A question for Althanas...

[Jasmine]

So I've been browsing through the FST and I noticed that we haven't had a serious discussion in awhile. Most of the recent topics are silly things or birthday threads. While neither of these is a bad thing, I'd like to see a little serious discussion, if even only for a short time.

As some people may or may not know, this character, Jasmine, and Zerith are engaged. As soon as Zerith manages to get active again, we'll get the wedding stuffs properly underway again. Along with that, Jasmine is also pregnant, and this got me to thinking about the laws on the death of an unborn child. Not because Jasmine wouldn't want her child of course, but she does lead a fairly dangerous life of adventuring.

At any rate my question is thus:

Why is it abortion, perfectly legal and a mother's choice, when the child is unwanted by the mother, but is a double homicide (in 34 states) if someone else kills the mother and the unborn child dies as well?

Your thoughts, Althanas...?

EDIT: also, do you think there should be a difference? why?




Extra note, this is intended to be a serious discussion. Any posts that I feel are possibly over the line, will be reported to a mod. Please remember that this is supposed to be a discussion on why there's a difference, not a pro-life/pro-choice debate. Thank you.

[Breaker]

Simple answer: because double homicide is an older law than abortion. When the specifics of homicide were laid out, they determined that killing a pregnant mother made it double homicide. Some time later, science discovers that an unborn child is not actually alive until a certain age. 34 States accept this science and make abortion legal.

So really your answer is in your question; there is a different between homicide and abortion. Unless the killer had the mother's permission and killed them both using legally approved abortion procedures. Even then, he'd still go down for manslaughter, unless he had Richard Gere as his lawyer and got off on temporary insanity.

Obviously I'm just guessing, but I'm sure Serilliant will be along to drop some science on us soon.

[Jasmine]

How much older? Public law 108-212 was made in April 2004. link (http://faculty.smu.edu/tmayo/pl108-212.pdf) Be advised, this link goes directly to the law itself, not someone's summation or average citizen's wording.

If you read it through, you'll note that it provides for allowing abortion and will not hold it against, the mother, someone who has legal custody to decide such things for the mother, or the people that perform the abortion. In such a case, it is considered a legal abortion.

That's not my point though.

I suppose my question really boils down to: Why is an unborn child a fetus, not worthy of life if its mother does not want it, but if someone else decides she doesn't need to have a baby or that she doesn't need her life anymore, the child is no longer a fetus, but a human being? Why is there a difference based on who terminates the pregnancy?

[Tainted Bushido]

How much older? Public law 108-212 was made in April 2004. link (http://faculty.smu.edu/tmayo/pl108-212.pdf) Be advised, this link goes directly to the law itself, not someone's summation or average citizen's wording.

If you read it through, you'll note that it provides for allowing abortion and will not hold it against, the mother, someone who has legal custody to decide such things for the mother, or the people that perform the abortion. In such a case, it is considered a legal abortion.

That's not my point though.

I suppose my question really boils down to: Why is an unborn child a fetus, not worthy of life if its mother does not want it, but if someone else decides she doesn't need to have a baby or that she doesn't need her life anymore, the child is no longer a fetus, but a human being? Why is there a difference based on who terminates the pregnancy?

Its more of a difference from the other standpoint. You're focusing on the motherhood, and not on the actual act. The act of abortion is not considered a crime as technically the "life" is not aware till a certain term. However, the act of killing someone has been villainous since civilization began. It it more from the prospect of, this man took a life, and technically by killing her did not allow for another life to technically be born. We could chalk it up as a murder, but by forcing a double homicide we increase the chance that this person will not be able to harm another person again. It allows for plea bargaining as the person is now on much rockier ground.

When someone is arrested they are charged with as much as they could technically be held accountable for. Then the DA picks and chooses hat could actually stick. From there they talk it over with the Public Defender (or defense attorney money allowing) and determine what bargain is acceptable to both sides. The higher up it starts, the less likely they get off with a hand slap. In this case its more likely the DA's are trying to use as strong a charge as they can to get as strong a punishment possible to stick.

