ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags abortion issues , abortion laws

Reply
Old 14th May 2019, 01:01 PM   #1
Crawtator
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 365
Are foeticide laws compatible with pro-choice views?

This is somewhat of a spinoff from the thread in US Politics discussing different state laws concerning abortion. I've long been concerned with what I perceive are inconsistent approaches among states concerning what is murder of a fetus. There are a few states in which it is perfectly legal to have an abortion and the fetus does not seem to have any absolute right to life. Some of the same states also have laws against feticide (or foeticide) which criminalizes the wrongful death of the fetus, whether the mother or outside perpetrator.

I've noticed quite incongruous statements made about this and have never understood why the dichotomy of opinions. Can it be rationally claimed that there is a right to abort a fetus and still have feticide laws on the books in the same state? Or are these two positions irreconcilable?

FTR, I really haven't made up my mind and was looking for input from everyone. I really just can't wrap my head around these statutes existing in the same jurisdiction.
Crawtator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2019, 01:09 PM   #2
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,237
Depends on the pro-choice view, I guess.

Someone who recognizes a right to abortions of convenience in any trimester is probably not going to accept any feticide laws at all.

On the other hand, someone who thinks women should have the option of aborting in cases of rape or incest, prior to the second trimester, may also accept feticide laws applying to abortions of convenience and abortions in the second and third trimesters, without any internal contradiction.

---

In a similar (but not entirely analogous) vein, favoring capital punishment for some heinous crimes is not incompatible with recognizing a right to life of innocent children still in the womb.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2019, 01:10 PM   #3
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,814
Do these statutes say anything about the age of the foetus?

I would have thought that there was a cut-off point. Before a certain age, a foetus can legally be aborted but after that age, it has a right to life and foeticide laws kick in.

I could be totally wrong of course but if that is the case then there is no dichotomy of opinions.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2019, 01:25 PM   #4
Crawtator
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 365
Well, California allows abortion up to 24-26 weeks (I can't remember the exact timeline) but a person can be charged for feticide if the embryo is older than six weeks. (Both of these were pulled from Wikipedia, but I'm not sure how accurate they are currently). It seems like those 18-20 weeks are treating the fetus with considerably inconsistent approaches.

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nyti...trictions.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foeticide

Last edited by Crawtator; 14th May 2019 at 01:26 PM. Reason: Added links
Crawtator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2019, 01:48 PM   #5
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,943
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Do these statutes say anything about the age of the foetus?

I would have thought that there was a cut-off point. Before a certain age, a foetus can legally be aborted but after that age, it has a right to life and foeticide laws kick in.
Like you, I would have also thought so.

Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I could be totally wrong of course but if that is the case then there is no dichotomy of opinions.
Apparently, we are both wrong,

Quote:
At least 29 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation/development," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization");
From http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/...tate-laws.aspx

TBH I was a bit surprised. I am not certain but that would appear to make spontaneous miscarriage a crime, would it not?

More reading required, I guess, but at first blush it seems odd to me.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2019, 05:41 PM   #6
Metullus
Forum ¾-Wit Pro Tem
 
Metullus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,063
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
TBH I was a bit surprised. I am not certain but that would appear to make spontaneous miscarriage a crime, would it not?

More reading required, I guess, but at first blush it seems odd to me.
I read the link and I did not see anything to suggest that any state has a law that would make spontaneous miscarriage a crime. What did I miss?
__________________
I have met Tim at TAM. He is of sufficient height to piss on your leg. - Doubt 10/7/2005 - I'll miss Tim.

Aristotle taught that the brain exists merely to cool the blood and is not involved in the process of thinking. This is true only of certain persons. - Will Cuppy
Metullus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2019, 06:37 PM   #7
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 22,599
Originally Posted by Metullus View Post
I read the link and I did not see anything to suggest that any state has a law that would make spontaneous miscarriage a crime. What did I miss?
Morning after pills?
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2019, 06:40 PM   #8
ShadowSot
Graduate Poster
 
ShadowSot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Pensacola
Posts: 1,201
I'd think there's a difference between a woman making a decision to a bort, and being caused to miscarry by someone else's action.
__________________
I love this crazy tragic, sometimes almost magic, awful beautiful life.
- Darryl Worley
The Stupid! It burns!
ShadowSot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2019, 06:50 PM   #9
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,505
Originally Posted by ShadowSot View Post
I'd think there's a difference between a woman making a decision to a bort, and being caused to miscarry by someone else's action.
The problem is the severity of a punishment for foeticide. The worst it is, the less sustainable it is for a pro choice proponent.

