Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 10-15-2018, 01:03 AM
octopus's Avatar
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 7,576
The fetus is clearly human. Enough in society have determined that a human at that level of development is unworthy of intrinsic protections.
  #52  
Old 10-15-2018, 01:12 AM
simster simster is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Still missing it...
then quit playing games and explain how so -
  #53  
Old 10-15-2018, 01:16 AM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 78,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Yes, a despicable crime was committed due to lack of consent. It should be punished pretty severely I think. The question is what the crime is defined as.

It is attempted murder if the intent was to kill what is defined as a human life.

Is this that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink View Post
That doesn't explain away the disconnect. Are there any other cases where it's someone other than the victim who gives or withholds consent?

Who's the victim here? If this is a crime against the woman, then "attempted homicide" isn't the appropriate charge, because she's not the one he was attempting to kill. If it's a crime against the unborn child, then consent isn't an issue; fetuses don't consent to abortions.
It's a crime against the woman. Forcing her to have an involuntary abortion is a crime just like forcing her to have involuntary sex is a crime. Just because that same woman might consent to having an abortion or to having sex in different circumstances does not make it okay to force her to do it when she doesn't consent.

Which is what I said in my previous post. When I said the issue was lack of consent, did you seriously think I was suggesting we ask the fetus for consent? Or for her husband's consent or her father's or her pastor's? It was obvious whose consent was missing and therefore who the victim of the crime was.
  #54  
Old 10-15-2018, 06:05 AM
elbows elbows is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 13,849
I can put my dog /horse down if heís been grievously injured and itís deemed appropriate.

That doesnít mitigate my abusing or killing my animal, even attempting to kill it, for any other reason. Nor should it.

This isnít different from that, in my opinion.

The ability to legally kill my pet does NOT open the door to doing so being okay, regardless of circumstances.
  #55  
Old 10-15-2018, 08:51 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,717
Jeez, this thread is frustrating.

No one is arguing that it shouldn't be a crime to try and secretly cause a woman to abort. The questions are, as I see them: Is it a crime against the woman or the fetus? Is the crime assault or homicide (or murder? Are they the same in this case?). That's the point of this thread.

Saying, "yes, this guy should definitely go to jail for the despicable thing he did" is missing the point.
  #56  
Old 10-15-2018, 08:57 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,717
(Sorry for the double post)

I should clarify -- the law today says that it is a crime against the fetus. So, where I wrote "Is it a crime...", etc., I should have written, "Should it be a crime...", etc.


The OP is asking, I believe, should that be the case? And, if you think it should be, how does that square with abortion rights?

OP -- hopefully, I'm not misrepresenting your position.
  #57  
Old 10-15-2018, 09:06 AM
Annie-Xmas Annie-Xmas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 49,652
You need a kidney. I'm the perfect donor and I agree to give you one. Fine

You need a kidney. I'm the perfect donor, but do not agree to give you one. You are not a doctor, but you drug me and take out one of kidneys, and get a doctor to put it into you.

Not fine with that.
  #58  
Old 10-15-2018, 09:15 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie-Xmas View Post
You need a kidney. I'm the perfect donor and I agree to give you one. Fine

You need a kidney. I'm the perfect donor, but do not agree to give you one. You are not a doctor, but you drug me and take out one of kidneys, and get a doctor to put it into you.

Not fine with that.
And, neither is anyone. Here's the question in the OP (I believe). Should that be a crime against you or (to stretch your analogy to the breaking point) should it be a crime against the kidney? The way the law is currently written, it's a crime against the, uh, kidney.

The analogy, like many abortion-related analogies, really breaks down.
  #59  
Old 10-15-2018, 10:08 AM
simster simster is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
Jeez, this thread is frustrating.

No one is arguing that it shouldn't be a crime to try and secretly cause a woman to abort. The questions are, as I see them: Is it a crime against the woman or the fetus? Is the crime assault or homicide (or murder? Are they the same in this case?). That's the point of this thread.

Saying, "yes, this guy should definitely go to jail for the despicable thing he did" is missing the point.
I have no issue with it being a crime against the fetus - in this case the fetus 'has rights to life' so long as the mother chooses to allow it.

