Inconsistency of US Law

[loseyourname]

I think the fetus would have to be able to sustain life on its own before it's considered a seperate life, but I'm not positive of that and can't check right now.

What exactly does that mean? A newborn baby cannot sustain its own life. Does this just mean that it's able to digest food for itself and breath?

[ckBejug]

I think you guys are missing the poing. A person can be convicted of murdering a fetus at any point, even in the first or second trimester. But if a mother kills it, there is no criminal act committed. I guess your answer is that no, the inconsistency does not bother you.

I can't say that the inconsistency bothers me because if you get down to the reasoning behind having an abortion vs. beating up a woman or whatever that causes her to miscarry and the fetus to die, they are far far different things. There is a clear cut difference between a woman who doesn't think she can bring a life into this world and care for it to the best of her ability (which, mind you, on a personal level I think is no reason to ever have an abortion, but I would also not make other people adhere to the way I see things) and a man who hurts the woman in such a way as to endanger the life of the fetus inside her and kill it. I would have no problem convicting such a man. Now, here is where things would get completely mucked up, say the woman was on her way to an abortion clinic when this man mugged her, or something like that, then what do you do?

[ckBejug]

What exactly does that mean? A newborn baby cannot sustain its own life. Does this just mean that it's able to digest food for itself and breath?

I think the fetus can live with the help of life sustaining machines after 28 weeks, sometimes as early as 24 weeks. Now, I'm pretty sure that any man who is beating up a woman so badly, or whatever he does that makes her lose the baby, is already going to go to jail for assault, battery, and attempted murder. So I don't know if putting up a protest over whether or not he also murdered the baby ois going to make a difference at that point. Same with the Peterson case. He is already going away for murder in the first for murdering his wife, so why have an argument about whether or not he also murdered the baby?

[jilbagh]

i think that there are some damaged fetus's around in this forum...isn't that against the law? shouldn't they be in some sort of a looney bin?

[Anonymouse]

i think that there are some damaged fetus's around in this forum...isn't that against the law? shouldn't they be in some sort of a looney bin?

Would you happen to be one of them?

As far as this thread, I'm going to go off on another rant. "Pro choice" is one of those Orwellian buzz words that has come to be "Statue of Liberty" of language. The take off point is when one begins to accept the government created words "pro choice" and "pro life", and the error begins from there. This sort of thinking divides people into morally unambiguous sections of Pro Choice, Pro Life, and the rest is simply oatmeal that shouldn't be bothered with.

One can see how intellectually and morally confused people from these "pro" camps are. Usually, when someone calls themself "pro choice", they are the ones that support the State system, and are quick to support measures and vote for things that only hamper on individuals making their own choices whether on racial, religious or any other line. They want a bigger and badder government and a myriad of State rules and regulations to prevent from people actually making choices. The people who refer to themselves as "pro life" are usually the mindless supporters of the war system and bombing the life out of anyone not American, who happens to disagree.

[jilbagh]

if you are pro-life...why wouldn't you support stem cell research to save lives?

[jilbagh]

Would you happen to be one of them?

touche '

[loseyourname]

if you are pro-life...why wouldn't you support stem cell research to save lives?

Are there any pro-life people on this board who have said they don't support stem-cell research?

[loseyourname]

I can't say that the inconsistency bothers me because if you get down to the reasoning behind having an abortion vs. beating up a woman or whatever that causes her to miscarry and the fetus to die, they are far far different things. There is a clear cut difference between a woman who doesn't think she can bring a life into this world and care for it to the best of her ability (which, mind you, on a personal level I think is no reason to ever have an abortion, but I would also not make other people adhere to the way I see things) and a man who hurts the woman in such a way as to endanger the life of the fetus inside her and kill it. I would have no problem convicting such a man. Now, here is where things would get completely mucked up, say the woman was on her way to an abortion clinic when this man mugged her, or something like that, then what do you do?

Come on guys. Is it impossible to direct a thread toward a certain discussion. I have no problem with a man who kills or severely beats a pregnant woman getting put in jail. That isn't the issue being addressed. I'm just asking why the law gives a fetus rights in one case and denies them in another. The inconsistency is very blatant. This isn't a question of how the law is applied; it's a question of the moral foundation of the law. When the law is allowed to contradict itself to further a political agenda, do you not see this as a problem? Honestly? If the basis for taking away rights in the case of an abortion is the inability of a fetus to survive without the mechanisms of its mothers body, why are premature newborns or even adults on life-support granted any rights? If the moral foundations of law are not applied consistently, then there are no moral foundations.

[Anonymouse]

Come on guys. Is it impossible to direct a thread toward a certain discussion. I have no problem with a man who kills or severely beats a pregnant woman getting put in jail. That isn't the issue being addressed. I'm just asking why the law gives a fetus rights in one case and denies them in another. The inconsistency is very blatant. This isn't a question of how the law is applied; it's a question of the moral foundation of the law. When the law is allowed to contradict itself to further a political agenda, do you not see this as a problem? Honestly? If the basis for taking away rights in the case of an abortion is the inability of a fetus to survive without the mechanisms of its mothers body, why are premature newborns or even adults on life-support granted any rights? If the moral foundations of law are not applied consistently, then there are no moral foundations.

For a law to be just it must be applied impartially, regardless of its moral status. Thus this is not a just law.