Alabama throws wrench into Roe V Wade. This has pissed me off for years!

[Blimey]

F***k yes! This inconsistency in abortion laws and homicide law has pissed me off for a very long time.

Basic issue is abortion is legal because a fetus has no value (legally), so a woman can do whatever and it's not murder. Yet in stark contradiction to this many states make it so that if you kill a woman who is pregnant it's double-homicide. Why? Because in this case the state considers the fetus a human. You could literally murder a person on the steps of an abortion clinic and you get charged with double homicide, yet if you had waited 30 min that pregnant woman could kill it and not be punished at all.

The case:

Fetal Homicide Case Could Send ‘Roe v. Wade’ Back To Court

The court rejected his case, with Justice Tom Parker declaring it a "logical fallacy" for the government to declare homicide in the case of a man murdering a pregnant woman but not when a woman gets an abortion

I'd LOVE to see this hit scotus. I'm pro-life, but that doesn't matter. I just hate the inconsistency in this.

 

[Carlos Hathcock]

Yeah, double definition. Make a choice one way or another and apply it to ALL.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

F***k yes! This inconsistency in abortion laws and homicide law has pissed me off for a very long time.

Basic issue is abortion is legal because a fetus has no value (legally), so a woman can do whatever and it's not murder. Yet in stark contradiction to this many states make it so that if you kill a woman who is pregnant it's double-homicide. Why? Because in this case the state considers the fetus a human. You could literally murder a person on the steps of an abortion clinic and you get charged with double homicide, yet if you had waited 30 min that pregnant woman could kill it and not be punished at all.

The case:

Fetal Homicide Case Could Send ‘Roe v. Wade’ Back To Court



I'd LOVE to see this hit scotus. I'm pro-life, but that doesn't matter. I just hate the inconsistency in this.

Well, not to open up the firestorm of abortion/anti-abortion arguments, but it seems to me the situation can be looked at like this:
There is a difference between you deciding to throw something out (for whatever reason) and having it stolen from you. I know that doesn't satisfy those that are pro-life, but it's maybe a simple way of seeing it the way the law, as of now, would...not to sound like I am discounting lives. Anyway, flame on.

 

[BDinPutnam]

Well, not to open up the firestorm of abortion/anti-abortion arguments, but it seems to me the situation can be looked at like this:
There is a difference between you deciding to throw something out (for whatever reason) and having it stolen from you. I know that doesn't satisfy those that are pro-life, but it's maybe a simple way of seeing it the way the law, as of now, would...not to sound like I am discounting lives. Anyway, flame on.

Doesn't work.

If you're using what kind of looks like a property rights argument- either the fetus is, or isnt, property of the state, at which point we revert right back to the logic of @Blimey's original argument. Regardless of whether you think it is or isn't property of the state the treatment is in conflict for one or the other crime.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

Doesn't work.

If you're using what kind of looks like a property rights argument- either the fetus is, or isnt, property of the state, at which point we revert right back to the logic of @Blimey's original argument. Regardless of whether you think it is or isn't property of the state the treatment is in conflict for one or the other crime.

Why would a woman's fetus be property of the state and not hers though? In any case, maybe my point would be better put as coming down to choice. A woman may Chose to terminate a pregnancy for any number of reasons. So far that is still legal. I don't know many pregnant women who "choose" to be murdered and have their fetus/baby die with them.

 

[C3D]

Roe v Wade balances the rights of the fetus with the privacy rights of the mother. A third party has no rights to balance against and therefore killing the fetus becomes murder.

 

[BDinPutnam]

I didn't frame it well.

My point goes back to the incongruity of the law as pointed out in the OP.

The state has an apparent interest in preventing harm to the fetus from an outside actor (Joe Murderman on the street) but not in preventing harm to the fetus if carried out by the mother and a doctor. It's inherently in conflict.

Regardless of your position on abortion, if you look at it closely, Roe is a terrible, terrible decision (legally). Ginsberg herself has admitted as much.

 

[gun_slinger_boy]

Just wondering about this. If it became law that abortion was illegal then what? Would the mother be forced to birth the baby? Then what?

 

[SomeSoldier]

Just wondering about this. If it became law that abortion was illegal then what? Would the mother be forced to birth the baby? Then what?

Put it up for adoption?

 

[Phazer]

Well, not to open up the firestorm of abortion/anti-abortion arguments, but it seems to me the situation can be looked at like this:
There is a difference between you deciding to throw something out (for whatever reason) and having it stolen from you.