Seems to me that people want to make a bigger deal of it than it is - The mother is free to abort carrying the fetus, no one else is allowed to choose that for her (save a bonafide medical emergency where the mother is unable to answer one way or the other (unconscious) ) . Having an accident (car wreck,for example) where the fetus is lost is very different than attempting to force an abortion that would not happen otherwise.

Last edited by simster; 10-15-2018 at 10:09 AM.
  #60  
Old 10-15-2018, 10:10 AM
Ludovic Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 28,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
And, neither is anyone. Here's the question in the OP (I believe). Should that be a crime against you or (to stretch your analogy to the breaking point) should it be a crime against the kidney? The way the law is currently written, it's a crime against the, uh, kidney.

The analogy, like many abortion-related analogies, really breaks down.
I was going to post that analogy as well so I don't think it's that much of a stretch.
  #61  
Old 10-15-2018, 10:27 AM
Manda JO Manda JO is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 10,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Think about this a second...

If we accept what happened in the OP then the law recognizes the unborn's right to life. It is alive in the same sense you are alive because it can be murdered.

You just made a laundry list of things we cannot compel people to do because of their right to autonomy as a living human.

Given all that you then have to accept that a woman can choose to justifiably kill (as the law implies) her unborn child because her rights supersede those of the child's right to life despite the care we give to protect all the things we can't make people do as you listed.

I am pro choice, I firmly support a woman's right to abort in the first trimester. My point here is if we accept that a person can be put in jail for 22 years for attempting to murder an unborn person in the first trimester of gestation then the implications for the mother doing the same thing, legally, change dramatically.
We DON'T protect life in the case of organ donation. We don't protect it in the case of blood or marrow donation. When a bunch of kids laughed and filmed a drowning man instead of calling 911, their right to spend their time as they pleased was put ahead of his right to life.

Just focus on organ donation: when we let people die because the corpse that contains the organ they need to survive belongs to someone who wants to bury it instead, how is that putting protecting life ahead of all other rights?
  #62  
Old 10-15-2018, 10:33 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludovic View Post
I was going to post that analogy as well so I don't think it's that much of a stretch.
I think the analogy breaks down because nobody thinks the crime would be against the kidney. It would always be against the person. However, in the case mentioned in the OP, the crime is against the fetus, not the woman.

The point of this thread is (I believe), should the crime be against the woman or the fetus? And, if you think it should be against the fetus, how do you square that with abortion rights?

As I mention upthread, I think this law is terrible and puts us on the path to fetal personhood laws, which would be a serious challenge to abortion rights. I think the appropriate law would be some sort of aggravated assault against the woman, and, if she's pregnant, I could see further punishment because of that. However, the crime should be against the woman since she's a person and the fetus isn't.
  #63  
Old 10-15-2018, 11:04 AM
Eonwe's Avatar
Eonwe Eonwe is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Burlington VT
Posts: 8,429
If I've got to have a label, I'm "pro-choice".

I think that there's always going to be some mess/confusion with language, emotion, and real-world application when it comes to laws around fetuses.

Much like age of consent; of course in real-world terms there is no practical difference between a person the day before they turn 18 [or whatever the age of consent is in your jurisdiction] and the day after, but we have to draw a line in order to have predictable, dependable and repeatable enforcement.

Of course the fetus and the woman both were targets here. If that kid grows up and hears this story, they'll likely say "that guy tried to kill me," and they'd be right.

The way I think about this stuff, and really the only way that doesn't end up with bizarre and arbitrary definitions of "personhood" is that the moment when a fetus becomes a person is a philosophical question, not a medical question, and as such there is no one right answer. With that in mind, the important question for society is not "when does a fetus become a person" but rather "what 'rights' do we choose to give a fetus, and when, and for what purpose?"

Honestly, I kind of see this the way octopus does in post 51. As long as expectant mothers treat their gestating children like little growing humans, there will always be an element of "personhood" in a fetus.