[Jasmine]

A life is a life, no matter what the stage of pregnancy. The law supports this, so long as the mother is not/was not seeking an abortion. I will admit that my view is extremely biased, as I personally do hold abortion as murder, no matter what the circumstances were that resulted in the pregnancy. I'm trying to word the questions to not be so biased, so bear with me.

To me, saying that if mommy wants to kill her baby, it's okay, and she can get help to do so (and in some states, even if she's a minor, she doesn't have to inform anyone of her intent, not even her parents) but, if daddy beats mommy up, causing the baby die, it's murder, is a double-standard.

This isn't a legality question. The legalities are clearly stated in the laws. I'm more interested in the moral aspects of what everyone thinks. Does it strike anyone else as being double-standardish to say in the same law, that it's murder for anyone to kill an unborn child unless it's an abortion chosen by the mother? To essentially say that circumstances decide whether the unborn child is a fetus, unworthy of protection, or a human being, who is worthy of protection under the law?

[Storm Veritas]

Semantics 101.

Phrase abortion as "killing a baby" as opposed to "electing not to develop an embryo" quickly changes the perspective of the question.

There are also many reasons why killing a woman and the unborn child is double murder, as opposed to abortion. The most glaring of these examples includes the inherent or occasionally exorbitant risk associated with the birthgiving process; in many cases the birth of a child risks the life of a woman. This is something which serves as a solid justification to abortion, particularly in examples of rape-driven pregnancies.

Double murder also robs the woman of the opportunity to carry a child to term, regardless of her choice. Conversely, abortion is the choice of a mother, a choice which may be made with the best interests of the health and welfare of child and/or mother.

That being said, the rhetorical nature of the question implies you've made a decision on your thoughts regarding abortion and are not likely to waver.

[Tainted Bushido]

A life is a life, no matter what the stage of pregnancy. The law supports this, so long as the mother is not/was not seeking an abortion. I will admit that my view is extremely biased, as I personally do hold abortion as murder, no matter what the circumstances were that resulted in the pregnancy. I'm trying to word the questions to not be so biased, so bear with me.

To me, saying that if mommy wants to kill her baby, it's okay, and she can get help to do so (and in some states, even if she's a minor, she doesn't have to inform anyone of her intent, not even her parents) but, if daddy beats mommy up, causing the baby die, it's murder, is a double-standard.

I'm merely telling you from a literal viewpoint why such things happen. It is also a dirty tactic of the DA as murder cases often go to trial, and a jury hearing of a double homicide for the pregnant woman also weighs it more heavily against the defendant.


This isn't a legality question. The legalities are clearly stated in the laws. I'm more interested in the moral aspects of what everyone thinks. Does it strike anyone else as being double-standardish to say in the same law, that it's murder for anyone to kill an unborn child unless it's an abortion chosen by the mother? To essentially say that circumstances decide whether the unborn child is a fetus, unworthy of protection, or a human being, who is worthy of protection under the law?

Thats fine, However the original phrasing was "Why does this happen?" not why do we flip flop on this. I answered the original question. Its a tactic to stick as harsh a penalty as can be managed on the murderer.

As for pro-life vs. pro-choice. Thats an entirely different matter. That is an entirely different thread topic as well. I answered the original prompt, as it was worded. If you wanted a Roe vs. Wade debate, you should have probably phrased it more bluntly. I wasn't the only one fooled by the wording, as Numbers himself fell into the same trap.

[Visla Eraclaire]

The law is all about technical distinctions.

The argument starts with a question about law, but you know say you want to have a moral discussion. Leave the law out of it then. The law of abortion is well-settled. Talking about laws tricked me into thinking this would be interesting, but now it's just another abortion bawwww fest.

[Serilliant]

Why is an unborn child a fetus, not worthy of life if its mother does not want it, but if someone else decides she doesn't need to have a baby or that she doesn't need her life anymore, the child is no longer a fetus, but a human being?

