The prochoice movement might have been able to avoid this debacle with a compromise solution: a bill recognizing the unborn child as a homicide victim after viability.
one question on this stance. will the timeline for viability be revised legally as it's revised medically?
it wasn't 16 weeks 10 years ago. it will probably be 14 weeks in a few years. will the viabilty term just keep sliding closer and closer to conception as technology advances?
OK. I think I get it. The woman can kill her child, but no one else. I sure the child will be glad to hear that, considering he or she is kinda attached to the mother for 9 months without a vacation. The only person who can legally kill you- well, you are stuck inside them. Sweet dreams.
From this statement it would appear that you believe a fetus at any stage of development (from conception on) to be a child. Many people disagree with this point of view. Furthermore, many people believe that, up to a certain point in the development of a fetus, a woman should have the right to choose whether or that fetus will continue to develop in her body.
The fact that 'Laci and Conner's law' does not distinguish between a viable fetus and a zygote is what makes it difficult for anyone who believes in a woman's right to choose to support.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution--
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.
The deifinition of "unborn child":
Quote:
(d) As used in this section, the term `unborn child' means a child in utero, and the term `child in utero' or `child, who is in utero' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb
And, interestingly:
Quote:
(B) An offense under this section does not require proof that--
(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or
(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.
The only reason this bill passed the Senate was that the abortion exceptions are, on the surface, reasonable. It's the intent of the bill, though, that sticks in the craw of anyone who believes in women's rights. It's intended to promote the popular conception of a fetus/embryo as a person with all the rights of a child or adult. Period. It's a political gambit, aimed at turning popualr opinion against Roe vs. Wade.
I find the other two bits interesting, too. First, it defines unborn child as "carried in the womb", which specifically exempts unimplanted embryos. But if it didn't, it would wreak all sorts of havoc, the least of which would be to outlaw stem cell research and theraputic cloning. So, like the abortion exception, I guess this is a concession to reality.
Second, the offender need not have intended to cause harm to the child, nor even known the woman was pregnant. Yeow. I say yeow, because LOTS of stuff causes miscarriages. Excepting induced abortions, as many as two-thirds of all pregnancies don't make it to term, the vast majority naturally aborting before the woman even knew she was pregnant. Most of the time, even when we know there's a miscarriage, we don't know why - but you could make plenty of guesses. That drink, that drug (recreational or medical), that blow, that fall, that pollution, that stress, you name it. And whoever did/caused any of it could be charged with murder for allegedly causing a miscarriage. That could get ugly in both civil and criminal courts.
This is the inevitable march of history---towards freedom:
Indeed, let freedom ring.*
* Except for gays, blacks, women, Muslims and any US citizen that the government decides might be prone to "terrorist-program related activities", including but not limited to any criticism of the policies or persons of the current government.
(B) An offense under this section does not require proof that--
(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or
(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.
I have a problem with this one. I mean, sometimes accidents happen even though it is nobody's fault. All you need is some finger pointing and you have a serious flaw or loophole.
OK. I think I get it. The woman can kill her child, but no one else. I sure the child will be glad to hear that, considering he or she is kinda attached to the mother for 9 months without a vacation. The only person who can legally kill you- well, you are stuck inside them. Sweet dreams.
A woman can't kill her child. She can abort a feteus though. There's a difference.
Does this mean if I damage a woman's egg I can be convicted of murder? Sounds like a dumb law to me.
thing is, it's not a dumb law. it's seems stupid because it runs all the way to one end of the "viability" spectrum.
right now we're at the far end. if the child/fetus/zygote is in the womb, it's not a child. i would say that this is just as stupid as saying that a fertilized egg is a child (on the other end of the spectrum).
however, the problem you run into is that most everyone would say a "fetus" at 9 months is a child. it just hasn't been born yet. then you start walking backwards from 9 months to try and find the point where the "fetus" magically becomes a "child".
so right now people use the term of viability. of course, the problem with using viability is that it's completely arbitrary. right now viability is about 16 weeks. 20 years ago is was well over 4 months. in 20 years it will probably be a lot less than 4 months.
so, where do you define the fetus/embryo as a child?
it's stupid to use the beginning of the spectrum for most people. it's equally (if not more) stupid to use the end of the spectrum. where do you draw the line?