So, is this "attempted manslaughter"? It may not be exactly the right charge, but attempting to kill a fetus seems obviously fundamentally different than attempting to inflict bodily harm upon the mother. Attempted assault does not fully describe the crime.
  #64  
Old 10-15-2018, 11:47 AM
DrCube DrCube is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Caseyville, IL
Posts: 7,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I was under the impression that the pro-choice side relied on the belief that the unborn child was not a life, at least one that was incapable of being "murdered." Isn't that why they insist on the term fetus instead of unborn child? We hear in these threads all of the time that it is just a clump of cells, not much different that removing a cancer from your body. It is at many times not referred to as abortion, but as "women's health care" or some other euphemism.

I think that just a distinction is necessary for the pro-choice side. If we hold that the unborn child is a life capable of being murdered, then any balancing test would clearly be against legal abortion. The right not to be murdered on one side would clearly outweigh nearly any inconvenience the woman suffers as a result of pregnancy.
This is not how I, a pro choice person, look at it. I recognize that I'm not typical in most of my beliefs, however. But a fetus can be a person, an unborn child, an embryo, and a "clumps of cells" all at the same time. It just so happens that one person, and one person only, has the right to say "you can't live inside my body anymore" and that's the person whose body is being lived in. Nobody else gets to tell her what can and can't live inside of her. That includes pissed off dads who wish she had made a different choice. If the person whose body a fetus is living in wants that fetus to continue living there and to be born and become a full fledged child, it's absolutely murder for anyone else to kill it.

I wouldn't even have a significant problem calling abortion murder as long as you recognize that the mother has the right to murder that particular individual at that particular time, because the alternative is that she doesn't have any autonomy or control over her own body. That doesn't make abortion a good thing, but it is a necessary thing sometimes, and thus should stay legal. And "murder" is an illegal killing. That's the main argument I have against calling abortion "murder". "Homicide" however, works.
  #65  
Old 10-15-2018, 12:19 PM
AHunter3 AHunter3 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NY (Manhattan) NY USA
Posts: 19,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by AHunter3
The question of whether or not this life is precious or disposable is hers
Is your life dependent on how much someone else values it?
Not since I was born, no.

I've known some moms whose attitude was "Look here son, I done brung you into this world and if you don't straighten up I'm gonna take you right back out of it, you hear me?"

But I think the moment of birth should end their authority to do that.
  #66  
Old 10-15-2018, 12:44 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
We DON'T protect life in the case of organ donation. We don't protect it in the case of blood or marrow donation. When a bunch of kids laughed and filmed a drowning man instead of calling 911, their right to spend their time as they pleased was put ahead of his right to life.

Just focus on organ donation: when we let people die because the corpse that contains the organ they need to survive belongs to someone who wants to bury it instead, how is that putting protecting life ahead of all other rights?
I do not think this analogy really works. In this case the passersby had nothing to do with the situation. They just happened to be there and had no legal obligation to intervene.

In the case of a woman's unborn child she put the unborn in that position. It would be more akin to hanging someone out an apartment window. If you did that, and let go the rope, claiming you are under no obligation to save the person is wrong. You put them in that position and if you let go and they die you murdered them.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 10-15-2018 at 12:46 PM.
  #67  
Old 10-15-2018, 12:45 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,115
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
I think the analogy breaks down because nobody thinks the crime would be against the kidney. It would always be against the person. However, in the case mentioned in the OP, the crime is against the fetus, not the woman.

The point of this thread is (I believe), should the crime be against the woman or the fetus? And, if you think it should be against the fetus, how do you square that with abortion rights?

As I mention upthread, I think this law is terrible and puts us on the path to fetal personhood laws, which would be a serious challenge to abortion rights. I think the appropriate law would be some sort of aggravated assault against the woman, and, if she's pregnant, I could see further punishment because of that. However, the crime should be against the woman since she's a person and the fetus isn't.
I hate to just post "agree" but this is the point very well made.


Here let's take it just one step farther. A couple had been trying to get pregnant and have a bunch of fertilized embryo stored. They divorce and the father breaks into the storage facility and destroys the embryos against the woman's wishes. Besides breaking and entering what crime has he committed?

The logic of calling the crime of the op attempted "homicide" would justify call this one homicide too, rather than destruction of property. Is it? Are you comfortable calling it that? Why or why not?
  #68  
Old 10-15-2018, 01:46 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Here let's take it just one step farther. A couple had been trying to get pregnant and have a bunch of fertilized embryo stored. They divorce and the father breaks into the storage facility and destroys the embryos against the woman's wishes. Besides breaking and entering what crime has he committed?