The answer is more complex than simply saying that a fetus is a "human" if the mother is murdered and a "fetus" if aborted. It's legal status does not change depending on the circumstances, as you have postulated. Instead, it comes down to a hierarchy of rights. This hierarchy, incidentally, works on both a legal and moral sense.

You can think of a fetus as quasi-property. It, like a chair, cannot make decisions for itself. However it, unlike a chair, has the potential for future life, and is thus given a legal (and moral!) status somewhere between a chair and a full-fledged human being. We codify this in law by saying that the mother (and also, sometimes, father) can make decisions for the fetus, but must make those decisions in the best interest of the fetus.

That having been established, let's look to the distinction between abortion and murder by a third party. In the case of abortion, we're balancing two competing interests: the interest of the fetus in being born, and the interest of the mother in controlling her own body. This is not a "let babies live versus kill babies" scenario -- in which case people would almost assuredly gravitate toward the former -- but rather an inquiry into which interest is stronger. We all know how US laws come down on the question, but a moral look makes things different.

We must first grant that there exists no universal set of morals. In other words, even if you, Jasmine, believe that abortion is morally wrong, it does not mean that it is universally morally wrong. As I mentioned, we'd all probably come down on the side of 'don't kill babies' given a binary selection, but the issues are often more complex. My moral standards require that I more greatly value the choice of a living, breathing human than the theoretical interests of a pre-human. Further, the decision to abort is often still made in the fetus's best interest (i.e. mother and fetus are not always adversarial to one another in the process). Imagine, for instance, a child who would be born with a debilitating genetic disease that would kill him/her within months after birth, but only after intense pain and suffering. The mother decides to abort. Yes, I know that she might have just killed the next Mozart and all human life is a beautiful delicate snowflake, but one must distinguish the following two positions which are often conflated into a single point:

1) I would not abort the child, versus
2) No one should be able to abort the child

Just because you are of opinion (1) does not mean you also need to follow opinion (2). Part of my sense of morals is that to impose my morals on others is inherently immoral. Dig?

That all having been said, the distinction -- both legal and moral -- between murder and abortion become more clear. While we value a mother's liberty, we don't necessarily value a murderer's. It is not that the fetus takes on two different roles -- that of a fetus or that of a human being -- depending on context as you have postulated, Jasmine, but rather that we find one act far more deplorable than the other. And seek to punish it appropriately given the narrow confines of our laws and lexicon.

[The Bloody Son]

I personally do not support abortion at all. It's my belief that if you're dumb enough to screw around and do things that you aren't ready for or shouldn't be doing - that you must deal with your choices and actions. If you're going to be an adult and have sex and - oops, the condom breaks, or you're not on birth control, or you had unprotected intercourse - then by law you should be held accountable to your CHOICES. Choice affects Everything.

- This does not include the issues of rape, nor will I get into that. It makes me angry and upset just thinking about the act and someone defiling another in such a way.

That's my stance on abortion - but why is it considered a double homicide in my mind is simply this:


If a Female is carrying a Baby and some insane Asshole kills the mother ...

So the Question arises - Was she interested or wanting an abortion? Or is your question just a random thought?

Because if not - the obvious answer is - the reason it's double homicide is because she wanted to keep and was expecting the baby and the father's devastation would need to be taken into account since that child would have had a future, of some kind, if it hadn't been murdered along with the mother...

At least that's why I think they would consider it D-Homicide.

If she'd wanted an abortion or set up some appointment to get it done and actually had followed the procedures through - then that would have to be taken into account then, I would think.

[Godhand]

I personally do not support abortion at all. It's my belief that if you're dumb enough to screw around and do things that you aren't ready for or shouldn't be doing - that you must deal with your choices and actions. If you're going to be an adult and have sex and - oops, the condom breaks, or you're not on birth control, or you had unprotected intercourse - then by law you should be held accountable to your CHOICES. Choice affects Everything.

Yeah, screw those teenagers for buying bad condoms! They should raise that kid, the irresponsible bastards!

Abortion is murder! Fur is murder! No blood for oil! Give peace a chance!

HONK HONK!

[Breaker]

Yeah, screw those teenagers for buying bad condoms! They should raise that kid, the irresponsible bastards!

