Questions regarding abortion discussion

[biostem]

OK, so I got involved in a discussion regarding abortion. Specifically, the discussion was that if someone killed a pregnant woman, they'd likely get charged with 2 murders/deaths, yet if the woman terminated the pregnancy, she wouldn't get charged at all. My stance is that people have bodily autonomy - you cannot force me to use my body to provide life support for someone else. If the mother chooses to cease providing said life support, then that is her prerogative. And just to be clear, I elaborated to say that we're talking about the period of time before the fetus/baby could survive outside of the mother. I'd love to hear your guys' input on the matter.

Tanks!

Here is the video in question (I'm biostemm in the comments): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xVqmYKPZmo

[Purple]

Specifically, the discussion was that if someone killed a pregnant woman, they'd likely get charged with 2 murders/deaths, yet if the woman terminated the pregnancy, she wouldn't get charged at all.

I do not really see the point in bringing that up. As you said, it is about bodily autonomy. And bodily autonomy works both ways. Just like you can't force someone to carry a baby you also can't force them to abort it. So when someone kills a pregnant woman he is guilty of 1 killing and 1 forced abortion. As to how the act of forced abortion becomes murder it is again simple and comes down to bodily autonomy. If the woman in question had the intention of having that baby than by definition that baby was destined to be born and become a living creature. Thus that forceful abortion is a murder.

The only way it would in fact not be murder is if the woman had previously shown clear intent to abort that baby. In which case I guess it would just be 1 murder.

[Borgholio]

The only way it would in fact not be murder is if the woman had previously shown clear intent to abort that baby. In which case I guess it would just be 1 murder.

No that would also be murder, unless the attacker was specifically paid and asked to do the job.

[biostem]

The only way it would in fact not be murder is if the woman had previously shown clear intent to abort that baby. In which case I guess it would just be 1 murder.

No that would also be murder, unless the attacker was specifically paid and asked to do the job.

One point I also brought up is that using what crimes you would be charged with, is not a good measure of "reality" so to speak, as the prosecution is likely to try and impose as harsh of a punishment as they can conceivably support; The charge or charges that might be brought against you are not the measuring stick we use to determine ethical matters...

[Simon_Jester]

OK, so I got involved in a discussion regarding abortion. Specifically, the discussion was that if someone killed a pregnant woman, they'd likely get charged with 2 murders/deaths...

Whether that SHOULD happen is an important point of law and legal philosophy.

Are you saying "that is the state of the law?" Because while I don't know whether it is or not, whether that's the law right now doesn't necessarily have anything to do with whether that's how the law should work.

A person who maintains that a second-trimester fetus is not a full human being might, with full consistency, state that killing one is not murder.

[biostem]

OK, so I got involved in a discussion regarding abortion. Specifically, the discussion was that if someone killed a pregnant woman, they'd likely get charged with 2 murders/deaths...

Whether that SHOULD happen is an important point of law and legal philosophy.

Are you saying "that is the state of the law?" Because while I don't know whether it is or not, whether that's the law right now doesn't necessarily have anything to do with whether that's how the law should work.

A person who maintains that a second-trimester fetus is not a full human being might, with full consistency, state that killing one is not murder.

I'm not so much approaching the legal angle in terms of what *should* be, only that what crimes someone committing the hypothetical act would be charged with should not be used as justification for calling the unborn equal to a baby who was fully brought to term and delivered.

Now with regards to what *I* think the crime should be - whether you consider a second-trimester a person or not, attacking a pregnant woman, and doing so in such a way so as to abort the fetus, without her consent, is a crime in every conceivable sense. I mean - let's say that a person attacked a pharmaceutical factory, thus preventing some people from getting life-saving drugs. That person could potentially be charged with the deaths of those that died as a result, but it's not guaranteed...

[madd0ct0r]

I question the initial assumption in the OP - is a person likely to be charged with two murders? are there any cases that can be pointed at that went with 2 or 1?

[Alyrium Denryle]

The only way it would in fact not be murder is if the woman had previously shown clear intent to abort that baby. In which case I guess it would just be 1 murder.

No that would also be murder, unless the attacker was specifically paid and asked to do the job.

One point I also brought up is that using what crimes you would be charged with, is not a good measure of "reality" so to speak, as the prosecution is likely to try and impose as harsh of a punishment as they can conceivably support; The charge or charges that might be brought against you are not the measuring stick we use to determine ethical matters...

The Fetal Murder statute that permits US prosecutors to charge someone who murders a pregnant woman with two murders instead of just 1 was introduced into the criminal code recently, at the urging of pro-life activists, precisely so they could use it for the exact argument under consideration

"But if abortion is not murder, why do we have the fetal murder statute?!"

[Metahive]

However, wouldn't that just be a forced abortion, then? The woman clearly didn't her consent to it after all and so the Forced Birthers haven't really changed anything.