The logic of calling the crime of the op attempted "homicide" would justify call this one homicide too, rather than destruction of property. Is it? Are you comfortable calling it that? Why or why not?
Interestingly there is an effort to have those frozen embryos deemed persons with all the legal rights that entails. If they succeed then we would have to deem the accidents below a much greater tragedy than 9/11 (which is just weird).

Quote:
Over a single weekend in March, an unprecedented disaster hit fertility clinics—twice.

First came the news that the University Hospitals Fertility Center in Ohio, lost more than 4,000 eggs and embryos in a malfunctioning cryogenic tank. Then, in an unrelated incident, Pacific Fertility Center in California reported that liquid-nitrogen levels had fallen too low in a tank holding “several thousand” eggs and embryos, affecting an unconfirmed number.

<snip>

On Friday, as first reported by Courthouse News, Penniman’s lawyer, Bruce Taubman, filed a complaint asking the court to consider an embryo a person. The filing—which comes in addition to a class-action lawsuit already filed March 12 on behalf of Penniman and her husband, Rick—asks for a declaratory judgment that “the life of a person begins at the moment of conception” and “the legal status of an embryo is that of a person.”

SOURCE: Can Lost Embryos Give Rise to a Wrongful-Death Suit?
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 10-15-2018 at 01:47 PM.
  #69  
Old 10-15-2018, 01:51 PM
kayaker's Avatar
kayaker kayaker is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Western Pennsylvania
Posts: 30,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
On the other hand, every single person ever born has been in their mother's womb. To hold such a thing as "justifiable homicide" means that every person ever born has committed an act which they could legally be killed for. The exception becomes the rule.
Bolding mine.

Define "mother". There have been plenty of fertilized eggs introduced into the uterus of a woman acting as a surrogate, with zero genetic relationship to that fertilized egg.
  #70  
Old 10-15-2018, 03:23 PM
Manda JO Manda JO is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 10,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
I do not think this analogy really works. In this case the passersby had nothing to do with the situation. They just happened to be there and had no legal obligation to intervene.

In the case of a woman's unborn child she put the unborn in that position. It would be more akin to hanging someone out an apartment window. If you did that, and let go the rope, claiming you are under no obligation to save the person is wrong. You put them in that position and if you let go and they die you murdered them.
One, a lot of women get pregnant through no choice of their own.

Two, how long do you have to hold that rope? Pregnancy is life-threatening. We don't compel parents to donate blood or bone marrow to their kids. We don't compel anyone to donate organs. Why do those rights trump the right of another to live?
  #71  
Old 10-15-2018, 04:09 PM
Annie-Xmas Annie-Xmas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 49,652
Davis v. Davis

To sum it up: A divorcing couple with frozen embryos. She wanted to carry them to term, he wanted them destroyed. The final court battle ended up with them being destroyed.
  #72  
Old 10-15-2018, 04:33 PM
Filbert Filbert is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 4,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
I do not think this analogy really works. In this case the passersby had nothing to do with the situation. They just happened to be there and had no legal obligation to intervene.

In the case of a woman's unborn child she put the unborn in that position. It would be more akin to hanging someone out an apartment window. If you did that, and let go the rope, claiming you are under no obligation to save the person is wrong. You put them in that position and if you let go and they die you murdered them.
That's a terrible analogy; 'She put the unborn in that position?' No, they came into being in that position, and that is the only position they can survive in. It's not like fetuses are just chilling out somewhere and women grab 'em, shove 'em in their uteri, then claim the right to choose. If that happened, then you might claim that she put them in that position.

