- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: I still would love to know why killing a pregnant woman is two counts of murder
Posted on 6/24/22 at 3:21 pm to Fells
Posted on 6/24/22 at 3:21 pm to Fells
quote:But you think you can be charged with the murder of something that is not a not person?
That's where your confusion is. A fetus is not a person. A person is defined by a brain, so a fetus, lacking the physical infrastructure necessary to have a "self", cannot achieve personhood.
quote:So...a fetus doesn't have a brain?
A fetus is not a person. A person is defined by a brain
This post was edited on 6/24/22 at 3:23 pm
0
Posted on 6/24/22 at 3:24 pm to AggieHank86
quote:None were logical
Provided by three different posters in this very thread.
Posted on 6/24/22 at 3:31 pm to Green Chili Tiger
quote:Justice for tonsils!!!
While we're answering this, can we also answer why if you go to the doctor and have your tonsils removed it's perfectly fine, but if I grab you on the street and remove your tonsils against your will I end up in prison?
My Mom used to clip my nails for me when I was a baby, your post has made me see the same light, I'm thinking of pressing charges on her for this, she deserves prison for doing that to my nails!
Posted on 6/24/22 at 3:33 pm to AggieHank86
quote:What specifically does in your opinion regarding humans?
Being "alive" does not vest legal rights
quote:Again, what does? Be specific in your answer.
No, he doesn't. He says that both are alive, yet SoCons think that one has legal rights and the other does not. Therefore, mere "life" is clearly NOT the factor which confers those rights.
Posted on 6/24/22 at 3:42 pm to DawgsLife
quote:Once legal rights vest, they can be removed only thru the exercise of due process. Thus, you could not legally kill a comatose person without due process (or some sort of advance directive, but that is a distinct question).
He is clearly referencing "higher brain function," like cognition, even if he did not phrase it well.quote:
Okay. And what about people who have had accidents and are in a coma? Kill them? They do not have higher brain functions.
SHOULD a court have jurisdiction to make that sort of order, even WITH due process? That is an interesting question, but one beyond the scope of this thread.
quote:That is a two-prong question. Philosophically, you could certainly argue that even a newborn or young toddler might not qualify, but most people (me included) would have a visceral problem with such a regimen. Legally, you just find a point at which less than half the population (or the legislature anyway) has that visceral reaction. By definition, that point will be rather arbitrary ... just as 70mph (rather than 72mph) is a rather arbitrary point for determining a safe speed.
At what point do they achieve "suitable" brain function?
Personally, I think you pick a point at which there is CLEARLY no real higher brain function (your post says it starts at 25 weeks), and then you move back from that point "just to be safe." Somewhere in the 16-20 week range seems reasonable to me.
quote:I want to see this steer that managed to produce offspring!
a steer can ... protect its young.
This post was edited on 6/24/22 at 4:43 pm
Posted on 6/24/22 at 3:58 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:In general, I oppose the practice of making one act constitute multiple criminal violations. This is one of the several reasons that I dislike "hate crime" legislation. (e.g. one charge for the assault and a second charge for the motivation).
But, I'm asking you, AggieHank - you're writing the statute for fetal homicide. First, do you believe such an act should ever be criminal?
For this reason and others, I personally would NOT make "fetal homicide" a separate criminal offense. Instead, I would make it a penalty enhancement for the crime of the assault on the pregnant woman.
quote:There is no legal NEED to define a victim, so I don't see a real need to do so. To some extent, it could be "society." To some extent, the pregnant woman. After a certain point in gestation, one COULD argue that the fetus is a "victim," but that opens a can of worms as to what rights a fetus should have and when. Probate rights? etcetera.
If so, who is the victim?
Just as an example, assume that Jack has a net worth of $500 million, is single and has no kids. He has a sister who he loves very much. Jack has a one-night-stand with Jill, and Jill turns up preggers. Jack gets into an accident and dies intestate. Hypothetical intestacy law says that his children take his estate, not his siblings. This would mean that the unborn fetus becomes his heir, if we grant inheritance rights to a fetus.
Jill gets injured in a robbery, and the fetus dies. Hypothetical intestacy law says that a person who dies without issue leaves his estate to his surviving parent(s). Net effect if we give probate rights to a fetus? Jack's $500 million does NOT go to his sister, but rather to Jill.
That is the sort of complication that can arise if you start giving legal rights to a fetus.
Posted on 6/24/22 at 4:41 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
That is the sort of complication that can arise if you start giving legal rights to a fetus.
Although mundane and ultimately trivial property rights do sort of pale in the shadow of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, I think we'd all agree.
Just this sticking point over when life begins. Certainly you would agree we were all people at some point before birth, wouldn't you?
