The Chronicles of Narcissist

[MechaPilot]

I'm probably going to catch some flak for this, but I don't care. "Fetus" is sort of a pleasant euphemism for a parasite. It causes all manner of problems for the mother, and (so far as I know) does not contribute to the well-being of the mother such that it could be classified as a symbiotic relationship. Now, most times that parasite is probably wanted and loved. However, in cases where it is not wanted the government truly has no more right to interfere with its removal than they do with the removal of a tapeworm.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

If this is going to be a question of authority, who has authority over a woman's body? The state or the woman? If the woman has the authority over what she does with her body, then she has the authority to terminate any pregnancy for any reason. If she doesn't have authority over her own body, who has it? And how did they get it?

The woman of course, but if the fetus is a human being, her exercising that authority and aborting the child is no different than someone exercising their same authority to shoot someone in the head. My rights end at the tip of your nose. The question is not who has authority, but whether or not the unborn child is a human being. If the answer is yes, abortion is murder, absent extreme circumstances such as Dannyalcatraz' example. If not, it's no different than extracting a tick.

I'll also note that if a man murders a pregnant woman, he'll likely be brought up on two counts of murder. Such laws are nonsensical in the same society that allows abortion. You can't have it both ways.

 

[MechaPilot]

The woman of course, but if the fetus is a human being, her exercising that authority and aborting the child is no different than someone exercising their same authority to shoot someone in the head. My rights end at the tip of your nose.

If "my rights end at the tip of your nose" then a fetus' rights end where the mother begins and she has the right to evict the unwanted trespassing squatter from her womb. If someone else wants to harbor it, they can have it implanted in their body instead.

 

[Umbran]

I'll also note that if a man murders a pregnant woman, he'll likely be brought up on two counts of murder. Such laws are nonsensical in the same society that allows abortion. You can't have it both ways.

Actually, you can. Aside from how humans can hold mutually conflicting opinions, there is no requirement that laws be entirely consistent. Sometimes, justice isn't based on an entirely consistent logical requirements.

 

[Umbran]

All enforceable laws of society are human constructs: who should or shouldn't have rights- and what they should be- is always going to involve some kind of circularity.

I don't believe so. The issue at hand is *implied* rights, as opposed to explicitly stated rights.

You infer from "killing a fetus is homicide" that a fetus is a human being, and therefore also gets *all* other rights pertaining to humans.

If you instead have a law that says, "killing a fetus confers {penalty exactly the same as homicide}" but never actually uses the *word* homicide, then you cannot infer any further rights.

The first can lead you to circular logic, the second cannot.

Edit: Oops! Lost a phrase to the wrong kind of brackets!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm probably going to catch some flak for this, but I don't care. "Fetus" is sort of a pleasant euphemism for a parasite.

Biologically, there is a significant difference between a "parasite" and "offspring", not the least of which being the fact that one is of a different species and the other is not.

If not, it's no different than extracting a tick.

Regardless of your stance on the abortion issue, I think this really minimizes the gravity of the decision. For most (not all) women, choosing whether or not to have an abortion is extremely difficult, and as I recall, post-abortion mental/emotional health concerns closely mirror those of women carrying to term.

IOW, a bit more weighty decision than you posit.

 

[MechaPilot]

I'll also note that if a man murders a pregnant woman, he'll likely be brought up on two counts of murder. Such laws are nonsensical in the same society that allows abortion. You can't have it both ways.

You sort of can have it both ways. All you have to do is replace the law that killing the fetus is murder with a sentencing kicker. There are a lot of sentencing kickers in the law. Robbing a store will yield a certain sentence, robbing a store with a firearm will give you that initial sentence plus added time for the kicker of using a firearm, and that kicker increases further if you actually discharge that firearm. Therefore, there are ways to create law that severely punishes the murder of pregnant women without infringing on the right of women to make their own health/body decisions.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I don't believe so. The issue at hand is *implied* rights, as opposed to explicitly stated rights.

You infer from "killing a fetus is homicide" that a fetus is a human being, and therefore also gets *all* other rights pertaining to humans.

If you instead have a law that says, "killing a fetus confers <penalty exactly the same as homicide>" but never actually uses the *word* homicide, then you cannot infer any further rights.

The first can lead you to circular logic, the second cannot.

When analyzing laws, we often look at legislative notes and drafters' intent.


Homicide- the term used in those laws- has a pretty tightly defined legal definition: the killing of a human being.

The legislatures that passed those laws were perfectly capable of drafting a law as you posit, but chose not to. Indeed, corporate laws have often been drafted in such a way as to do so, distinguishing them from natural persons- pretty effective up until Citizens United- just as civil union laws were drafted to distinguish them from marriages.

That they chose not to draft fetal homicide laws the way you proposed is a strong implication that they knew exactly what they were doing. That in 22 of those 30+ states, you will also find relatively restrictive rules on certain aspects of abortion is no coincidence.

But even if you DID draft the law as you stated, the logic is still circular: someone has drafted a law stating the fetus doesn't have rights because they said it doesn't have rights.

 

[MechaPilot]

Biologically, there is a significant difference between a "parasite" and "offspring", not the least of which being the fact that one is of a different species and the other is not.

I'm sorry, but discovering that an unwanted creature was growing inside me against my will would only be marginally lessened if it were a potential human being. Either way my response is "get it out of me right freaking now!"

It truly is the wanted/unwanted part that plays a massive role. If wanted, pregnancy is a difficult time endured for sake of your child, who you will love and nurture for many years to come (ideally). If unwanted, pregnancy is a fully immersive nine month body horror experience straight out of a Cronenberg film.

 

[billd91]

The woman of course, but if the fetus is a human being, her exercising that authority and aborting the child is no different than someone exercising their same authority to shoot someone in the head. My rights end at the tip of your nose. The question is not who has authority, but whether or not the unborn child is a human being. If the answer is yes, abortion is murder, absent extreme circumstances such as Dannyalcatraz' example. If not, it's no different than extracting a tick.

I'll also note that if a man murders a pregnant woman, he'll likely be brought up on two counts of murder. Such laws are nonsensical in the same society that allows abortion. You can't have it both ways.

You can have it both ways. If the pregnancy is wanted, then it makes perfect sense to prosecute someone who interferes with it. However, if it is not, the woman's authority over her body should be the dominant one. It doesn't make much sense to hold her to the standard of her rights extending to the baby's nose since that is already well inside the mother's territory. It doesn't necessarily make sense to separate the baby's rights from hers.