You can destroy your own property. If I destroy it I get destruction of property. But because it is only property,there isn't the crime of property-cide that I face decades of prison for.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2019, 08:10 PM   #10
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,210
A bit off topic, but I have always been a bit confused why these kind of full on "moral" laws (for want of a better word. Eg Death penalty and abortion, gun restrictions etc) are State decided, yet silly things like age of having a beer are federal.
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2019, 08:23 PM   #11
cosmicaug
Graduate Poster
 
cosmicaug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,012
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
abortions of convenience
.
.
__________________
--
August Pamplona
cosmicaug is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2019, 10:39 PM   #12
DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
 
DevilsAdvocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 5,224
Originally Posted by Crawtator View Post
I've noticed quite incongruous statements made about this and have never understood why the dichotomy of opinions. Can it be rationally claimed that there is a right to abort a fetus and still have feticide laws on the books in the same state? Or are these two positions irreconcilable?
Politics.

Pro-life legislators view a fetus as fully human. They want to make abortion illegal but they can't because of Roe v Wade. But they can pass other laws that treat a fetus as fully human without violating Roe v Wade. Of course they are quick to point out that that makes the laws incongruous, with their proposed resolution to that incongruity to be to overturn Roe v Wade and make abortion illegal.

In other cases pro-choice legislators may have been pressured into voting for
feticide laws because they are part of a larger bill that they want passed or in order to have any feticide law. For example, pro-choice legislators may want a feticide law, but they need some votes from pro-life legislators who insist that the bill cover all fetuses.
__________________
"Nothing scarier than piled up adirondack chairs." - AvE
DevilsAdvocate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2019, 10:51 PM   #13
DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
 
DevilsAdvocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 5,224
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
A bit off topic, but I have always been a bit confused why these kind of full on "moral" laws (for want of a better word. Eg Death penalty and abortion, gun restrictions etc) are State decided, yet silly things like age of having a beer are federal.
Possession and consumption of alcohol are state laws. However, the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 cuts federal highway funding to states where the purchase age is not at least 21. As a result, all states set the legal age as 21. The Act was challenged in South Dakota v. Dole. The Supreme Court ruled that the Act was not unconstitutional.
__________________
"Nothing scarier than piled up adirondack chairs." - AvE
DevilsAdvocate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2019, 10:55 PM   #14
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,084
A recent Pew Poll found that 73% of all fetuses are anti-Natalists.
I don't think the anti-abortion laws take that into consideration sufficiently.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 02:51 AM   #15
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,210
Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate View Post
Possession and consumption of alcohol are state laws. However, the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 cuts federal highway funding to states where the purchase age is not at least 21. As a result, all states set the legal age as 21. The Act was challenged in South Dakota v. Dole. The Supreme Court ruled that the Act was not unconstitutional.
Cheers

The US are seriously into the precedent makes the rule.

Hope you don't set a bad one
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 03:03 AM   #16
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 87,222
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
Cheers



The US are seriously into the precedent makes the rule.



Hope you don't set a bad one
As are all the systems based on English common law, such as New Zealand.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 03:06 AM   #17
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 87,222
Not sure where a contradiction comes into it. One is voluntary, one isn't therefore can't see why in principle they should be treated the same.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 03:07 AM   #18
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 87,222
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
A recent Pew Poll found that 73% of all fetuses are anti-Natalists.
I don't think the anti-abortion laws take that into consideration sufficiently.
My mother has always said post natal abortion should be available. No idea why.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 03:08 AM   #19
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,210
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
As are all the systems based on English common law, such as New Zealand.
True

It is just weird to me how when you have conversations in the US whole swathes of the population know what each case was (or at least the names).

I have heard to the max of Roe v Wade, but wouldn't have a clue of cases here

Here it is just we gave this in the past as a minimal and that as max so mmmeeehh chuck it inbetween... 5 years jail or whatever
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 03:20 AM   #20
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,237
Originally Posted by cosmicaug View Post
.

.
?

?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 03:42 AM   #21
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,210
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
My mother has always said post natal abortion should be available. No idea why.
Should also add

Anything as massive as abortion law would be done by govt bill anyway.

Not a one off court case.

Though that may have input into writing whatever the new law is.

And I might be wrong, but I think you can't just rule judgments wrong in the past like people try to do with US ones.

