[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Sure, i’d agree with that. But we don’t make laws based on emotions (or at least, that’s the idea). Is it ok to steal something if the owner has no emotional attachment? Would it be acceptable to kill someone that no-one cares about - or someone all people actually hate? No, it wouldn’t. We say that all people have an equal worth, and so barring self-defence or other variables the killer of a loved person will be tried under the same law as the killer of a hated person, and (ideally) given the same sentence. Since when does it? Your hypothetical where sentencing depends on the mother’s opinion isn’t law.
I wouldn’t say no value; after all, that something is being destroyed is beyond doubt, and there will be injuries; so with this some value, assault is an excellent charge.
[/QUOTE]
As I said, I was attempting to be sarscastic…you are right, it makes no sense whatsoever. I was trying to make a point that, where abortion is concerned, the mother’s emotion IS the deciding factor whether the fetus lives or dies. So, why shouldn’t it be that way with the murder charge, as well? As far as I’m concerned, none of it makes logical sense.
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
As I said, I was attempting to be sarscastic…you are right, it makes no sense whatsoever. I was trying to make a point that, where abortion is concerned, the mother’s emotion IS the deciding factor whether the fetus lives or dies. So, why shouldn’t it be that way with the murder charge, as well? As far as I’m concerned, none of it makes logical sense.
[/QUOTE]
Ah, there’s a flaw in your comparison. The mother’s belief certainly is what means whether the fetus lives or dies, but her belief is not what gives her the option under law. An anti-abortionist is just as able to have an abortion as a pro-abortionist is. Obviously they’re much less likely to take up that option, but the point is that abortion law does not change on what the individual mother thinks, but on what society as a whole thinks. Thus, having murder depend on what society thinks and not what the mother thinks is perfectly logical and consistent.
Weirddave and Sarahfeena are both right: laws defining the killing of an unborn child as murder co-existing with laws that permit abortion creates an incoherent set of regulations. The fact that these are codified in law means, of course, that both are perfectly legal definitions. That doesn’t mean it isn’t schizophrenic.
Quick- Quickening is an older term referring to the time of gestation when a mother can feel the baby move while in utero. Typically around 17-20 weeks until delivery.
[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
Perhaps they could find a way to make it a crime for “forced abortion/miscarriage”, or what have you?
[/QUOTE]
They should, and it should be defined as a crime against the woman, and it should carry a heavy felony penalty, something more formidable than aggravated assault for instance.