Posted on 6/24/22 at 4:51 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:You get so many people using loose language on these topics. I think that "life" begins with the first cellular mitosis of that zygote. It is clearly biological activity. I don't care one whit about "life." Everything I ate today was once "life," killed for my benefit or convenience.
this sticking point over when life begins.
To me, the question is one of the vesting of rights. What sort of organism is ENTITLED to legal rights? Why? When?
quote:Philosophically, not necessarily so. I tend to agree with Descartes ("I think, therefore I am") as to when a living organism becomes PHILOSOPHICALLY a "person."
Certainly you would agree we were all people at some point before birth, wouldn't you?
Legally, I am not the sort of pedant who insists that all rights must vest at the same time. I have no problem with vesting POSITIVE rights at birth (e.g. the inheritance rights discussed above), but vesting limited NEGATIVE rights (e.g. the right not to be killed without cause) at some point prior to birth. But the vesting of such a negative right need not promote a fetus to the status of a "person."
Posted on 6/24/22 at 5:10 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
As an example, a 16-week fetus has far less higher brain function than the steer killed for tonight's steak dinner. Neither is philosophically a "person."
This is the issue I have with these laws. For legal purposes, fetal homicides confer 2 counts of homicide. I'm not sure how any legal document could construe that as anything but 2 "people." It seems, therefore, that the effective message being sent is that a fetus is legally considered a person as long as it is not the mother making the determination whether or not to kill it.
Posted on 6/24/22 at 5:11 pm to shel311
I'll give it a try. There are two ways to answer your question. First, which may seem sarcastic, is because that is just how some states defined it. There isn't uniformity in the definition, and the definitions are made for very narrow purposes. For instance, CA specifically mentions "fetus" Cal. Penal Code § 187 (a); Alabama defines "person," for the purpose of criminal homicide or assaults, to include an unborn child in utero; Ala. Code § 13A-6-1 Alaska discusses unborn children. Alaska. Stat. § 11.41.150 et seq.,
This first answer does have some enhanced meaning. Definitions are used only in their context. Person can include corporations in some laws, and only biological humans in others, etc. So the most fundamental answer is that its an act of coding.
Nevertheless, that isn't the answer you are seeking. You are asking how those two situations can be logically consistent. There is always a logical problem in any explanation of something that has facial absurdity, but any attempt on a logical explanation may depend on which state we analyze. First, the states that are likely to retain abortion rights will not use the word "person". They will be like CA and define a specific offense for a fetus. States that are likely to restrict abortion, may use the term person. They may even seek to define the unborn child as a person in all contexts. You could even have the argument progression that you have seen here that makes a good case that in those circumstances, the unborn child is a person and subject to the homicide statutes.
However, up until now, it would have been a "justified homicide" because the Supreme Court told us that a mother had a right to terminate her pregnancy. That may change. I expect the law will be more clear about different penalties in those situations.
Thoughts?
This first answer does have some enhanced meaning. Definitions are used only in their context. Person can include corporations in some laws, and only biological humans in others, etc. So the most fundamental answer is that its an act of coding.
Nevertheless, that isn't the answer you are seeking. You are asking how those two situations can be logically consistent. There is always a logical problem in any explanation of something that has facial absurdity, but any attempt on a logical explanation may depend on which state we analyze. First, the states that are likely to retain abortion rights will not use the word "person". They will be like CA and define a specific offense for a fetus. States that are likely to restrict abortion, may use the term person. They may even seek to define the unborn child as a person in all contexts. You could even have the argument progression that you have seen here that makes a good case that in those circumstances, the unborn child is a person and subject to the homicide statutes.
However, up until now, it would have been a "justified homicide" because the Supreme Court told us that a mother had a right to terminate her pregnancy. That may change. I expect the law will be more clear about different penalties in those situations.
Thoughts?
Posted on 6/24/22 at 5:25 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
That is a two-prong question. Philosophically, you could certainly argue that even a newborn or young toddler might not qualify, but most people (me included) would have a visceral problem with such a regimen. Legally, you just find a point at which less than half the population (or the legislature anyway) has that visceral reaction.
So if half the population decides that anything goes, then anything goes? Majority rules? We now decide who lives and dies based upon societal morals which change on a whim?
If so, then when half the people decide that legal rights are lost when a person is no longer sentient do we just kill them?
quote:So the preciousness of life is now on the same plane as the speed limit? If society decides that a kid can be killed at age 5 then that is ok?
just as 70mph (rather than 72mph) is a rather arbitrary point for determining a safe speed.
The argument is being made now that society should not intervene on a woman's body...at what point do we say a baby has a right to its body?
quote:
a steer can ... protect its young.
I want to see this steer that managed to produce offspring!