A fetus' only chance of survival is through using its mother's body and organs, and in every other situation, people can decide not to allow others the use of their body or organs, even if the person in need of an organ is a minor child of the potential donor, who had made exactly the same choice to bring them into being as the hypothetical pregnant woman. We even allow people to decide that a dead person's right to their organs is greater than a live one's, even in that situation. Why should an unborn person be different? Why should their right to use another's body be greater than that of an unarguable person, who's born, breathing, and needs a kidney from a dead person to live?
  #73  
Old 10-15-2018, 04:37 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot Buck Godot is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riemann View Post
The strict pro life position seems to be straightforward. The consistent position would logically be:
mother gets an abortion = murder of the child
OP crime = murder of the child and assault on the mother

From a pro choice position, at first glance then the consistent position seems to be:
mother gets an abortion = no crime
OP crime = assault on the mother

But that's wrong. The pro choice position does not stem from a belief that a fetus should not have rights, but from a belief that the right of the mother to bodily autonomy supersedes the any rights that the fetus might have. In general, the pro choice position does not explore what rights the fetus should have absent a mother, since the situation doesn't arise. But that's really what we're asking in the OP scenario. In a sense, it's similar to the need for the pro choice position to explore the rights of an early-stage fetus when we have the technology to grow a baby in a synthetic womb. ...
From the personal autonomy point of view the analogy might be

mother gets an abortion = Mother kills intruder in her apartment (not guilty by castle doctrine)
OP crime = Father kills guest that mother has welcomed into her apartment (Murder)

Last edited by Buck Godot; 10-15-2018 at 04:38 PM.
  #74  
Old 10-15-2018, 05:08 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
One, a lot of women get pregnant through no choice of their own.
Of all the parties involved only one has zero control of its circumstances (both in how it got there and its ultimate fate).
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #75  
Old 10-15-2018, 05:12 PM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink Thudlow Boink is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 25,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
From the personal autonomy point of view the analogy might be

mother gets an abortion = Mother kills intruder in her apartment (not guilty by castle doctrine)
If you're going to pursue this analogy, keep in mind that it takes more than someone just being in your home before you're legally and morally allowed to kill them. (If you don't agree, remind me never to come to any parties at your house.)
  #76  
Old 10-15-2018, 06:05 PM
Manda JO Manda JO is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 10,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Of all the parties involved only one has zero control of its circumstances (both in how it got there and its ultimate fate).
So? Do you support forcing parents to donate blood or bone marrow to their kids?

If I agree to donate a kidney to you,but at the last minute, I change my mind, I haven't done anything illegal. Even if you die as a result--because you were taken off the anonymous donor list--I haven't done anything illegal.

If I agree to donate a life-saving kidney to you in the event of my death, die, and then my husband decides he's uncomfortable with the situation, it's not a crime for him to stop the donation--it's his absolute right. This is true even if you are my kid.

If I've agreed to give you a kidney and then change my mind, are you comfortable with the state having me strapped to a table and forcibly cutting it out? Because forcing me to have a baby would be exactly that.
  #77  
Old 10-15-2018, 07:09 PM
DigitalC DigitalC is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Obamatopia
Posts: 10,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Yet, in an absurd way, the law also recognizes that the woman may have an abortion, which is an attempt to kill the child, yet she has a constitutional right to do so.
An abortion is denying another person the use of your body, in no other circumstance do we consider this murder. Someone trying to kill you is murder, someone refusing to give you a kidney to save your life is not. I don't see the disconnect.
  #78  
Old 10-15-2018, 07:23 PM
cmkeller's Avatar
cmkeller cmkeller is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: New York, NY, USA
Posts: 13,095
Manda Jo:

Quote:
If I've agreed to give you a kidney and then change my mind, are you comfortable with the state having me strapped to a table and forcibly cutting it out? Because forcing me to have a baby would be exactly that.
What if the other person already has your kidney, and then afterward you regret it and say you want it back?

Because in the case of the fetus, it's not being denied your body in the first place, it's already in there and you're looking to revoke the access it already gained.
  #79  
Old 10-15-2018, 07:23 PM
kanicbird kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 18,939
If you murder a person that is sentenced to be executed you have committed murder, even if the state would have legally ordered someone to kill him at a later time. Same thing here, the woman has a legal right to kill (or ordered killed by a person with proper medical training), however if you go and do something to kill her unborn child you have committed murder. Morally killing does not equate to murder which has a legal and a separate but semi-related moral definition.
  #80  
Old 10-15-2018, 08:46 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 20,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmkeller View Post
What if the other person already has your kidney, and then afterward you regret it and say you want it back?
If you're still using and depending on the kidney that the other person now also has access to, I'd say that would considerably affect the question of whether you should be forced to allow the other person to continue using it.
  #81  
Old 10-15-2018, 09:03 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie-Xmas View Post
Davis v. Davis

To sum it up: A divorcing couple with frozen embryos. She wanted to carry them to term, he wanted them destroyed. The final court battle ended up with them being destroyed.
Thank you for that but how do we square the difference between the op circumstance and my hypothetical in light of that?