[Broomstick]

I question the initial assumption in the OP - is a person likely to be charged with two murders? are there any cases that can be pointed at that went with 2 or 1?

Yes, there have been cases of someone who killed a pregnant woman being charged with 2 murders, or 1 murder and one "feticide" or similar. I don't recall if anyone was convicted of those exact charges.

[Borgholio]

"But if abortion is not murder, why do we have the fetal murder statute?!"

Yeah that bullshit falls apart when you bring the issue of consent into the picture. If you kill yourself (or attempt to), then it's suicide. If someone kills you (or attempts to), it's murder. Whether or not you were feeling suicidal at the time is completely irrelevant.

[Flagg]

The perfect argument to end the discussion once you get past this nonsense (it doesn't matter if the woman and legally abortable parasite are on the gurney being led to the procedure room, if you kill her and the parasite, it's double homicide because the woman could have still changed her mind and... Aborted the procedure until the parasite is vacuumed out) is to thrust the burden on them by using a simple excercise:

A 6 month old and Petri dish with a hundred fertilized embryos are on equally opposite ends from a door in a room that will be incinerated and there is only time to retrieve one of them and make it out of the room and close the door before incineration. Do you, as someone who believes that life begins at conception allow the screaming, crying, and terrified 6 month old to be incinerated, or do you save the Petri dish with 100 "living" embryos.

Then watch their head explode, play mind-twister, or just start throwing feces while screaming about apples and oranges.

[Flagg]

"But if abortion is not murder, why do we have the fetal murder statute?!"

Yeah that bullshit falls apart when you bring the issue of consent into the picture. If you kill yourself (or attempt to), then it's suicide. If someone kills you (or attempts to), it's murder. Whether or not you were feeling suicidal at the time is completely irrelevant.

It actually goes farther than that. If someone jumps off a skyscrapers roof and someone else who has no idea about the jumper fires a gun in a one in a million shot that hits said jumper in the heart killing them before they hit the ground, the person who fired the gun is guilty of murder despite the fact that the "victim" was going to die anyway.

Isn't legalism fun?

[AniThyng]

Was there ever intent for the Petri dishful of embryos to be grown into viable babies in this scenario?

[General Zod]

There's been more than a handful of cases to establish a precedent. In Florida a woman nearly killed a pregnant woman allegedly out of self defense, she was only charged with attempted murder. No mention of two counts. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/s ... -1.1772829

Same thing in connecticut where a dude hired a hitman to kill his girlfriend. http://wtnh.com/2015/05/28/man-convicte ... irlfriend/

It doesn't seem like anyone is putting down extra charges for the fetus.

[Simon_Jester]

If your debating partner is still arguing this point, another tactic you can take is this...

Point out that if we DID set the legal precedent that actions resulting in the death of a fetus is murder, we would have to treat a pregnancy that ends for any reason as seriously as we treat dead toddlers.

If a woman misses her period for two months straight and then has a period happen the next month, do we need to arrest her on suspicion of having caused a miscarriage, and give her a medical examination to determine whether she was pregnant, then carry out a criminal investigation to find out whether she was in some way at fault if there was a miscarriage?

If a woman gives birth prematurely and the baby dies, then, once again, can criminal charges be pressed? Could the father or relatives on his side sue in civil court for the damages caused by the death of a 'child?'

[Zeropoint]

That actually happens in places where abortion is illegal. A woman can be arrested for falling down the stairs.

[biostem]

I haven't bothered to respond further, due to the "wall of text" that the poster replied to me with. They seem to think "personhood" begins at conception, and I am at a loss with how to get through to them...


From the Youtube comments:

biostemm 1 week ago (edited)
If a parent refuses to donate an organ to save their child's life, have they committed a crime? Is it right to force any person to use their body to sustain that of someone else? If you are in favor of mandating the use of one person's body to sustain another's, then I am sure you wouldn't mind heading to your nearest hospital to donate a kidney, part of your liver, and some bone marrow...
Reply ·

View all 5 replies

biostemm 1 week ago
+Illuminatus Pythagoras Until the baby is able to sustain its own life, it is part of the mother. As an independent person, with sovereignty over your own body, you are free to do to your body whatever you want. Consent to sex, even unprotected, is not consent to pregnancy. Even if a woman becomes pregnant, she has the right to decide to withhold her body's functions from the fertilized egg/baby. You are strawmanning me with the organ donation example - once you have donated your organ, it is no longer yours, thus you have no claim over it anymore. Such is not the case with pregnancy - the woman's body remains her own throughout, thus she can choose to cease contributing at-will. Your child support argument is similarly flawed, as being forced to contribute financially is not "using your body" in the sense we are talking about, either. And in cases where a father pays child support, they have rights to be a part of that child's life as well, (except in special cases, like abuse or such). And what of cases where birth control is not readily available? Would you grant special rights to people who were kept ignorant or deprived of such alternatives? I'm not talking about late-term abortions for like 99% of these cases - those should be, (and typically are), restricted to special cases - risk of mother's death, late-detected birth defects, rape where there was perhaps some form of confinement, etc.
Read more
Reply ·