Unless it's on appeal from the guilty within the restraints of appealing rulings
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 05:13 AM   #22
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,505
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Not sure where a contradiction comes into it. One is voluntary, one isn't therefore can't see why in principle they should be treated the same.
See my post on destruction of property. Obviously, voluntary and someone else doing it is treated differently. But the penalty for destruction of property is limited.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 05:25 AM   #23
Olmstead
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 76
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
See my post on destruction of property. Obviously, voluntary and someone else doing it is treated differently. But the penalty for destruction of property is limited.
A foetus is a very special type of "possession" and is thus treated differently by the law, but the exception for voluntary destruction still applies. Simple really.
Olmstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 06:07 AM   #24
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,505
Originally Posted by Olmstead View Post
A foetus is a very special type of "possession" and is thus treated differently by the law, but the exception for voluntary destruction still applies. Simple really.
Special pleading
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 06:44 AM   #25
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,084
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Special pleading
Well, yeah, but we also have special rules about how pets or farm animals can be treated, even though they clearly are property.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 06:53 AM   #26
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 18,254
I can choose to donate my kidney to someone else. That does not mean I can be forced to give my kidney to someone else.

Foeticide laws are not only compatible with the pro-choice position, they are kind of inherent to it.
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 07:00 AM   #27
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,505
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
I can choose to donate my kidney to someone else. That does not mean I can be forced to give my kidney to someone else.

Foeticide laws are not only compatible with the pro-choice position, they are kind of inherent to it.
The issue is the severity of the punishment, not the existence of the law.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 07:52 AM   #28
Olmstead
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 76
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
The issue is the severity of the punishment, not the existence of the law.
Why? The severity of punishment in any given case is ultimately arbitrary. Why is first degree murder considered 20 times worse than negligent homicide (I'm pulling the numbers out of my ass, but you get the point). Why isn't it 30 times worse, or just 15 times worse? It's because society, legislators, courts, etc. have decided that it is, and society can also decide that foeticide deserves a severe punishment while giving women the right to abortion. I don't see any inconsistency.
Olmstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 08:11 AM   #29
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,505
Originally Posted by Olmstead View Post
Why? The severity of punishment in any given case is ultimately arbitrary. Why is first degree murder considered 20 times worse than negligent homicide (I'm pulling the numbers out of my ass, but you get the point). Why isn't it 30 times worse, or just 15 times worse? It's because society, legislators, courts, etc. have decided that it is, and society can also decide that foeticide deserves a severe punishment while giving women the right to abortion. I don't see any inconsistency.
Is your position that no set of laws in a country can be inconsistent?

Ironically, these threads are really about the positions of individual posters here, a group with no power. Pointing out laws here is to establish shared points of reference, and not a social observation about the law itself.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 08:15 AM   #30
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,464
Simple explanation.

An individual has a toothache, makes an appointment with a dentist and has the tooth pulled.

An individual has a toothache, makes an appointment with a dentist and on the way to see the Dr. is assaulted and their attacker yanks the tooth in question from the victim's mouth.

One is a crime, one isn't.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 08:24 AM   #31
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,505
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
Simple explanation.

An individual has a toothache, makes an appointment with a dentist and has the tooth pulled.

An individual has a toothache, makes an appointment with a dentist and on the way to see the Dr. is assaulted and their attacker yanks the tooth in question from the victim's mouth.

One is a crime, one isn't.
Catch up to a few posts back.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 08:31 AM   #32
ahhell
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,504
If pro-choice means no restrictions on abortion from conception to birth, then fetucide laws* don't make much sense. If you are not an ideologue and you allow for some limits towards the end of pregnancy, then you can support some fetucide laws that do not conflict with your pro-choice stance.

If the fetus is just a part of the women carrying it, then its more akin to some form of severe assault. Like cutting off an arm or what not. I assume most nations have laws that consider the severity of assault.

*this is assuming that fetucide laws regard killing a fetus as akin to murder and not merely more severe bodily damage.

Last edited by ahhell; 15th May 2019 at 08:36 AM.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 08:32 AM   #33
Crawtator
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 365
I'm more concerned with the inconsistencies underlying the reasoning for the laws. Let me try to be more clear:

1) Abortion is legal in California up until 24-26 weeks. It is not considered "killing" an individual.

2) Foeticide can be prosecuted in California for the unlawful "death" of any fetus after 8 weeks old.

How is abortion not the taking of a life when feoticide is during the same age range? I would assume a portion of the underlying rationale in support of abortion is that the fetus is not a living being inside of the womb that can be "killed", but the foeticide laws are in complete disagreement with this line of reasoning.
Crawtator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 08:41 AM   #34
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,929
Because absolute slavish devotion to moral consistency isn't a virtue when we're using arbitrary terms and categorizations, often used in different contexts.