In one a woman is assaulted in order to destroy the entity within her to prevent that entity from becoming a fully formed human and that attempted destruction is called attempted homicide.

In the other a building is broken into and entered with in order to destroy similar entities to prevent any of them from becoming fully formed humans.

Destruction of those entities is otherwise allowed when not part of another separate crime.


Defining this crime as homicide validates the perspective of those against abortion rights. It defines the entity in question as a person. It frames discussion in the way it is being framed here, with defenses of why it is okay to kill a person in the context of abortion.

Fetal or even embryonic personhood is something the anti-abortion crowd would love to have be the frame. A debate about what right one person has to live, to continue to exist, and how much that trumps another person's rights to something less existential as life itself? That the anti-Choice frame of discussion. I do not accept that frame.
  #82  
Old 10-15-2018, 11:12 PM
Chisquirrel Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink View Post
If you're going to pursue this analogy, keep in mind that it takes more than someone just being in your home before you're legally and morally allowed to kill them. (If you don't agree, remind me never to come to any parties at your house.)
You mean like someone illegally entering your home with criminal intent? Are you trying to imply that intruders and party guests are equivalent?
  #83  
Old 10-16-2018, 12:44 AM
Isamu Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 5,820
They have a lot of counselling hours ahead of them if they are going to make it as a couple.
  #84  
Old 10-16-2018, 12:53 AM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 8,562
Ok, I'm going to be the one to say it: Yes it was an appalling crime and should carry a heavy sentence. But I'm not sure that a charge of "murder" makes sense, and also I do think there should be different degrees to such crimes.
I know this opens up a can of worms but that seems unavoidable to me.

Calling a fertilized egg a "person" sure makes things simple, and I think this kind of sentence is also trying to take the simple route (and since no-one is going to lose sleep over some jerk getting an overly-long sentence, it pretty much puts the matter to bed). But in reality, I don't think things are so simple.
If a guy were to, say, have consensual sex with a woman, and the next day, slip the morning-after pill into her breakfast...yes, it's a crime, a crime against the woman. But it's just not the same as murdering someone's child.

ETA: Obviously the situation in the OP is of course much worse than the morning-after pill hypothetical, as the perpetrator knows he's ending a life. It's just for illustration.

Last edited by Mijin; 10-16-2018 at 12:56 AM.
  #85  
Old 10-16-2018, 04:54 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 13,969
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCube View Post
This is not how I, a pro choice person, look at it. I recognize that I'm not typical in most of my beliefs, however. But a fetus can be a person, an unborn child, an embryo, and a "clumps of cells" all at the same time. It just so happens that one person, and one person only, has the right to say "you can't live inside my body anymore" and that's the person whose body is being lived in. Nobody else gets to tell her what can and can't live inside of her. That includes pissed off dads who wish she had made a different choice. If the person whose body a fetus is living in wants that fetus to continue living there and to be born and become a full fledged child, it's absolutely murder for anyone else to kill it.

I wouldn't even have a significant problem calling abortion murder as long as you recognize that the mother has the right to murder that particular individual at that particular time, because the alternative is that she doesn't have any autonomy or control over her own body. That doesn't make abortion a good thing, but it is a necessary thing sometimes, and thus should stay legal. And "murder" is an illegal killing. That's the main argument I have against calling abortion "murder". "Homicide" however, works.
This merely begs the question. If it is indeed murder; if we stipulate that for the purposes of discussion, then that casts serious doubt on the "you can't live inside my body anymore" position.

Let's leave aside the argument that the fetus/child was "invited" into the womb because any reasonable woman knows that sexual intercourse may lead to pregnancy. I'm not trying to turn this into a pro-life argument.

But with every law, we do a balancing of harms analysis. If I can drive 100mph I get to my destination quicker. However, driving at such a speed increases the risk of injury to others. So society looks at both interests and say that my interests in getting somewhere faster is lesser than the risk I pose to others. Therefore, it is illegal to drive at 100mph.