Illuminatus Pythagoras 1 week ago
+biostemm If the baby is "part of the mother", then you're contradicting yourself, because you've already admitted that a man should be charged with two murders if he shoots the mother (causing the death of both mother and child....TWO human lives). A two year old is also unable to sustain its own life, so if that's your justification for killing an unborn child, it seems it would apply to children post-birth as well. The "organ donation example" was something you brought up. I only turned it against you. If you don't think it's a fair comparison, you shouldn't have used it. I already said that it has nothing to do with abortion...and now that I've shown how the comparison works against your argument rather than for it, you agree with me and want to drop the comparison. Child support isn't exactly the same either. That's another distraction from the main point which you've already admitted....that killing an unborn child is a crime. Where you're stuck now is trying to justify the mother in committing this crime. And you're attempting to do so by denying female agency. Once pregnancy occurs, there is a second body inside the body of the woman. I agree with the principle of self-ownership. The woman's body is her own. The baby's body is not her own...it belongs to the baby. So the principle of self-ownership is exactly what makes abortion a crime rather than a choice. And no matter how much you try to dance around it, unless she was raped, she is pregnant by choice. Again, I don't care if she used contraception or had access to it. She chose to engage in an act which carries with it the possibility of becoming pregnant. If she engaged in that act without contraception, then the pregnancy should be no surprise whatsoever. By engaging in the act, she accepts the responsibility for the act. And if you let her off the hook, you can't justify forced child support. And yes, child support is a physical dependency. Do you think that a man doesn't use his body to earn money? Where do you think the money comes from? The man is forced to work to acquire it. Forced child support is slavery. According to your argument, because the young child is unable to sustain its own life, it is part of the father and he is justified in killing it. Anyone who is on state welfare is unable to sustain their life without the state, so the state is justified in killing the person. The fact that an unborn child is dependent on it's mother is not a justification for the murder of the unborn child by the mother. Unless she was raped, she is pregnant by choice. There is a new life now. The father and the mother both share responsibility for that life, and by creating that life they both accepted that responsibility. But you don't think people can be held responsible for their choices...at least not women. But forget about organ donation, or child support, or anything else. The point is that you've agreed that an unborn child is NOT the "mother's body" (or else there would be no additional crime in shooting a pregnant woman), so the "her body, her choice" argument is no good here. This is the argument I'm making, and I've made it very strongly. If you want to split hairs about side issues, this thread could go on forever, but as far as I'm concerned, this is a pretty good place to shake hands and recognize that we've come to a brick wall. I do appreciate your contribution to the discussion section and your willingness to express a contrary opinion. I think you've defended an indefensible position as well as anyone could. And I appreciate you being civil and not being rude or insulting or making personal attacks. Although I think you're wrong in your opinion on this issue, I respect your right to hold and voice wrong opinions. You're always welcome to comment on my channel. And I'm sure there are probably many other issues on which we find common ground.

[General Zod]

If the fertilized egg is a person then they've lost the argument. No person is entitled to any part of any other person's body even if it's the only way to save their life. If I have the only liver in the world that would save your life and you needed a donation, you have no legal right to compel me to donate my liver to you. You can't even compel a dead person to donate their organs.

[lPeregrine]

I really don't understand how this is supposed to be a compelling argument for the anti-abortion side. Who cares if killing a fetus against the mother's will is considered murder by the legal system? It's just a legal fiction to get the desired end result of punishing the guilty party. We all agree that it's a really horrible thing to do to someone, and it's easier to call it "murder" than to invent another crime to cover it. And hey, if throwing additional "murder" charges at someone makes it more likely that they'll take a plea bargain and pad the state's conviction rates and/or helps appeal to "tough on crime" voters then that's a nice bonus!

So, once you understand the concept of a legal fiction the anti-abortion argument falls apart entirely. The fact that the legal system considers the death of the fetus "murder" in one situation doesn't mean that it's "murder" in other legal situations, or in ethics/morality/whatever. There's no inconsistency at all in saying that abortion should be legal but people who kill desired babies should spend a long time in prison.

[General Mung Beans]

Specifically, the discussion was that if someone killed a pregnant woman, they'd likely get charged with 2 murders/deaths, yet if the woman terminated the pregnancy, she wouldn't get charged at all.

I do not really see the point in bringing that up. As you said, it is about bodily autonomy. And bodily autonomy works both ways. Just like you can't force someone to carry a baby you also can't force them to abort it. So when someone kills a pregnant woman he is guilty of 1 killing and 1 forced abortion.

This is all quiet good and sensible.

