choice, so thus I believe that until birth, the fetus is not a child. However, the choice is to the MOTHER only. If the child is taken from the mother against her will, in the example of a mugging, I believe it should count as something. Maybe we can't call it murder because of the technicalities that arise with abortion, but maybe some sort of homicide?

And in the case where the mother is killed, I don't know if I would count that as a murder for the fetus as well.

Again tough call.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,496 Posts
gig103 said:
Very tough question indeed. I am pro-choice, so thus I believe that until birth, the fetus is not a child. However, the choice is to the MOTHER only. If the child is taken from the mother against her will, in the example of a mugging, I believe it should count as something. Maybe we can't call it murder because of the technicalities that arise with abortion, but maybe some sort of homicide?

And in the case where the mother is killed, I don't know if I would count that as a murder for the fetus as well.

Again tough call.
Your argument is contradictory to itself - let me point out why. If an unborn child is not a life until birth, then ending a pregnancy early no matter the means cannot be considered homicide in any form. You cannot kill that which does not live. In terms of those that are "pro-choice" a fetus is nothing more than property until birth with the mother having ownership thus giving the mother all rights to the fetus. So if a fetus is taken from a mother against her will wouldn't that be theft? But since the fetus isn't actually taken from the mother but is simply terminated an actual theft hasn't actually occurred either. The only thing "stolen" is the promise of a life not the life itself if you believe that life doesn't begin until birth. Now however, if you believe that a fetus is a living being and should thus be considered a life then killing a fetus is murder but your argument would exclude mothers and the doctors who perform abortion from punishment. You can't have it both ways! And why if the mother dies at the hands of someone else, does the fetus automatically lose their rights?

The reason this argument is around now is because it is another way of determing at which point a fetus becomes a life without having to go directly at Roe v. Wade. If it can be established that a fetus that is killed at the hands of the mother's murderer has rights, then it makes abortion tougher to justify as well. Its essentially an end run on Roe v. Wade.

I am sure that I haven't clearly stated my position as this isn't the best forum for this type of discussion. Having said that, I believe that life begins at conception and that the death of a fetus is therefore murder no matter who's hands cause the death. Murder is just wrong.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,574 Posts
00Psst said:
Your argument is contradictory to itself - let me point out why. If an unborn child is not a life until birth, then ending a pregnancy early no matter the means cannot be considered homicide in any form. You cannot kill that which does not live. In terms of those that are "pro-choice" a fetus is nothing more than property until birth with the mother having ownership thus giving the mother all rights to the fetus. So if a fetus is taken from a mother against her will wouldn't that be theft?
I think another angle you can take if we don't call the fetus a human being is that if it were killed prior to birth, that would be a form of assault on the mother. The fetus is a part of her until born, so if you damage it, it would be similar to poking out her eye or destroying her kidney. If it is not a human being, we either have to establish particular rights for fetuses or decide they have no rights until born. If they have no rights, they cannot be murdered because they have not lost anything the law recognizes as belonging to them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,407 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
Arj said:
The fetus is a part of her until born, so if you damage it, it would be similar to poking out her eye or destroying her kidney.
The difference is that a unborn baby, unlike another organ from the mother, has its own unique genes. And from as little as the 2 month has a heart beat.

-Nick
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,172 Posts
I think that's all bullshit. Pardon my French. :roll:

I'm sure people are gonna hate what I say here, bit I don't consider anything being alive until it pops out. That's how it has been since who knows when. Life starts when the umbilical cord is cut...even if it had a heartbeat before.
If the mother dies, the baby dies, therefore the baby is not alive under its own power, so its life should not be counted as its own. If it were "alive" in the true sense of the word, it would come out sooner, at about 2 months when it has a heartbeat.

And anyway, Jesus lived until he was 33; guess when they counted him as being "alive"? That's right...when he popped out! I figure if the rule was good enough for Jesus then, it's good enough now.
If it were supposed to be any different, Jesus would have been (HIS AGE + ~9 MONTHS) old at death. Basically, this is only an issue due to an advance in technology (i.e. sonogram), which is lame way to justify it.

If a fetus is killed, it should not count as murder. We should, however, come up with a seperate "crime name" for this that has harsh penalties as well...yet not call it murder.

Next...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,574 Posts
TAckhouse1 said:
Arj said:
The fetus is a part of her until born, so if you damage it, it would be similar to poking out her eye or destroying her kidney.
The difference is that a unborn baby, unlike another organ from the mother, has its own unique genes. And from as little as the 2 month has a heart beat.

-Nick
Believe me, I understand that. But if it is not considered human and has no rights, then that was the best approximation I could come up with. Perhaps it should be considered a parasite instead? Those have separate genes and live within/depend on their hosts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,648 Posts
00Psst said:
Your argument is contradictory to itself
Whew, thanks for pointing that out. I never knew I was making an argument :poke: Those were just the thoughts that were flying through my head while reading this.

Anyway, I think the fetus is a part of the mother at that point, and her ending it is not murder. As for that second part, you are right, they are not "murdering" (killing another person), but "stealing the promise of life" (I like how you worded that). Sooo call it something else, like mutilation. You took a part of her body and destroyed it, like cutting off someone's leg. Either way they are in jail.

The reason I appeared to have a dichotomy is more the mental health of the mother-to-be. If she knows she cannot handle the child, she has made a decision. If someone abuses her, and the fetus is killed, she will undoubtedly be mentally distressed because she wanted that future child.
 
2

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
You can tell who has children here and who does not, and yes its relevant. Those who have had children, like myself and i will go out on a limb here, most likely felt they had a child the moment that test came back positive. we don't save those sonogram pictures for nothing.

How many of you parents would still have considered their unborn child as not qualifying as an individual. how many of you would have let your children's mother smoke and drink, or even ride roller coasters for that matter. I think that a mother should be held liable for what happens during pregnancy, as should anyone who harms the mother.
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Top