A slightly different abortion debate...

[theOperaGhost]

As I said, this debate is related to abortion, but it's not specifically an abortion debate.

This debate has to do with fetal death statutes. The difference between abortion and these statutes is this:

Abortion-the termination of pregnancy by a medical professional WITH the woman's consent.

Fetal death statutes-the killing of a fetus WITHOUT the woman's consent.

Now both of these are homicides by definition, abortions being non-criminal homicides. Here is where my debate comes from. Why is it criminal homicide when a fetus is killed without the woman's consent, but it's perfectly fine to kill a fetus with her consent?

This is extremely rare, and people who have committed this crime have been let off with less than first or second degree murder (they quite likely got voluntary manslaughter, but I'm not positive about this). I don't really even care about the charges though. I'm just wondering why someone can be charged with homicide for violating a fetal death statute, yet abortions can be perfectly legal.

[Curthose93]

Whether the mother has given consent or not, I guess it's just a matter of possession. Without consent means the mother wanted the baby, so I guess it's a kind of destruction of property. Either way, the fetus isn't a fully developed person yet, so it belongs to the woman, so it's her choice, and interfering in her choice is not right, but I have no clue about the situation from a legal standpoint.

[theOperaGhost]

I'm not fully informed on the legal standpoint, which I'm a bit disappointed about. My criminal law teacher mostly skipped over the "beginning of life" issue. There is still a lot of controversy in the legal beginning of life as well as the fact that legislation has not defined "fetus" (to my knowledge, however I could be wrong). I believe the viability of the fetus has the biggest influence on the legality of abortion or any fetal death statutes.

[MisterAndrews]

The baby becomes a fetus after 2 weeks and to my knowledge only becomes a child when its born. Its a good question though.. You'd think that it would all be murder. I'm guessing its a loop that wasn't sorted out when they legalised abortion. Having said that, it is easy to see why murdering someone elses fetus is worse, and would carry a criminal charge. If it didn't husbands would go around trying to kill them when they didnt want the baby.

[CaptainObvious]

Fetal death statutes either shouldn't exist, or should be designed similar to property crime statutes, to be consistent with the legal realities of abortion.

[Oblivion]

Well, if you got a wart removed with your permission, that'd be OK.
But if a doctor removed it without your permission, the doctor would get in trouble right?
Regardless of whether it's the same product, no one gave the person who did it permission.

Same thing.
With your permission is extremely different than without.

(Not calling a fetus to a wart mind you... Lol.)

[theOperaGhost]

I can't really see how this could be a crime against property, since the mother would quite likely be hurt AND the fetus dead in the process. That is certainly a crime against a person.

I personally feel it should be voluntary manslaughter OR 2nd degree murder since the mother gave no consent, meaning she quite likely wanted the child. I wouldn't find it excessive to be charged with 1st degree murder if the fetus would have been viable outside of the mother.

As for abortion, I know I said before there should be murder charges (I think I said this like a year ago), but I have rethought that. I still personally find abortion morally wrong (although not legally, but VERY close) and I don't think that will ever change. I'm never going to look at someone who has had an abortion differently, I'm never going to stand outside of an abortion clinic in protest, etc. The furthest I would ever go would possibly be to sign a petition or vote toward criminalizing abortion, but that is unlikely to happen.

There is no doubt that the killing of a fetus without the mother's consent is far worse than an abortion, but I just can't stand that legislation swings both ways in defining a fetus (even though it isn't legally defined).

[Θάνατος]

Personally I am totally against abortion unless it is rape or the baby will have mental and physical disabilities beyond the point where the baby can have a normal life.

Two people need to be responsible and use the proper protection to prevent a birth.

There is the morning after pill that works.

Abortion is not a form of birth control.

This is my opinion on this debate.

[Curthose93]

How is abortion not a form of birth control? It stops the woman from having to give birth, so it is birth control, right?

[theOperaGhost]

What he means is abortion is not a type of contraceptive.

[CaptainObvious]

I can't really see how this could be a crime against property, since the mother would quite likely be hurt AND the fetus dead in the process. That is certainly a crime against a person.

I personally feel it should be voluntary manslaughter OR 2nd degree murder since the mother gave no consent, meaning she quite likely wanted the child. I wouldn't find it excessive to be charged with 1st degree murder if the fetus would have been viable outside of the mother.

You need to separate your thinking with regard to these crimes. There is the crime against the mother - assault, homicide, whatever else it is - that is certainly a criminal (rightly so) matter.

However, since a fetus is not a person, its destruction - separate from the crime against the mother - cannot be regarded as anything more than a crime against property that the mother owns, or, if you prefer, as bodily assault upon a component part of the mother's body.