If we look at the interests of pregnant women as noted above: the right to autonomy, to control reproductive decisions, to be free from health risks, etc. then the right of a "clump of cells" or a "potential life" but not life, may very well take a back seat to the woman's interests. But if we say, as this law does, that it would be "murder" to kill the fetus/child, that tips the scales. That is what the OP i(who is admittedly pro-choice) is concerned about. I share his concern with the internal consistency of the law.
  #86  
Old 10-16-2018, 07:18 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
...
If we look at the interests of pregnant women as noted above: the right to autonomy, to control reproductive decisions, to be free from health risks, etc. then the right of a "clump of cells" or a "potential life" but not life, may very well take a back seat to the woman's interests. But if we say, as this law does, that it would be "murder" to kill the fetus/child, that tips the scales. That is what the OP i(who is admittedly pro-choice) is concerned about. I share his concern with the internal consistency of the law.
Nitpick: I don't think anyone disagrees that a fetus is a life or alive. I'm not sure where you get that from. I think the disagreement (for some people) is whether it's a person with rights. "Potential person" not "potential life".

Anyway, you're a lawyer -- can you take a look at the article and relevant law and tell us whether this is classified as murder or homicide or what? Is it some degree of murder and it's just called homicide in that state or is it some other kind of crime specific to homicides? Do those questions even make sense from a legal perspective?
  #87  
Old 10-16-2018, 08:33 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,115
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
Nitpick: I don't think anyone disagrees that a fetus is a life or alive. ...
Wellll ... "alive" yes, "a life"... no. I do not consider automatically consider an embryo or early fetus "a life."
  #88  
Old 10-16-2018, 08:35 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Wellll ... "alive" yes, "a life"... no. I do not consider automatically consider an embryo or early fetus "a life."
OK, fair enough. Agreed.
  #89  
Old 10-16-2018, 08:40 PM
Scathach Scathach is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 780
Thought experiment: Imagine a cryogenic freezing chamber where people have paid money to freeze themselves after they die in the hope that in the future medicine will advance. If someone pushes over a cryogenic freezing tube is it murder?

Does it make a difference if just as it happened a scientist announced publically that they had found a way to bring the frozen people back to life?
  #90  
Old 10-17-2018, 09:38 AM
Annie-Xmas Annie-Xmas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 49,652
If killing s fetus is murder, should we investigate every miscarriage? What if the woman drank some wine or coffee, or "thought bad thoughts" about the fetus?
  #91  
Old 10-17-2018, 12:37 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 13,969
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scathach View Post
Thought experiment: Imagine a cryogenic freezing chamber where people have paid money to freeze themselves after they die in the hope that in the future medicine will advance. If someone pushes over a cryogenic freezing tube is it murder?

Does it make a difference if just as it happened a scientist announced publically that they had found a way to bring the frozen people back to life?
I am not sure if you are asking what the law is or what it should be. If it is what the law is, then it is not murder, perhaps desecration of a grave, but not murder because you cannot kill a dead person.

Now, if this becomes popular and people in legislatures are demanding protection, the Human Cryo Rights Act of 2087 could be enacted and declare that the frozen people are not dead, but alive and have rights.

More to the spirit of the OP would be if the law said that, for example, a family member could dispose of the frozen person without penalty, but if a stranger did it it would be murder. One would then ask, as the OP did, well how can it be murder for one person but not another?
  #92  
Old 10-17-2018, 08:06 PM
TruCelt's Avatar
TruCelt TruCelt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Near Washington, DC
Posts: 10,904
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mijin View Post
Ok, I'm going to be the one to say it: Yes it was an appalling crime and should carry a heavy sentence. But I'm not sure that a charge of "murder" makes sense, and also I do think there should be different degrees to such crimes.
. . .
Again:

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruCelt View Post
The charge is not "murder." The charge, according to your link, is " . . . attempted first-degree intentional homicide of an unborn child . . .". This would seem to refer to a statute which is specific to unborn children.

. . .
Here's a summary of the existing US laws.