thing is, it's not a dumb law. it's seems stupid because it runs all the way to one end of the "viability" spectrum.
right now we're at the far end. if the child/fetus/zygote is in the womb, it's not a child. i would say that this is just as stupid as saying that a fertilized egg is a child (on the other end of the spectrum).
however, the problem you run into is that most everyone would say a "fetus" at 9 months is a child. it just hasn't been born yet. then you start walking backwards from 9 months to try and find the point where the "fetus" magically becomes a "child".
so right now people use the term of viability. of course, the problem with using viability is that it's completely arbitrary. right now viability is about 16 weeks. 20 years ago is was well over 4 months. in 20 years it will probably be a lot less than 4 months.
so, where do you define the fetus/embryo as a child?
it's stupid to use the beginning of the spectrum for most people. it's equally (if not more) stupid to use the end of the spectrum. where do you draw the line?
just one correction...we save preemie babies all the time at about 24 weeks, sometimes at 23 weeks...anything younger than 22 weeks and we don't usually even try...
drawing the line is a tough thing for many reasons...i think an abortion for choice should be done before 12 weeks...that a woman does have some responsibility to know her body and cycles if she is sexually active...but what about for fetal anomalies...that should have a much later date...and what about for a woman's health?? or what about for rape or incest...or what about a twelve year old who doesn't know about her cycles, yet is sexually active with an older boy??
the issue is thorny and hairy and that is why it is best left up to the woman, the man involved, her family and her doctor...
For me when I first saw my son on a sonagram at 8 weeks (I think that was time the frame?). Not very big, but everything was there. Features, hands, fingers, toes, heart. Moving, reacting, living. Stills from sonagrams don't look like much, one needs to see a live sonagram. After that any thought of "just a fetus" goes out the window.
Two lesbians get married. They both go to the local Jack-in-the-box and become pregnant on the same day.
Eight months later they become embittered, and one of the lesbians kills the other (and the unborn child). The next day, the surviving lesbian has an abortion.
Under this law......Who is guilty of the death of an unborn child? And while you're at it, which fetus got due process?
unless, by 16 weeks you mean 16 weeks premature...40 week gestation minus 16 weeks preemie equals 24 weeks....then i agree with you...and this is why almost all abortions have to be before 24 weeks...this is why we do amniocentesis and other tests around 16 to 18 weeks...allows for the results to come back and give the parents time to still make the very hard to make decisions....
yeah, sorry that wasn't exactly clear. been drinking since i got home. was a loooong day.
i think i misread the original link. thought they said something about using 16 weeks in the states that involved fetal homocide laws now.
although, it raises a legitimate question. if, today, we can reasonably save most babies that are born at 24 weeks, what do we decide when we can save most babies at 20 weeks? what about at 16 weeks?
technology will without question push back the date at which a fetus is viable.
Pro-abortion people should like this law. After all it's a woman's right to choose. If some criminal ends her pregnacny against her will then the right to choose has be violated. Those people should be punished.
It's conceivable to me that a someone could walk up to a pregnant woman, punch her in the belly and cause a miscarriage. Now the only charge you could bring would be punching a woman in be belly. Where's the justice in that?
yeah, sorry that wasn't exactly clear. been drinking since i got home. was a loooong day.
i think i misread the original link. thought they said something about using 16 weeks in the states that involved fetal homocide laws now.
although, it raises a legitimate question. if, today, we can reasonably save most babies that are born at 24 weeks, what do we decide when we can save most babies at 20 weeks? what about at 16 weeks?
technology will without question push back the date at which a fetus is viable.
i'm actually looking forward to the day when we can suck the fetus out at 10 weeks and put it into another mother (or a cow or horse or whatever can carry a human fetus to term)...i don't think that anybody wants to have an abortion, they just can't have or carry a child at that time in their life for a variety of reasons...so take the fetus out of the person that doesn't want it and put it into one of the many women that want a child but can't have one for whatever reason...win win...
Comments
The prochoice movement might have been able to avoid this debacle with a compromise solution: a bill recognizing the unborn child as a homicide victim after viability.
one question on this stance. will the timeline for viability be revised legally as it's revised medically?
it wasn't 16 weeks 10 years ago. it will probably be 14 weeks in a few years. will the viabilty term just keep sliding closer and closer to conception as technology advances?