As to how the act of forced abortion becomes murder it is again simple and comes down to bodily autonomy. If the woman in question had the intention of having that baby than by definition that baby was destined to be born and become a living creature. Thus that forceful abortion is a murder.

This doesn't make any sense. As pro-choicers love to point out, potential personhood does not constitute personhood itself. By this logic therefore, the destruction of fetus in the womb would not be equivalent to murder regardless of whether the mother intended to carry the fetus to term or not. Otherwise, if the woman had a pet dog which she regarded as practically family member the killing of both could also be considered a double murder. Then there is the problem of proving the woman's intention to carry the fetus to term, which would be rather difficult to prove if the woman is dead.

[General Mung Beans]

I really don't understand how this is supposed to be a compelling argument for the anti-abortion side. Who cares if killing a fetus against the mother's will is considered murder by the legal system? It's just a legal fiction to get the desired end result of punishing the guilty party. We all agree that it's a really horrible thing to do to someone, and it's easier to call it "murder" than to invent another crime to cover it. And hey, if throwing additional "murder" charges at someone makes it more likely that they'll take a plea bargain and pad the state's conviction rates and/or helps appeal to "tough on crime" voters then that's a nice bonus!

So, once you understand the concept of a legal fiction the anti-abortion argument falls apart entirely. The fact that the legal system considers the death of the fetus "murder" in one situation doesn't mean that it's "murder" in other legal situations, or in ethics/morality/whatever. There's no inconsistency at all in saying that abortion should be legal but people who kill desired babies should spend a long time in prison.

The problem can be made clearer if one considers the hypothetical of only the fetus being killed in an attack rather both the mother and the fetus. In such a case, should the assailant be charged with first-degree murder? If so should he receive a sentence comparable to if he had killed a five-year old child?

[lPeregrine]

The problem can be made clearer if one considers the hypothetical of only the fetus being killed in an attack rather both the mother and the fetus. In such a case, should the assailant be charged with first-degree murder? If so should he receive a sentence comparable to if he had killed a five-year old child?

I don't know? Is the defendant more likely to take a plea bargain if they're charged with first-degree murder or first-degree feticide? Is it an election year for anyone involved in prosecuting the case, and how does that impact things like trying to appear tough on crime or participate in/stay out of the overall debate on abortion? Should the justice system always seek to impose the maximum possible sentence, or should we say "well, that's not quite as bad, so we'll make it 20 years instead of 30"? Etc.

The point is that none of these issues have anything to do with moral or philosophical questions about "is the fetus a 'person' yet", just like the various issues that come up in cases involving corporations (and corporate 'personhood') don't apply to a hypothetical moral or philosophical debate about whether or not killing a corporation is murder. The validity of the "one murder or two" argument depends on an assumption that what is morally correct and how the legal system operates are always the same, and there is no such thing as a legal fiction. Once you understand the absurdity of its underlying assumption the argument falls apart entirely.

[Patroklos]

Specifically, the discussion was that if someone killed a pregnant woman, they'd likely get charged with 2 murders/deaths, yet if the woman terminated the pregnancy, she wouldn't get charged at all.

I do not really see the point in bringing that up. As you said, it is about bodily autonomy. And bodily autonomy works both ways. Just like you can't force someone to carry a baby you also can't force them to abort it. So when someone kills a pregnant woman he is guilty of 1 killing and 1 forced abortion. As to how the act of forced abortion becomes murder it is again simple and comes down to bodily autonomy. If the woman in question had the intention of having that baby than by definition that baby was destined to be born and become a living creature. Thus that forceful abortion is a murder.

So are you saying human value is subjective? That ones value flows wholly from the whim of another? Bodily autonomy aside for a moment, surely you are not saying a person's humanity exists only via the consent of another human? Whether you can kill a human or not is another question, we have lots of justifications for doing so (where we don't deny their humanity in the process). Where does humanity come from in your opinion? To be clear I am thinking post normal abortion timetables here, which most people agree on to some extent.

[Purple]

Where does humanity come from in your opinion? To be clear I am thinking post normal abortion timetables here, which most people agree on to some extent.

Well basically I am purely materialistic. That is to say I do not believe that we humans are anything more than flesh and blood animals. I do not believe in any form of transcendent spirit or anything like that. Thus from my point of view humanity as such really does not exist. You have life, just like a rabbit or a squires or a cow has life. But the only thing that makes human life special is the fact that we, the ones empowered to judge it as such happen to be humans and thus have a vested interest to act in a way that does so. Just like say a social ant might prefer the life of fellow ants from his hive to those of a random beetle. And there is nothing wrong with this. In fact I hold that this sort of thinking is necessary if we are to have a stable and functional civilization. But ultimately let's not fool around and think that the little delusions we hold for the sake of life are the truth. Lest we assume that the only sounds and colors that exist are those that we hear and see.