The reason an outside 3rd party causing the death of fetus* isn't the same as the mother causing the death of the fetus is the same reason a mother

Because it's a bundle of cells that is completely dependent upon your body for biological survival, you get more say in what happens to to it.

No, I am not going to go through every single law concerning the unborn to look for "inconsistencies" before I care about what is being done now that has actual real world consequences.

*And yes pedantics among us I am fully aware that it's only a fetus after the X so and so week and if it comes for a specific reason of Southern France otherwise it's Sparkling Embryo until it enters the atmosphere and then it's a zygote but I don't care...
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 15th May 2019 at 09:02 AM.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 08:54 AM   #35
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,237
Originally Posted by Crawtator View Post
I'm more concerned with the inconsistencies underlying the reasoning for the laws. Let me try to be more clear:

1) Abortion is legal in California up until 24-26 weeks. It is not considered "killing" an individual.

2) Foeticide can be prosecuted in California for the unlawful "death" of any fetus after 8 weeks old.

How is abortion not the taking of a life when feoticide is during the same age range? I would assume a portion of the underlying rationale in support of abortion is that the fetus is not a living being inside of the womb that can be "killed", but the foeticide laws are in complete disagreement with this line of reasoning.
Wouldn't a legal abortion between 8 and 24 weeks be a lawful death, and therefore not prosecutable as foeticide?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 08:54 AM   #36
cosmicaug
Graduate Poster
 
cosmicaug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,012
Originally Posted by Crawtator View Post
I'm more concerned with the inconsistencies underlying the reasoning for the laws. Let me try to be more clear:

1) Abortion is legal in California up until 24-26 weeks. It is not considered "killing" an individual.

2) Foeticide can be prosecuted in California for the unlawful "death" of any fetus after 8 weeks old.
Why is the word "death" in scare quotes?

Originally Posted by Crawtator View Post
How is abortion not the taking of a life when feoticide is during the same age range? I would assume a portion of the underlying rationale in support of abortion is that the fetus is not a living being inside of the womb that can be "killed", but the foeticide laws are in complete disagreement with this line of reasoning.
I'm alive. You are alive. Every spermatozoon in your ejaculate is alive (if ejaculate production is something that you do —I wouldn't want to assume your gender). Your pet planaria (if you have one) is alive. Vegetables in your refrigerator are alive.

I'd think that the severity of a penalty would be more relevant in this discussion than the fact that a penalty exists at all. I'd also consider that one could build a legal framework built around an offense happening against the person carrying this fetus rather than against the fetus itself.
__________________
--
August Pamplona
cosmicaug is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 09:00 AM   #37
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,505
The word foeticide sounds like the victim is the bundle of cells.

It sounds like most here argue the victim is the mother.

Are the cells ever the victim? What about at 39 weeks?
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 09:09 AM   #38
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,582
Originally Posted by Crawtator View Post
This is somewhat of a spinoff from the thread in US Politics discussing different state laws concerning abortion. I've long been concerned with what I perceive are inconsistent approaches among states concerning what is murder of a fetus. There are a few states in which it is perfectly legal to have an abortion and the fetus does not seem to have any absolute right to life. Some of the same states also have laws against feticide (or foeticide) which criminalizes the wrongful death of the fetus, whether the mother or outside perpetrator.

I've noticed quite incongruous statements made about this and have never understood why the dichotomy of opinions. Can it be rationally claimed that there is a right to abort a fetus and still have feticide laws on the books in the same state? Or are these two positions irreconcilable?

FTR, I really haven't made up my mind and was looking for input from everyone. I really just can't wrap my head around these statutes existing in the same jurisdiction.
The right to abort is perfectly correct and the idiot side is totally wrong. Hope this helps !!!!! The woman involved should be the only one deciding.
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 09:26 AM   #39
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,237
Originally Posted by fuelair View Post
The woman involved should be the only one deciding.
Is that really what you believe?

Most pro-choice folks seem to agree that the state should also be involved in deciding when the choice is even available to the mother. First trimester? Sure. Second and third trimesters? The state has the final say.

Are you saying that the woman involved should be able to decide up until the moment of birth?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 09:34 AM   #40
Metullus
Forum ¾-Wit Pro Tem
 
Metullus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,063
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
Morning after pills?
Deliberate, not spontaneous.
__________________
I have met Tim at TAM. He is of sufficient height to piss on your leg. - Doubt 10/7/2005 - I'll miss Tim.

Aristotle taught that the brain exists merely to cool the blood and is not involved in the process of thinking. This is true only of certain persons. - Will Cuppy
Metullus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:54 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.