NationStates Jolt Archive

Why is fetuside a crime? If it's just tissue you can't kill it right?

:confused:

Why is fetuside a crime? If it's just tissue you can't kill it right?

How is this a liberal dilamma? You answered your own question: to a liberal, a fetus is just tissue, and killing it isn't a crime. So there you are.

yes....but fetuside is a crime (int he us at least) and most of the judges in the country lean left.

yes....but fetuside is a crime (int he us at least) and most of the judges in the country lean left.
It could be that they are educated and understand the definition of dilemma, for example. :D

yes....but fetuside is a crime (int he us at least) and most of the judges in the country lean left.

Killing someone's unborn baby is, but not killing your own. In the U.S. and Europe, at least.

It could be that they are educated and understand the definition of dilemma, for example. :D


A situation that requires a choice between options that are or seem equally unfavorable or mutually exclusive.

yeah...so make fetuside legal or illegalize abortion. that is the dilemma.

Killing someone's unborn baby is, but not killing your own. In the U.S. and Europe, at least.

the thing is...you don;t kill your own, you oay someone else to do it. it;s like the mob....in your uterus

Abortion: The woman deciding over her own body.

"Foeticide" (the correct spelling for the most silly term): Someone else deciding over the woman's body.

The foetus itself, before the cut-off period for abortions has been passed, has no rights.

So, I don't see the dilemma.

Now, lets start with a better definition... Feticide refers to the killing of another’s fetus ("F") WITHOUT their consent. This is illegal and (should be) because the "F" 'belongs' to the mother. Now it takes some serious intent to kill a fetus within a woman and I doubt that it is possible to harm the "F" without the intent of the woman carrying it, without hurting her as well. You don't just slip and say, "oops I assaulted you and accidentally killed your unborn child.", "let me accidentally shove this thing into you." or let me accidentally poison you to the point of killing your fetus", If you take into consideration this, as well as the planning for the eventual child, the attachment to the growing fetus, you start to get the idea of why there are laws against it. Feticide will often be used as an add on charge to many more heinous crimes, such as assault and battery or Murder. They do this to add time to the sentence of the defendant where the original sentence is seen as being too light for the crime committed (as it should be). My question to you is- what in your concept of right and wrong made you wonder this in the first place? Abortions are restricted to before the Fetus develops a nerve system (at least in the US). The idea is that without cognitive (thinking capability for the layman) abilities and without the ability to feel what is being done, the fetus is not being subjected to anything that is cruel. Fetiside is an intended harming that affects more than just the fetus.
As for the Liberal leaning of judges, I find this conception to be erronious (read wrong). You obviously haven't ever been in a courtroom in the middle of America, or in any place other than a Major American city, which is the majority of the space in the US.
-GK Sushi :headbang:

A situation that requires a choice between options that are or seem equally unfavorable or mutually exclusive.

yeah...so make fetuside legal or illegalize abortion. that is the dilemma.
Actually the real dilemma in prohibiting legal abortions is that you bring back the old way of doing it, usually involving a coat hanger by an unlicensed practicioner.

As for the Liberal leaning of judges, I find this conception to be erronious (read wrong). You obviously haven't ever been in a courtroom in the middle of America, or in any place other than a Major American city, which is the majority of the space in the US.
-GK Sushi :headbang:

I'm a law student....anyone czan look over supreme court cases and see that there is a trend of left leaning decisions. even judges appointed by conservatives gradually lean left.

yes....but fetuside is a crime (int he us at least) and most of the judges in the country lean left.

What makes you say this? Asked them have you?

I'm a law student....anyone czan look over supreme court cases and see that there is a trend of left leaning decisions. even judges appointed by conservatives gradually lean left.

The problem here is that most conservative pundits don't really have a coherent notion of what constitutes right or left. They usually consider themselves center right and anything to the left of them to be "the" left. No matter how right wing they are. Bill O'Reilley thinks he's a moderate for Chrissakes.

Judges don't lean anywhere other than where they were when they were appointed. Political climates change, but unelected judges (some judges do have to run for their office) lean only to their own interpretation of the law. For conservative judges that will usually be towards the right, even if people blowing in the political wind don't think so.

There's also the matter of who's writing the books. Non politically motivated books tend to be written by people who view the progress of American courts as being a trend towards liberalism (increased liberty and equality). They would see the Brown V Board of Ed. case as progress, but the law in Wyoming where the Supreme court said that there is nothing unconstitutional about searching a car with no real reason as being a regression. This slant of the authors will cause them to structure the book so as to protray a left leaning trend in the history of American law, but that's not really the case.