Abortion is murder! Fur is murder! No blood for oil! Give peace a chance!

HONK HONK!

By the stars and stripes, I never knew you were such a good person!

[The Forgotten]

And here I thought I would never agree with anything that came out of Godhand's mouth. Well said. Well... all but the "fur is murder" and "no blood for oil" bits.

[The Bloody Son]

Yeah, screw those teenagers for buying bad condoms! They should raise that kid, the irresponsible bastards!

Abortion is murder! Fur is murder! No blood for oil! Give peace a chance!

HONK HONK!

Lol. It took 3 posts to turn this topic to crap and we're going to have a mod squad in here soon enough. D: But - I agree with him to an extent, as sarcastic as his text sounds.

[Jasmine]

As for pro-life vs. pro-choice. Thats an entirely different matter. That is an entirely different thread topic as well. I answered the original prompt, as it was worded. If you wanted a Roe vs. Wade debate, you should have probably phrased it more bluntly. I wasn't the only one fooled by the wording, as Numbers himself fell into the same trap.

You are correct, that would be a completely different debate. I believe that I noted that this was not to be a pro-life/pro-choice debate. I'm fairly certain that I'm one of a very small minority in my beliefs on that debate and therefore, see no point in engaging in such a debate.

I apologize if you misunderstood me, but I was never interested in the legalities. You both missed my edit it seems as well, though Numbers was probably already writing when I made my edit asking if you think there should be a difference and why you think that way.



That being said, the rhetorical nature of the question implies you've made a decision on your thoughts regarding abortion and are not likely to waver.

You are quite correct on this. I stand firmly on my beliefs about the issue, but as I said above, I'm aware that I'm a part of a severe minority that holds to that stance. I just wanted to see what everyone thought. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind or anything else of the sort, I just want to see what everyone else thinks.


So to re-iterate the question...

There is a difference in the laws between abortion and killing an unborn child (and possibly the mother; double-homicide). What I want to know is why you think the difference is there. That it is there is not the issue. The legalities revolving around it's existence is not the issue. Should there be difference? Why or why not?

I will say again that this is not intended to be a debate on the legality of abortion. That is a topic for a separate discussion.

[Skie and Avery]

I'd been ready to read past Godhand without so much as rolling my eyes until the "HONK HONK". Then I couldn't stop laughing.

In my view, which has no legal standpoint, I know, the mother has the right to control her own body. There are good reasons to abort, and bad ones. No matter the reason, it's still the woman's right. If she makes a medical decision about her own body, that's one matter. If someone else makes that decision and forces it on her, it's illegal. Such as a diabetic can go to a doctor and make the decision with their practitioner to amputate a foot, it's legal. If someone walks up to you on the street and hacks your foot off...illegal. That's probably oversimplifying it waaaay too much, but still.

Fun story. Shortly after my mom died, my youngest sister had a dream where she saw Mom in heaven, holding a baby. She told me about it, asking me if she was the baby. I told my aunt about the dream the next morning, just in passing while we were talking about Mom, and my aunt told me that Mom had had an abortion after she'd divorced my dad and moved to California. Mom had never told this to me, and certainly hadn't told my baby sister. So don't cry, Jasmine. Apparently dead fetuses (fetii?) go to heaven.

[Breaker]

So to re-iterate the question...

There is a difference in the laws between abortion and killing an unborn child (and possibly the mother; double-homicide). What I want to know is why you think the difference is there. That it is there is not the issue. The legalities revolving around it's existence is not the issue. Should there be difference? Why or why not?

I will say again that this is not intended to be a debate on the legality of abortion. That is a topic for a separate discussion.

Any definite response to this question is going to beg the question of whether or not abortion should be legal.

