gungadin09
Posts: 3232
Joined: 3/19/2010 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DarkSteven tazzy, RO's argument is that it begins at a single point. Which point it is, is not really in the topic of this thread. I was hoping that a dual system could be set up. It'd be hard as hell to implement, but as someone who believes in keeping abortions legal, it always pisses me off when a wanted fetus is murdered by some thug, and I wish that the legality of abortion was not the price that must be paid for not charging him with murder. Is the cutoff point for *that* the same as viability? What happens to the thug who kills a fetus before 22 weeks? If they can't be charged with murder (or manslaughter), can they be charged with anything? i'm very uneducated on this subject, but from what i understand about Roe v. Wade, viability is defined as the point that the "fetus" becomes a " human person", with a reasonable chance of surviving apart from it's mother. Because it's not known to be a "person" before viability (at least not by the current *legal* definition of the term), it's not considered to having "rights", and the mother's rights take precedence over the rights of the fetus, or the rights of the state. (The "state" may also have an interest in protecting the life of fetuses, but, for now, the Supreme Court has decided that the woman's rights to sovereignty over her reproductive system, are more important.) At viability, a fetus is considered to be a human being, and it's right to life needs to be protected. i don't think there's any getting around it, Steven. i don't think you can define the same fetus as human in one case but not in another. And while i *totally* agree that "life" (or "humanity" for that matter) doesn't begin at a single point in time, for the sake of the law they had to define it discreetly. They can't say, humanity is something that happens continuously, by degrees, over the development of the fetus. That won't work as a legal standard for what "human life" is. They had to draw a line and say, okay, it's either on this side of the line, or it's on that side. And unfortunately that means that some thug who causes a miscarriage before 22 weeks can't be charged with murder, because you can't murder what's not considered to be a "human being" (yet...) in the first place. i have to say, i think the law got it right. And yes, that SUCKS for anyone who's in the situation You describe. (Can the thug in that situation be charged with *any* crime at all, or just not "murder"?) But i think it's important to protect a woman's rights over her body, and you can't do that by having a dual system. pam
< Message edited by gungadin09 -- 3/9/2011 6:03:34 PM >
|