Yeah. Brain went on holiday.
Posted on 6/24/22 at 5:27 pm to dukkbill
quote:This too will seem sarcastic, but ...
You are asking how those two situations can be logically consistent.
When you find a civil or criminal code that is even remotely "internally consistent," I ask that you send me a link immediately, because it is truly a freak of nature.
A legal code is drafted over centuries, by vastly different people with vastly different backgrounds and motivations. Expecting those things to be consistent between a statute drafted by a GOP-dominated chamber in 2017 and a statute drafted by a Dem-dominated chamber in 1952 is just ridiculous.
Posted on 6/24/22 at 5:30 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
You get so many people using loose language on these topics. I think that "life" begins with the first cellular mitosis of that zygote. It is clearly biological activity. I don't care one whit about "life." Everything I ate today was once "life," killed for my benefit or convenience.
This last statement, then I am out of this conversation. You are equating human life with plant life? Animal life?
quote:At conception. Human life begins at that point and does not stop changing, growing, living and then eventually dying from that point on. It is an endless cycle of life.
To me, the question is one of the vesting of rights. What sort of organism is ENTITLED to legal rights? Why? When?
Posted on 6/24/22 at 5:36 pm to DawgsLife
quote:That is the nature of a democracy in general. We are a constitutional republic, meaning that the whim of the majority is tempered somewhat by the explicit terms of a Constitution. The problem is that OUR Constitution does not explicitly confer "personhood" at any given point. To the contrary, it seems clear to me that Constitutional rights vest at birth.
So if half the population decides that anything goes, then anything goes? Majority rules? We now decide who lives and dies based upon societal morals which change on a whim?
quote:Our Constitution DOES help here, in that the majority cannot just kill someone without due process.
If so, then when half the people decide that legal rights are lost when a person is no longer sentient do we just kill them?
quote:Up till this point, you seemed to be smarter than this, so I will assume that you are being hyperbolic. I just said that picking 16 weeks or 20 weeks is JUST AS ARBITRARY as 70mph vs 72mph.
So the preciousness of life is now on the same plane as the speed limit?
I think you know that.
quote:Again, our Constitution seems to help here. It seems clear that the Founders intended for Constitutional protections (including due process) to apply to all living people. Abortion opponents want to extend that back in time to include fetuses, and there just isn't any textual support for that position.
If society decides that a kid can be killed at age 5 then that is ok?
quote:Nice to talk with someone who has a sense of humor.
I want to see this steer that managed to produce offspring!quote:
Yeah. Brain went on holiday.
Posted on 6/24/22 at 5:40 pm to DawgsLife
quote:Aaaarrrrgggghhh.
This last statement, then I am out of this conversation. You are equating human life with plant life? Animal life?
No. I am saying that those things are also ALIVE, so the mere fact of "life" is clearly not the key factor in vesting rights. Otherwise, you would be insisting that barley and pigs have legal rights.
Personally, I think that the "something else" which leads to an entitlement to "legal rights" is sapience. You are certainly free to believe that it is something else.
quote:And there we have YOUR answer. You think that any member of our species, at any level of development whatsoever, is entitled to legal rights (or at least to the negative right not to be killed without cause).
At conception. Human life begins at that point and does not stop changing, growing, living and then eventually dying from that point on. It is an endless cycle of life.
I understand and respect that view. I also disagree with it, because there is nothing objective to distinguish a human zygote from a bovine zygote, other than species. I see no reason that membership in one species alone is adequate to confer legal rights on that species and not others. It is "sapience" that separates our species from others on this rock, and sapience is not even arguably present until about week 25.
Nice talking to you. Have a great evening.
This post was edited on 6/24/22 at 5:51 pm
Posted on 6/24/22 at 6:42 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
I tend to agree with Descartes ("I think, therefore I am") as to when a living organism becomes PHILOSOPHICALLY a "person."
Realistically, you think that happens in a human being before late elementary school at the earliest?
quote:
I have no problem with vesting POSITIVE rights at birth (e.g. the inheritance rights discussed above), but vesting limited NEGATIVE rights (e.g. the right not to be killed without cause) at some point prior to birth. But the vesting of such a negative right need not promote a fetus to the status of a "person."
Fair enough, but what makes your (admittedly arbitrary) line the right one and those wanting earlier cutoffs wrong? I get that you, personally, concede the complexity of the issue and do not impugn ill intent to those who argue slightly earlier, slightly later, but I get the feeling that you would be much more okay with "abortion on demand, right up until birth" than "human right to life begins at conception" if it was a binary choice, at "crunch time", so to speak.
Frankly, while coming at the issue from a similar nuanced stance, I'm probably the opposite at crunch time.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News