Last edited by TruCelt; 10-17-2018 at 08:08 PM.
  #93  
Old 10-22-2018, 12:33 PM
BwanaBob's Avatar
BwanaBob BwanaBob is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Maryland
Posts: 3,924
Let's create a new crime, call it "gestational interference".
It's a felony, not sure what class.
Anyone who does something like what this guy did (except the actual pregnant woman) gets charged with violating this statute.
Leave murder out of it.
Done.
__________________
Go wherever you can be
And live for the day
It's only wear and tear
-IQ

Last edited by BwanaBob; 10-22-2018 at 12:33 PM.
  #94  
Old 10-22-2018, 12:39 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT BigT is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 35,060
Nothing about the crime says it is a crime against the fetus. It simply says the crime is killing the fetus. That can still be a crime against the mother, treating the fetus as belonging to her.

This crime is more specific than assault, and likely has a higher punishment. So no need to go after assault charges.
  #95  
Old 10-22-2018, 02:08 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 17,549
In many ancient societies, e.g. the Roman Republic, a parent had the right to kill his or her own child, but it would be murder for someone else to kill it. There is some logic to such practices, though most people, insisting on seeing all as black-or-white, won't agree.

I'm happy to accept that a foetus is an intermediate form of human, which its mother has the right to kill during its first six months.
  #96  
Old 10-23-2018, 09:29 AM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 8,562
Quote:
Originally Posted by TruCelt View Post
The charge is not "murder." The charge, according to your link, is " . . . attempted first-degree intentional homicide of an unborn child . . .". This would seem to refer to a statute which is specific to unborn children.
I'm not really sure what kind of important distinction you think you're making. Murder is (one kind of) homicide. And "unborn child" does seem to implicitly be taken here to be as important and grievous a crime as attempting to kill a person, hence the lengthy sentence.

If your point is that omitting "attempted" and calling it the strongest kind of homicide makes it sound more serious a crime than it was judged to be...that only lends weight to what I was saying about the sentence being too harsh.

Last edited by Mijin; 10-23-2018 at 09:30 AM.
  #97  
Old 10-23-2018, 10:49 PM
TruCelt's Avatar
TruCelt TruCelt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Near Washington, DC
Posts: 10,904
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mijin View Post
I'm not really sure what kind of important distinction you think you're making. Murder is (one kind of) homicide. And "unborn child" does seem to implicitly be taken here to be as important and grievous a crime as attempting to kill a person, hence the lengthy sentence.

If your point is that omitting "attempted" and calling it the strongest kind of homicide makes it sound more serious a crime than it was judged to be...that only lends weight to what I was saying about the sentence being too harsh.
My point is that there would seem to be a statute specific to this crime. Which means that all the equivalencies being drawn to murder charges are false equivalencies.
  #98  
Old 10-23-2018, 11:41 PM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 8,562
Quote:
Originally Posted by TruCelt View Post
My point is that there would seem to be a statute specific to this crime. Which means that all the equivalencies being drawn to murder charges are false equivalencies.
I just used the word "murder" because "homicide" was in the charge and the sentence is of a scale typical for attempted murder.

But I don't actually care whether we're calling it "murder", "zygoticide" or "electric boogaloo". My point was about whether the punishment fit the crime and whether part of the reason was because of the US' still very religious culture.
  #99  
Old 10-23-2018, 11:55 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by TruCelt View Post
My point is that there would seem to be a statute specific to this crime. Which means that all the equivalencies being drawn to murder charges are false equivalencies.
Why?

The statute fiddles with names and definitions but in the end it is prosecuted and sentenced as a grievous crime. Not many things come with a 22 year jail sentence. Hell...you can find lots of people convicted of murder sentenced to less time.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #100  
Old 10-26-2018, 03:49 PM
Dangerosa Dangerosa is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 22,210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink View Post
That doesn't explain away the disconnect. Are there any other cases where it's someone other than the victim who gives or withholds consent?

Who's the victim here? If this is a crime against the woman, then "attempted homicide" isn't the appropriate charge, because she's not the one he was attempting to kill. If it's a crime against the unborn child, then consent isn't an issue; fetuses don't consent to abortions.
Sure, if I'm the parent and I give consent for you to take my child to the park, its ok. If you take my child to the park and I haven't given consent, its kidnapping. Until a fetus is born, it has one guardian, the person carrying it.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:46 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017