Spite: Read some of H4E’s postings on this board. That’ll tell you where her position lies.
Sorry, but your so-called baby DOES morph. It’s called development of the human body. It’s not done by any magic, but by switching on distinct sets of genes. I’d bet a month’s salary you would have trouble to tell a dog embryo from a human embryo. Why? Because at that stage, embryos have more in common with each other, regardless of species, than with an actual baby/pup/etc -because before you deal with individuality, you gotta have the basics down. Without actually having a heart etc, bothering about the species is kinda moot, except for size issues.
These two things are not necessarily connected. I have, perhaps even on this board, drawn comparisons between the unborn and parasites, and I am pro-life. A parasite is something living in you that survives by stealing nutrients from you, and that’s what a unborn baby does; such an attractive summation might explain my lack of desire to become pregnant… What I find strange is that someone would consider it a parasite and still claim it’s part of the woman’s body since by definition a parasite isn’t. (although the argument could be made that we’re free to take whatever measures necessary to rid ourselves from parasites, but it’s still a strange reach. OTOH, perhaps I’m hypocrital for having treated my dog for heartworm after the preventive pills failed to keep her from becoming infested in them- wishing rights for one sort of parasite but not another. how sticky)
In regards to the OP, I do consider this eight-month-old fetus, and all other eight-month-old fetuses, to be people worthy of prosocuting a murder charge for. Before that…I don’t feel comfortable with blanket statements regarding fetal murder charges until the baby is viable outside the womb. Before viabilty? I can’t see applying it unless the murderer could be proven to know she was pregnant. YMMV
My opinion is that God considers it a “person” at 6 weeks gestation, the law doesn’t.
I’m more likely to think God knows than the law.
How about a month’s salary for a geneticist? They (baby/pup/etc) are already individual at conception by such basics as DNA; before the heart, size, etc.
[rant]I wouldn’t have any problem knowing the difference between a dog embryo from a human embryo; the dog embryo is the one in the dog, and the human embryo is the one in the human! To remove them out of their respective uteruses to give me a pop quiz in an attempt to dehumanize the human embryo by saying, “Gee, they look the same, maybe we should view human embryos and dog embryos the same, therefore we can treat them the same.” The same as what? Dogs or Humans?[/rant]
I don’t see any point to compare a dog and human embryo, just knowing that a human woman carries a human fetus is all I need to know.
Although I may disagree as to when God considers “it” a person, I agree that He is the one qualified and who has the authority to decide rather than the law of man.
How did you arrive at the time of six weeks?
I think this is an excellent point. If it’s legal and obviously not considered murder by the courts for a woman to abort her three month old fetus, why should it be considered murder for someone else to destroy the same fetus?
You would better describe the law of California if you said that the Legislature does not consider it murder if a fetus is aborted in a manner that complies with the law of California. The courts, then, don’t consider it murder because of the wording of the statute.
Still, this is consistent. It should be considered illegal because no one but a mother and her doctor should be able to end the existence of the fetus.
I never wrote that it shouldn’t be considered illegal for someone to kill a woman’s fetus without her concent, just that it shouldn’t be considered murder, if it’s not considered murder when the woman who is bearing the fetus kills it.
If you believe the Bible is God’s word, God has spoken on how much he values unborn life:
Exodus 21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart [from her], and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges [determine].
Punishment for killing an unborn child? A monetary fine.
One could just as easily argue the converse… namely, if it’s murder for someone else to destroy the fetus, then it’s murder for the pregnant woman to do the same. That is, if we are to base the decisions on empirical data, rather than just the “feelings” of the mother.
I agree JThunder. It should either murder to kill a fetus or it should not murder to kill a fetus. It shouldn’t matter one bit who does it.
Punishment for killing an unborn child? A monetary fine.
What 'life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, would for wound, bruise for bruise" implies, of course - restitution.
Nothing in that passage speaks about the death of the child. In fact, the original Hebrew shows that it refers to premature birth, rather than the death of the fetus.
There are a lot of pre-mature babies walking around.
Since California doesn’t condone the death penalty anymore, is not one proven, pre-meditated murder enough to put the guy away?
Wasn’t Manson charged with all the murders in the Tate/LaBianca case?
**
False. a)Twins can separate several days after conception.
b)Genetic differences are NOT sufficient to define an individual. Otherwise a tumor, being genetically distinct from the host, is an individual.
c)Due to acquired mutations over the course of a human life, an old geezer is likely to be genetically distinct from when he was a baby. Are those two different individuals?
d)What matters for the present state of a being is a)genes that are currently active and b)genes that have been previously turned on. Anything else has no influence whatsoever on a being. The genes currently turned on in an embryo have little in common with the genes turned on in a baby, let alone an adult human.
Ah. So an IVF embryo is not a human by measure of it not being inside a human womb? And if some sicko put a chimp embryo inside a woman, that would be a human embryo for you?
Um, please pay attention to your quoting. I didn’t make that point, I quoted it.
IIRC, I believe I’m the one who made that quoted statement.
Pardon the cut 'n paste, but it fits right in with this discussion:
The American justice system was founded on the principle of fairness and equal justice through the unique concept of the Rule of Law. Are we now willing to abandon this noble principal in favor of the emotional feel-good-ism that can be attained through what could be described as arbitrary law?
In my local area, we have a young man charged with homicide for accidentally causing the demise of a fetus. Yes, the young man’s actions were careless, stupid and even idiotic. Yes, he was acting in complete disregard for the safety and welfare of others and a severe punishment is certainly warranted, but to charge this man with homicide is to abandon the primary tenet on which our system of jurisprudence was founded.
Any dictionary one refers to will define “homicide” as the killing of one human being by another. Contemporary legal precedents have determined that fetuses do not enjoy the legal status of human beings. Fetuses are destroyed, killed or terminated on a daily basis out of mere convenience. To sanction the willful destroying of a fetus in one instance and label it “freedom of choice” and punish the accidental destroying of a fetus in another instance and label it “homicide” is repugnant to the rule of law and is more closely akin to the tyranny of rule by decree.
No matter how you spin it, two different legal statuses for the same entity cannot be reconciled in an honest and fair judicial system. It is only compatible with the tyranny of Rule-by-Decree.