If it was then someone would have noticed that back in the 30's it took a Constitutional Amendment to give Congress the power to ban an intoxicant. Now we have Supreme Court justices saying that Congress has the power to ban marijuana via its ability to "regulate interstate trade," because if someone in California grows his own then he isn't buying it from drug smugglers from Hawaii. Is this a "left leaning" trend? If it was I think it would have liberalized enough from 75 years ago that we'd all be allowed to grow it in our window boxes.

any person is little more than a mass of tissue, unless you are religious. So why then is a fetus any different from a more mature mass of tissue?

Also why is a child, baby, or fetus seen as belonging to someone? I thought that modern countries percieved people as individuals with rights and not as property.

So then if we are all masses of tissue with rights and an inate right to selfdetermination, how can one say that a fetus while inside of a woman is her property? Also being only half of the biological contributor to the creaton of said fetus, how then could a woman be the sole proprietor of said mass of tissue? Furthermore a fetus will develope into a person which will have certain rights, so how then can one person have the right to forestall this "potential person's" rights? At least in America we have a Declaration of Independence which states that all men(people) are created(concieved or made) equal. It does not state equality in birth but in inception so what conclusions might we draw?

I personally have no strong leaning either way on the issue, but it seems unfair to end any life without just cause and due consideration.

any person is little more than a mass of tissue, unless you are religious. So why then is a fetus any different from a more mature mass of tissue?

A person has conciousness. Without a developed nervous system a fetus is not a person it is a potential person. Personhood does not start at conception anymore than it starts at the generation of the sperm and egg that will eventually join.

Also why is a child, baby, or fetus seen as belonging to someone? I thought that modern countries percieved people as individuals with rights and not as property.
Babies and children are not seen as belonging to someone. They are people for whom parents or guardians are responsible and to whom they owe certain obligations and over whom, for the purposes of fulfilling these obligations, they weild certain powers. A fetus on the other hand does belong to the mother because it is physically a part of her body, like a kidney or lung.

So then if we are all masses of tissue with rights and an inate right to selfdetermination, how can one say that a fetus while inside of a woman is her property? Also being only half of the biological contributor to the creaton of said fetus, how then could a woman be the sole proprietor of said mass of tissue?

Possesion is 9/10th's of the law. As I said, it's a part of her body.

Furthermore a fetus will develope into a person which will have certain rights, so how then can one person have the right to forestall this "potential person's" rights?

Not will, might. Until it happens it isn't a person and doesn't have a person's rights.

At least in America we have a Declaration of Independence which states that all men(people) are created(concieved or made) equal. It does not state equality in birth but in inception so what conclusions might we draw?

All men (adults) are created (born) equal. It does not say inception it says created...
Even if they had the religous principles that right wingers love to ascribe them with the prevailing religous view at the time was that a child is not a child until birth or christianing. There are many parts of the developing world where if a child dies before christianing they will not be given a funeral.

I personally have no strong leaning either way on the issue...

This would seem very much not to be the case.

This is riduclous. The whole arguement for abortion is a woman's right to choose. If she is killed by someone else then she didnt choose to abort the fetus. Someone else did. I dont think its hard to understand at all.

-This is riduclous. The whole arguement for abortion is a woman's right to choose. If she is killed by someone else then she didnt choose to abort the fetus. Someone else did. I dont think its hard to understand at all.

I'm being devil's advocate here, but it is possible to commit foeticide without killing the mother. Now mind you, this is not a justification, in the end you still end up harming the mother carying the fetus, if even emotionally. This is part (not the whole) of the reasoning behind it.
Autocraticama- you said-
I'm a law student....anyone can look over supreme court cases and see that there is a trend of left leaning decisions. even judges appointed by conservatives gradually lean left.
Is it possible that this is your political oppinion, not necessarily based on actuality? In reality, these things are judged by the individual viewing them. For some, any change in law that doesn't fit their own bill is deemed Liberal or conservative, because for them the concept of liberal or conservative is a negative factor. I am sorry if this chalenges some of your standings, but I see it as quite a bit more complex than this. Each judge is asked to not only be extremely knowledgeble, but to some how have an elevated sense of right and wrong over cases that are swayed by the abilities of the lawers involved (just so you know, I am a law student as well). Most likely all of the facts in each case may never be brought to light, or may never be seen objectivly. It is easy to point fingers and just say- you made this ruling- you must be "liberal" or "conservative". Humans don't fit that nicely into labels and categories. I see a judge who orders a woman to remain married to an abusive husband, solely because of her pregnancy status and her ability to earn, as conservative, but this is because I see this as a result of a value that self proclaimed conservatives tout. For me this seems very 1940's.
One last note on the above mentioned case- this recently happened in Washington State, a state considered liberal. The sad thing is that this had to go through the channels for a while before it hit the state supreem court, which over-ruled it.
But I digress...

GK Sushi

Why is fetuside a crime? If it's just tissue you can't kill it right?