*sits back to watch the fireworks*

[The Forgotten]

Fun story. Shortly after my mom died, my youngest sister had a dream where she saw Mom in heaven, holding a baby. She told me about it, asking me if she was the baby. I told my aunt about the dream the next morning, just in passing while we were talking about Mom, and my aunt told me that Mom had had an abortion after she'd divorced my dad and moved to California. Mom had never told this to me, and certainly hadn't told my baby sister. So don't cry, Jasmine. Apparently dead fetuses (fetii?) go to heaven.
I believe it. You might be interested in something from Jessie Duplantis "Close Encounters of the God Kind". Great DVD. He's hilarious.

As for the topic at hand, I'm one of those people who believes that the only abortion that should be legal is one where the mother or child would die upon birth. Rape is a whole separate issue... I won't go there.

My idea of the topic is quite simple: If a woman doesn't have the self-restraint to keep her legs together, she'd better be prepared for a baby. Killing the baby via abortion should be a count of manslaughter (or whatever offense it is to kill an already-born infant) no matter who performs the act unless the mother or the child's life is in danger.

The two counts of manslaughter for killing a pregnant woman? Completely agree that those are justified since you are killing two people at once no matter if the mother was planning to abort or not.

[The Bloody Son]

If aborting a rape baby is what you're saying - then you just killed my finacee.
She's fine with who she is and she's beyond the best person I know in every circumstance and way - so i don't wanna hear that shit.

And I think in normal circumstances - if a chick is dumb enough to spread her legs, she should be forced to raise her choice.

And this topic turned into a abortion debate, as much as Jas didn't want it to.

[Visla Eraclaire]

And this topic turned into a abortion debate, as much as Jas didn't want it to.

If she didn't want an abortion debate, she picked a very bad topic.

To evaluate the relationship between two things normatively, you have to be able to evaluate the things normatively. Why should two things which are apparently inconsistent (I'm presuming that for the purposes of argument, though I think they are not inconsistent) exist? Well, you can't foreclose the solution that one or the other shouldn't exist. That requires you evaluating the value of each and comparing it.

If you had to lose one, drop the offense of murdering the fetus.

But you don't. First, presume the mother is dead. Problem solved, you don't really need the crime because you can already lock the guy up and throw away the key. So let's presume she doesn't die. Make it a property offense. If you don't like that because you think there shouldn't be stiff sentences for property offenses, make it an aggrivated assault/torture crime, which can carry the same penalties as murder in many jurisdictions. The fetus was part of the body which you intentionally/recklessly destroyed.

There are plenty of easy solutions which ignore the abortion debate if that's what you wanted. There really is no inconsistency. We want to punish people for doing harm. Calling it murder is probably just the result of anti-abortion activists getting that phrase in many laws in hopes of creating JUST THIS sort of discussion among people who are not legally savvy.

[Taskmienster]

I think you take things far to personally Bloody...

Personally, this is a very philosophical debate that is being raised.

I don't know how you can justifiably differentiate between different reasons for why a baby should or should not be aborted. If you believe that they shouldn't be, you should believe that they shouldn't be on all cases not case by case. And vice versa. It's simple.

As far as the double homicide goes, yes it should be counted as murder. The person killed a mother who had assumed the choice of rearing the fetus, therefor it should have been a child and the mother's already alive. The abortion thing, I'm pretty sure that we've noted that there is a sub-issue revolving around this part of the answer. The issue about the way abortion should be considered is based on how you feel about abortion.


Oh, and I'm not sure where anyone's getting any of their ideals and personal morals from... that has a lot to do with the issue in my opinion. If you are basing you opinion on religion, than you have a completely new issue altogether.


I think in the end this is a rather pointless discussion that's devolved into a debate about abortion, which is what Jasmine pointed out she didn't want. Meaning the reason for this thread to be open has disappeared, there's my argument.

[Visla Eraclaire]

I've thoroughly addressed the legal issue, but since this has turned into an abortion debate, regardless of intent, I'll say this:

We do not need more children. A fetus is a potential child and we do not need more, especially if the mother determines she does not want it. To those who say we should hold the parents accountable, you're being very shortsighted. The mother puts up with it for 9 months, then it's up for adoption and IT faces the consequences, not HER.