Originally posted by Ganondorf
Now I really want to do it.
It'll be like Galager. But with a fetus.
Everyone's invited.
Just make sure you have...
a) her consent and
b) a tarp to cover me...
Nick
Originally posted by Ganondorf
This makes me want to hit a pregnant woman in the uterus with a sledge hammer.
All of a sudden I remember a scene from Ace Venture PD.
Anyway, I'm disqualified from really saying anything... I did post a pic of a fetus typing from the womb once.
Disregard anything I've said so far in this thread.
As you were!
Originally posted by Jubelum
OK. I think I get it. The woman can kill her child, but no one else. I sure the child will be glad to hear that, considering he or she is kinda attached to the mother for 9 months without a vacation. The only person who can legally kill you- well, you are stuck inside them. Sweet dreams.
From this statement it would appear that you believe a fetus at any stage of development (from conception on) to be a child. Many people disagree with this point of view. Furthermore, many people believe that, up to a certain point in the development of a fetus, a woman should have the right to choose whether or that fetus will continue to develop in her body.
The fact that 'Laci and Conner's law' does not distinguish between a viable fetus and a zygote is what makes it difficult for anyone who believes in a woman's right to choose to support.
Regarding abortion:
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution--
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.
The deifinition of "unborn child":
(d) As used in this section, the term `unborn child' means a child in utero, and the term `child in utero' or `child, who is in utero' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb
And, interestingly:
(B) An offense under this section does not require proof that--
(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or
(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.
The only reason this bill passed the Senate was that the abortion exceptions are, on the surface, reasonable. It's the intent of the bill, though, that sticks in the craw of anyone who believes in women's rights. It's intended to promote the popular conception of a fetus/embryo as a person with all the rights of a child or adult. Period. It's a political gambit, aimed at turning popualr opinion against Roe vs. Wade.
I find the other two bits interesting, too. First, it defines unborn child as "carried in the womb", which specifically exempts unimplanted embryos. But if it didn't, it would wreak all sorts of havoc, the least of which would be to outlaw stem cell research and theraputic cloning. So, like the abortion exception, I guess this is a concession to reality.
Second, the offender need not have intended to cause harm to the child, nor even known the woman was pregnant. Yeow. I say yeow, because LOTS of stuff causes miscarriages. Excepting induced abortions, as many as two-thirds of all pregnancies don't make it to term, the vast majority naturally aborting before the woman even knew she was pregnant. Most of the time, even when we know there's a miscarriage, we don't know why - but you could make plenty of guesses. That drink, that drug (recreational or medical), that blow, that fall, that pollution, that stress, you name it. And whoever did/caused any of it could be charged with murder for allegedly causing a miscarriage. That could get ugly in both civil and criminal courts.
Originally posted by dmz
This is the inevitable march of history---towards freedom:
Indeed, let freedom ring.*
* Except for gays, blacks, women, Muslims and any US citizen that the government decides might be prone to "terrorist-program related activities", including but not limited to any criticism of the policies or persons of the current government.
Originally posted by Towel
(B) An offense under this section does not require proof that--
(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or
(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.
I have a problem with this one. I mean, sometimes accidents happen even though it is nobody's fault. All you need is some finger pointing and you have a serious flaw or loophole.
Originally posted by Jubelum
OK. I think I get it. The woman can kill her child, but no one else. I sure the child will be glad to hear that, considering he or she is kinda attached to the mother for 9 months without a vacation. The only person who can legally kill you- well, you are stuck inside them. Sweet dreams.
A woman can't kill her child. She can abort a feteus though. There's a difference.
Does this mean if I damage a woman's egg I can be convicted of murder? Sounds like a dumb law to me.
Originally posted by bunge
A woman can't kill her child. She can abort a feteus though. There's a difference.