Since, legally, fetuses are not competent persons, fetal death statutes shouldn't really be under discussion. I agree with you that the laws shouldn't swing both ways on this issue; the problem for you is that the way the laws should swing to be consistent is in the opposite direction to your outlook on the issue.

[theOperaGhost]

I think legislation NEEDS to define whether a fetus is living or not. As it is now, some statutes define actus reus as killing a "person or a fetus."

Now let me ask a question. What is your view on the viability of a fetus? Say birth is 1 month away; the fetus is quite likely viable outside the uterus at that point. I would personally consider someone who killed this fetus without the mother's consent to be a murderer in the 1st degree. If the fetus was aborted at this point (which is outlawed) I would consider it voluntary manslaughter or POSSIBLY 2nd degree murder, even though it would fit the requirements of 1st degree murder which are: malice aforethought, premeditation, and deliberation.

I can't accept a fetus to be property. Does this mean when the child is born, it is also property?

[Curthose93]

Does this mean when the child is born, it is also property?

Nope. I believe that once the fetus becomes conscious, whenever the brain has developed and started working, it ceases to be property.

[A.J.]

I don't support Abortion only by rape or incest. I support Abortion in general. Thats just the way I feel.

[INFERNO]

As I said, this debate is related to abortion, but it's not specifically an abortion debate.

This debate has to do with fetal death statutes. The difference between abortion and these statutes is this:

Abortion-the termination of pregnancy by a medical professional WITH the woman's consent.

Fetal death statutes-the killing of a fetus WITHOUT the woman's consent.

Now both of these are homicides by definition, abortions being non-criminal homicides. Here is where my debate comes from. Why is it criminal homicide when a fetus is killed without the woman's consent, but it's perfectly fine to kill a fetus with her consent?

This is extremely rare, and people who have committed this crime have been let off with less than first or second degree murder (they quite likely got voluntary manslaughter, but I'm not positive about this). I don't really even care about the charges though. I'm just wondering why someone can be charged with homicide for violating a fetal death statute, yet abortions can be perfectly legal.

This is a rather interesting debate and I'm glad it's not the usual "booo abortion" or "yay abortion" style of debate. That being said, my knowledge about the law is based heavily on my friends in law and some from politics and philosophy, watching court cases (gotta love that woman Judge Judy, People's Court, etc...) and some from abnormal psychology (which doesn't pertain to abortion).

I believe the first issue is as such: define when one is considered to be a "human". There are conflicting views on this, and since my legal knowledge is disheartengly poor, I don't know what the legal viewpoint is. However, I do believe homocide implies that the victim is human, which can be debatable for fetuses.

Killing the fetus without the woman's consent may be done is the mother's health is too poor to deliver the fetus prematurely (may not be viable) or the mother's health may be impaired due to the fetus. If the fetus is not killed, then the mother may die and health services are oriented around saving a life (although abortions would be an exception), not watching the mother die when her life can be saved.

If the mother's health is too poor for her to give informed consent, then either you save her or you watch her die yet you're fully able to save her. This may be more of a moral view rather than a legal view, although I'm sure the law would be tied into this.

Killing it with her consent brings back the issue of legally, when is an organism considered a "human". As the fetus develops from the embryo, it acts more or less like a parasite or property of the mother. In fact, it is part of the mother, so it seems reasonable for someone to allow a doctor to remove a part of their body for some valid reason. This would be analogous to getting a hair cut: you give consent to have your hair cut by the hair dresser or barber. This may seem rather silly, however, natural hair and the fetus both are parts of the mother's body, in a sense, it's her personal property. Saying that giving an abortion with her consent should be illegal implies hair cuts are now illegal.

Nope. I believe that once the fetus becomes conscious, whenever the brain has developed and started working, it ceases to be property.

The brain develops around the 3rd trimester I believe but is not mature.

[theOperaGhost]

Homicide is human death caused by another human, yes. Thank you for your opinion, INFERNO.

[Curthose93]

The brain develops around the 3rd trimester I believe but is not mature.

People our age don't have fully mature brains either. That only happens in the 20's, but I'm sure you wouldn't consider yourself to be the property of your parents. Sure, a gland here or a chemical receptor there is still in the works, but you and I certainly qualify as people, not animals.

[INFERNO]

People our age don't have fully mature brains either. That only happens in the 20's, but I'm sure you wouldn't consider yourself to be the property of your parents. Sure, a gland here or a chemical receptor there is still in the works, but you and I certainly qualify as people, not animals.

That is true, we don't have fully mature brains yet. From an evolutionary perspective, humans qualify as animals.

[Curthose93]

That is true, we don't have fully mature brains yet. From an evolutionary perspective, humans qualify as animals.

Maybe I should find another word for it. I know humans are part of the animal kingdom, but what I meant by animal was "non-sentient creature".