There are success stories, adopted kids who do well, children of rape who lead productive lives, but we don't jump out of planes because sometimes people survive. By and large the life of an unwanted child is unpleasant. The "responsibility" argument holds no water. You're punishing the wrong person, if punishment is even warranted for an easily corrected mistake.

[Terminus Mortis]

Godhand should make bumper stickers, just because I want something on the back of my car that just says "Fuck YOU!"

Back on topic:

Abortion is a choice, just as sure as anything else, but it is a choice with severe circumstances and severe consequence. Personally, I feel that it should only be taken on if it is for the sake of the baby, or if the mother would die during childbirth. A fetus can't feel pain, but the child being born with some sort of life-threatening disease can, and no innocent human being should be made to suffer. In my eyes that is an established human right, alongside Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. There is a difference between abortion and homicide because abortion is established to prevent suffering and to preserve human life. Think long and hard about that and you'll understand.

What such deliverance can you find in the murder of a pregnant mother? Where is the justice or the good intent in that? There is no excuse, there is no justification. That is just the liquidation of two lives, one real and one potential, and the one responsible should be held accountable and brought to justice. There is no 'what is justice' discussion here. We all know that killing an innocent person is wrong, but the murderer is no longer an innocent, and I've got no reservations about killing them. By intentionally causing the suffering of others, you forefit your own rights and you place your life in the hands of the people. Killing a pregnant woman is a denial of human rights, for which you will be held accountable. Forget lethal injection, line me up a convicted rapist and murderer and I'd have no reservation about putting a bullet in their heads myself.

It all boils down to human rights. No innocent should be made to suffer, but as Voltaire said, "It is better to let a guilty man go free than to condemn an innocent one."

[Slayer of the Rot]

Personally, I don't respect the opinion of anybody that can't fucking spell challenged right.

Anyway, abortion has never been that big of a deal to me. A choice is a choice. Just like everyone has the choice to say, go to church and believe in God, or drink delicious refreshing Coke instead of that shitbrew, Pepsi.

Honestly, I fucking hate kids.

[Winterhair]

Pro choice here. I have no problem with killing the innocent. When someone restricts choice of decision, that gets me pissed off. It doesn't even come down to life or death anymore then. We are human beings. Thus, everyone, everyone, should have the right to be able to do whatever the fuck they want to. Thus, I hate authority in general. Not a good outlook for someone looking for work, and one I'm trying to fix, but when I'm told what I can and cannot do when it comes to my freedom of being who I am and what I want to do with my life, I'll go with the immortal words of Godhand. "Fuck YOU!"

I am a selfish bastard.

I have nothing to say on the difference, other than whats already been said by other members. This thread has already turned from that into something else anyways.

[Serilliant]

If aborting a rape baby is what you're saying - then you just killed my finacee [sic].

That's such an intellectually dishonest argument on par with the retort, "refuse to abort? Congratulations, you just birthed Hitler."

The fact is that your finance is well adjusted not in spite of the fact that she's a "rape baby", but because her mother decided that she wanted to rear a good child. If the circumstances had been different, and if her mother would have been an unwilling mother and yet have a baby forced on her anyway, your fiance as you know her would be a very, very different person.

I must return to my original point:

I would not abort the child is different than
No one should be able to abort the child

Part of liberty is understanding that sometimes other people will want the freedoms to do things that you don't want them to do. Don't like it? Tough. I'm sure there's a bunch of things you do that they wish you couldn't too.

(This, incidentally, is also the moral difference between abortion and murder; abortion is a choice invoking the liberty of personal bodily integrity, while murder violates that same liberty)

[Tainted Bushido]

You also gotta remember, the reason often that the age of consent is up at 18, is because to lower it increases the chance of the mother dying in child birth. At 18 the mortality rate reaches an acceptable low. A 13 year old girl just isn't as capable of giving birth as an 18 year old woman. That is a serious consideration for abortion.

Now should they be different? You're comparing apples to oranges in this case. In one case its death from without, you have introduced something into the system. In the other, its death from within, the entire atmosphere is controlled. Should they be different? Not my place to say as I have a penis, and frankly am incapable of birthing kids.