If you want to completely objectify the crime and remove al sentiment whatsoever, its their property and you are destroying it, which is against the law. However, I think if you need this definition you are a sad, sad individual, indeed. :(

I'm a law student....anyone czan look over supreme court cases and see that there is a trend of left leaning decisions. even judges appointed by conservatives gradually lean left.

We obviously have different ideas of "left."

We obviously have different ideas of "left."
Rehnquist?

Rehnquist?

Not even. He's barely out of center, and he's a so called "liberal." About half of them are scarily to the right.

Judicial activism is a liberal concept and he and others practice it constantly. The Supreme Court was not created tomake laws, just to review them. They are really pissing me off.

Judicial activism is a liberal concept and he and others practice it constantly. The Supreme Court was not created tomake laws, just to review them. They are really pissing me off.
In some cases they make laws, but in others they interpret law - especially the constitution. In doing so they create law, however. You can't escape it, I think. In defining what a law does, you in effect recreate it.

Judicial activism is a liberal concept? Oh puleez! Can we say "Scalia." Conservatives do at least as much ideological posturing. It's why both sides salivate at the idea of being able to appoint their own judges.

In some cases they make laws, but in others they interpret law - especially the constitution. In doing so they create law, however. You can't escape it, I think. In defining what a law does, you in effect recreate it.

The FCC was created as result of Gibson v. Ogden. One of many examples.

Basically iwant judges who say "this is right and this is wrong", not "this is right/wrong, so do this."

The Supreme Court was not created tomake laws, just to review them. They are really pissing me off.

courts make law all the time. always have. without the courts deciding what does and does not violate the law™, all you have are a bunch of poorly worded documents that are frequently in direct conflict with each other (or reality). and since the documents conflict or the circumstances do not match up exactly, judges have to decide what the law™ actually is; how to implement their conceptions of the the concepts that the law is taken to be based on. when has it been otherwise?

Basically iwant judges who say "this is right and this is wrong", not "this is right/wrong, so do this."

suppose somebody passed a law stating that no one may drive a vehichle in the park. so the cops arrest some man who was rolling through the park in his wheelchair. you are a judge and the case comes before you. did he break the law or not?

and then the park district sent out its summer help in riding lawnmowers to cut the grass in the park. the cops nab the perps, and again the case comes before you. well?

and then the cops get really ambitious and engage in a high speed chase all the way to the airport, where they arrest the pilot of a plane that flew over the park. guilty or not, your honor?

If you want to completely objectify the crime and remove al sentiment whatsoever, its their property and you are destroying it, which is against the law. However, I think if you need this definition you are a sad, sad individual, indeed. :(
I don't think that applying reason to the principles behind laws makes anyone a sad individual.

And I disagree about destruction of property being a good classification here. To me it's more like removing someone else's body part without their consent - this of course is a crime under most laws, so there is no "dilemma" here.

A more interesting question is how severely should the crime be punished, compared to other crimes against human body - is killing a fetus more or less evil than forcefully removing someone's appendix? arm? hair? Tough decision for lawmakers and judges.

Why is fetuside a crime? If it's just tissue you can't kill it right?
be "fetuside" i assume you mean the laws which punish somebody who kills a pregnant woman for two homicides. the answer to your question is easy: those laws were intentionally designed to undermine the right to choose, by using a back-door approach to get fetuses recognized as human lives.

yes....but fetuside is a crime (int he us at least) and most of the judges in the country lean left.

Fetuscide is a crime only in cases where abortion is already illegal, and in cases where all but the most hard lined abortion advocates would espouse anything beyond the rape/incest/life of the mother limitations. There is no dilema.

It also, was really only made a crime so that people like you could use it as an argument against abortion and make it out like any dichotomy is all the 'dirty liberal judges' fault.

Fetuscide is a crime only in cases where abortion is already illegal, and in cases where all but the most hard lined abortion advocates would espouse anything beyond the rape/incest/life of the mother limitations. There is no dilema.

It also, was really only made a crime so that people like you could use it as an argument against abortion and make it out like any dichotomy is all the 'dirty liberal judges' fault.

I am sorry but this is just not true. Consider the case of Scott Peterson, i California (another "liberal" state). He was also charged with foeticide in addition to the other counts of murder. I hate to burst your bubble, but abortion is legal in California (and most states in the US, Even places like Utah). You seem to miss the point. There is a remarked diffrence in this debate and the one over abortion. I go back to my original point which applies that the foetus is often seen as belonging to the mother and this charge is often used to add time to an already heinous crime. Also note that foetiscide doesn't restrict it's self to the first trimester, the period before the development of a nervous system, and therefore before the ability to feel and possible cognative thought.
And just so you know- I am in favor of legal abortions, but this is not a debate over the womans right to choose, but a debate over an act that superceeds a womans right to choose, with another's intent to harm. You could be charged with this just as well if you are an abusive husband who beats his wife to the point that she loses her child, as well as in the case of murder.

GK Sushi