But...the criminal in the case was charged with killing two people, not robbing someone and then killing one person.

 

[masterswimmer]

The timing of this couldn't be worse. A week before midterms isn't when this should be debated.

Like B. Kavanaugh has already stated, this is decided law. Putting any kind of question into this, whether you believe Roe v Wade should be left alone or overturned, only gives political fence sitters cause for concern. One week before election day is not when we want this Pandora's box opened.

 

[Phazer]

Roe v Wade balances the rights of the fetus with the privacy rights of the mother. A third party has no rights to balance against and therefore killing the fetus becomes murder.

So....after viability the mother can murder the baby but a third party can't?

 

[ArmedCorgi]

So....after viability the mother can murder the baby but a third party can't?

No. A third party can't murder you or anyone. While you may consider a mother aborting a pregnancy and someone murdering someone on the street as the same thing, as of now, in the eyes of the law they are not.

 

[Darth]

Just wondering about this. If it became law that abortion was illegal then what? Would the mother be forced to birth the baby? Then what?

And if she breaks the law, give the fetus the death penalty!

 

[Phazer]

No. A third party can't murder you or anyone. While you may consider a mother aborting a pregnancy and someone murdering someone on the street as the same thing, as of now, in the eyes of the law they are not.

Riiigggghhhtttt....as of now.

Science, that has occurred since the original case, could change things on the next round.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

Riiigggghhhtttt....as of now.

Science, that has occurred since the original case, could change things on the next round.

I'm not offering up my personal opinion on the whole matter, you understand. That's my business. I'm just trying to explain my understanding of what the logic behind things is in this instance.

 

[Phazer]

I'm not offering up my personal opinion on the whole matter, you understand. That's my business. I'm just trying to explain my understanding of what the logic behind things is in this instance.

I fully understand that.

I've been on both sides of this issue at different times in my life.

 

[C3D]

So....after viability the mother can murder the baby but a third party can't?

Under Roe v. Wade's balancing test, the rights of the mother become outweighed once the fetus becomes viable as an independent person. That is the juncture at which the protection of the unborn child outweighs the rights of the mother.

Editorial note: I am not taking a position on whether that is the right or wrong result. Only that this is what the law is.

 

[Jmac00]

F***k yes! This inconsistency in abortion laws and homicide law has pissed me off for a very long time.

Basic issue is abortion is legal because a fetus has no value (legally), so a woman can do whatever and it's not murder. Yet in stark contradiction to this many states make it so that if you kill a woman who is pregnant it's double-homicide. Why? Because in this case the state considers the fetus a human. You could literally murder a person on the steps of an abortion clinic and you get charged with double homicide, yet if you had waited 30 min that pregnant woman could kill it and not be punished at all.

The case:

Fetal Homicide Case Could Send ‘Roe v. Wade’ Back To Court



I'd LOVE to see this hit scotus. I'm pro-life, but that doesn't matter. I just hate the inconsistency in this.

the state doesn't give a rats ass about the fetus or the mother. What the state is interested in is "piling on just to add charges", adding charges whether they are warranted or not helps the prosecution.

The double standard is astounding

 

[BDinPutnam]

Remember too that Roe is not controlling law on this issue.

See: Planned Parenthood vs. Casey.

Oddly enough, Planned Parenthood would like you not to know or think about that.

 

[stuck in ny]

Hate to break it to you, but the penalty in the jewish law for abortion inducing battery and murder are not the same.

 

[Acer-m14]

don't commit suicide .. you could get arrested too

 

[Blimey]

Roe v Wade balances the rights of the fetus with the privacy rights of the mother. A third party has no rights to balance against and therefore killing the fetus becomes murder.

No, it does not balance. That's the point of this protest to the law. If a fetus is a baby it is murder to abort. If it's not a baby, it isn't murder to abort. Unless somebody else aborts in which case it is murder. It gives unique power to the mother alone to decide whether that fetus is a baby or a worthless mass of cells. Yet, when a baby is born nobody would ever agree that the mother alone can make that judgement--why can she if it's a day prior to birth make it?

Look at my scenario of killing a woman about to abort a kid. She is in the clinic, the doctor is just about to perform the procedure to take away the fetus, you go in and kill her. Charged with double homicide? That's ridiculous. There is a black hole in the law.