So it doesn't matter until its born then?
right now we're at the far end. if the child/fetus/zygote is in the womb, it's not a child. i would say that this is just as stupid as saying that a fertilized egg is a child (on the other end of the spectrum).
however, the problem you run into is that most everyone would say a "fetus" at 9 months is a child. it just hasn't been born yet. then you start walking backwards from 9 months to try and find the point where the "fetus" magically becomes a "child".
so right now people use the term of viability. of course, the problem with using viability is that it's completely arbitrary. right now viability is about 16 weeks. 20 years ago is was well over 4 months. in 20 years it will probably be a lot less than 4 months.
so, where do you define the fetus/embryo as a child?
it's stupid to use the beginning of the spectrum for most people. it's equally (if not more) stupid to use the end of the spectrum. where do you draw the line?
Originally posted by alcimedes
thing is, it's not a dumb law. it's seems stupid because it runs all the way to one end of the "viability" spectrum.
right now we're at the far end. if the child/fetus/zygote is in the womb, it's not a child. i would say that this is just as stupid as saying that a fertilized egg is a child (on the other end of the spectrum).
however, the problem you run into is that most everyone would say a "fetus" at 9 months is a child. it just hasn't been born yet. then you start walking backwards from 9 months to try and find the point where the "fetus" magically becomes a "child".
so right now people use the term of viability. of course, the problem with using viability is that it's completely arbitrary. right now viability is about 16 weeks. 20 years ago is was well over 4 months. in 20 years it will probably be a lot less than 4 months.
so, where do you define the fetus/embryo as a child?
it's stupid to use the beginning of the spectrum for most people. it's equally (if not more) stupid to use the end of the spectrum. where do you draw the line?
just one correction...we save preemie babies all the time at about 24 weeks, sometimes at 23 weeks...anything younger than 22 weeks and we don't usually even try...
drawing the line is a tough thing for many reasons...i think an abortion for choice should be done before 12 weeks...that a woman does have some responsibility to know her body and cycles if she is sexually active...but what about for fetal anomalies...that should have a much later date...and what about for a woman's health?? or what about for rape or incest...or what about a twelve year old who doesn't know about her cycles, yet is sexually active with an older boy??
the issue is thorny and hairy and that is why it is best left up to the woman, the man involved, her family and her doctor...
g
For me when I first saw my son on a sonagram at 8 weeks (I think that was time the frame?). Not very big, but everything was there. Features, hands, fingers, toes, heart. Moving, reacting, living. Stills from sonagrams don't look like much, one needs to see a live sonagram. After that any thought of "just a fetus" goes out the window.
/*begin over-the-top hypothetical to make a point
Two lesbians get married. They both go to the local Jack-in-the-box and become pregnant on the same day.
Eight months later they become embittered, and one of the lesbians kills the other (and the unborn child). The next day, the surviving lesbian has an abortion.
Under this law......Who is guilty of the death of an unborn child? And while you're at it, which fetus got due process?
/*end over-the-top hypothetical to make a point
Originally posted by thegelding
the issue is thorny and hairy and that is why it is best left up to the woman, the man involved, her family and her doctor...
And the individual her killed her? Don't forget that person.
We're degenerating into general abortion debate, not specifically this law.
g
i think i misread the original link. thought they said something about using 16 weeks in the states that involved fetal homocide laws now.
although, it raises a legitimate question. if, today, we can reasonably save most babies that are born at 24 weeks, what do we decide when we can save most babies at 20 weeks? what about at 16 weeks?
technology will without question push back the date at which a fetus is viable.
Originally posted by Scott
Pro-abortion people should like this law. After all it's a woman's right to choose. If some criminal ends her pregnacny against her will then the right to choose has be violated. Those people should be punished.
Damn straight.
Originally posted by alcimedes
yeah, sorry that wasn't exactly clear. been drinking since i got home. was a loooong day.
i think i misread the original link. thought they said something about using 16 weeks in the states that involved fetal homocide laws now.
although, it raises a legitimate question. if, today, we can reasonably save most babies that are born at 24 weeks, what do we decide when we can save most babies at 20 weeks? what about at 16 weeks?
technology will without question push back the date at which a fetus is viable.
i'm actually looking forward to the day when we can suck the fetus out at 10 weeks and put it into another mother (or a cow or horse or whatever can carry a human fetus to term)...i don't think that anybody wants to have an abortion, they just can't have or carry a child at that time in their life for a variety of reasons...so take the fetus out of the person that doesn't want it and put it into one of the many women that want a child but can't have one for whatever reason...win win...
g