What the laws are trying to do now is allow both abortion but also protect the fetus to people who believe abortion is killing a baby. These are mutually exclusive positions.

Probably the best legal approach is remove roe v wade which is an absurd constitutional decision anyway and leave it to a state, and then a state needs to either ban abortion or allow it, but not have these double homicide laws on the books. And when the state votes on that people need to understand the state no longer sees your fetus as having any value at all (if it did it would be morally reprehensible to allow a woman to abort it), in which case no double homicide.

 

[dsdmmat]

I view abortion as an anti poverty/ anti crime option.

 

[Bob]

Why does a woman have the right to choose? Because she risks her health and incubates the child (or not) for nine months? What about the next 20 years?

One thing that is almost never discussed: Where do the rights of the men start and stop?

Say you're in a relationship with a woman who wants a kid, but you don't. She pokes holes in all of the condoms you keep in your dresser drawer. She gets pregnant and walks away, you get saddled with the bill for supporting the kid until it's 18, despite you doing (or think you're doing) the right thing. Where are your rights?

Say you hook up with some random chick one night at a party who decided to let loose and sleep with every guy there. She gets pregnant, panics, and names the first person she can think of as the father. Where are your rights?

You're in a long-term relationship with a woman, and you make the mutual decision to get pregnant and raise a child together. She has second thoughts and immediately places the child up for adoption after birth. Where are your rights?

Why is it that a man loses ALL of his rights once that egg is fertilized? If one half of the genetic makeup of that clump of cells, fetus, or whatever you decide to call it is yours, shouldn't you have some say in what happens to it?

Why can a woman place the name of any man on a birth certificate, whether he fathered the child or not, and put that guy on the hook for the care of that child for the next 20 years? Why do the courts regularly side with the mother regardless of the fitness, means, and ability of either parent?

It would seem to me that if women TRULY want equality, they would be in favor of overturning Roe.

 

[Jmac00]

Why does a woman have the right to choose? Because she risks her health and incubates the child (or not) for nine months? What about the next 20 years?

One thing that is almost never discussed: Where do the rights of the men start and stop?

Say you're in a relationship with a woman who wants a kid, but you don't. She pokes holes in all of the condoms you keep in your dresser drawer. She gets pregnant and walks away, you get saddled with the bill for supporting the kid until it's 18, despite you doing (or think you're doing) the right thing. Where are your rights?

In this case, you don't have any rights. You better trust her or you're screwed. The courts won't care, you are done

Say you hook up with some random chick one night at a party who decided to let loose and sleep with every guy there. She gets pregnant, panics, and names the first person she can think of as the father. Where are your rights?

Paternity test, you just have to pay for the test. Although I have heard of a case where the non-parent was on the hook. I simply would not pay if I was not the father.

You're in a long-term relationship with a woman, and you make the mutual decision to get pregnant and raise a child together. She has second thoughts and immediately places the child up for adoption after birth. Where are your rights?

You can sue for full custody

Why can a woman place the name of any man on a birth certificate, whether he fathered the child or not, and put that guy on the hook for the care of that child for the next 20 years? Why do the courts regularly side with the mother regardless of the fitness, means, and ability of either parent?

actually, this happened to me, she can put any name she wants on the certificate if you are not the father, no issue

It would seem to me that if women TRULY want equality, they would be in favor of overturning Roe.

LOL thats not what they are interested in[/QUOTE]

 

[@thewheels]

the state doesn't give a rats ass about the fetus or the mother. What the state is interested in is "piling on just to add charges", adding charges whether they are warranted or not helps the prosecution.

The double standard is astounding

Winner, Winner fucking chicken dinner.

 

[@thewheels]

It would seem to me that if women TRULY want equality, they would be in favor of overturning Roe.

Newsflash: Feminists were/are all about equality but be sure that in the end, some animals are more equal than others.

 

[ProgSpear]

Newsflash: I'm sick and fucking tired of paying for every fucking liberal wetdream that is targeted to the destruction of any and every moral establishment that has been stabilizing society for roughly 6000 years. The left has made it very clear that they will deconstruct anything they disagree with; I disagree with the idea that I need to subsidize them.

Vote Republican, no matter what, as uncertainty is better than absolute chaos and evil.

 

[pjzwtl]

So a “fetus” is only human if the mother chooses it to be? It either is or it isn’t. Wanting has nothing to do with it. You can only murder a human being so it is one or the other. Right now the laws are in conflict.