Are foeticide laws compatible with pro-choice views?

cullennz said:
A bit off topic, but I have always been a bit confused why these kind of full on "moral" laws (for want of a better word. Eg Death penalty and abortion, gun restrictions etc) are State decided, yet silly things like age of having a beer are federal.
Click to expand...


That's because beer is far more important than a woman's right to choose what path she wants her own life and body to go in.

Men like beer. More so than they like women, apparently.
 
cullennz said:
A bit off topic, but I have always been a bit confused why these kind of full on "moral" laws (for want of a better word. Eg Death penalty and abortion, gun restrictions etc) are State decided, yet silly things like age of having a beer are federal.
Click to expand...

The Federal Government basically strong armed the 21 year old drinking age with highway funds. In 1984 they passed a law basically going "You can set your drinking age to whatever you want... but it ain't 21 you're losing 10% of your highway funds."

Up until the early 80s the drinking age vary widely from 18 to 21 throughout the various states.
 
BStrong said:
Simple explanation.



An individual has a toothache, makes an appointment with a dentist and has the tooth pulled.



An individual has a toothache, makes an appointment with a dentist and on the way to see the Dr. is assaulted and their attacker yanks the tooth in question from the victim's mouth.



One is a crime, one isn't.
Click to expand...

Given the cost of dental treatment I know which is the crime! I suspect the attacker could make a good career out of his extractions, can't be done for practicing medicine without a licence and no one will press charges... excuse me just going to check my tool box, sure I've got an old pair of pliers.
 
ShadowSot said:
I'd think there's a difference between a woman making a decision to a bort, and being caused to miscarry by someone else's action.
Click to expand...
I was under the impression that foeticide referred to killing a foetus outside of a legal abortion (whether caused by the mother or not).
 
theprestige said:
Is that really what you believe?

Most pro-choice folks seem to agree that the state should also be involved in deciding when the choice is even available to the mother. First trimester? Sure. Second and third trimesters? The state has the final say.

Are you saying that the woman involved should be able to decide up until the moment of birth?
Click to expand...

I thought I was very clear on that, but basically yes. Though I find that to be highly unlikely.
 
Though I would prefer and hope it is actually what would happen that the baby would be made available for adoption,
 
theprestige said:
You're saying it should be legal for a woman whose water has broken, who is about to give birth to a healthy baby, to go to an abortionist instead.

Is that correct?
Click to expand...

why not?
Because we know what an "abortionist" would do - which is exactly what any other doctor would do.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
why not?
Because we know what an "abortionist" would do - which is exactly what any other doctor would do.
Click to expand...

Does "abortionist" mean "doctor"? I get confused because I was under the impression that a woman who wanted an abortion went to a doctor.

That's how it works in Sweden, anyway.

I also believe that an abortion on a healthy woman who's water has broken with a healthy baby is normally called a "birth".

Post not directed at you TGZ, but rather an expression of sincere disbelief.
 
Last edited:
uke2se said:
Does "abortionist" mean "doctor"? I get confused because I was under the impression that a woman who wanted an abortion went to a doctor.

That's how it works in Sweden, anyway.
Click to expand...

In the US, Conservatives have Doctors - Liberals have Abortionists.

I thought that was common knowledge.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
there is no such thing as an "abortionist" - this is intentionally loaded language.
Click to expand...

My apologies; I didn't mean to get stuck in a language dispute.

I simply wanted to confirm that fuelair (among others) is saying that it should be legal for a woman whose water has broken, and who is about to give birth to a healthy baby, to get an abortion instead.

The words I used were intended only to clarify that distinction between two choices. No additional loading or judgement was intended. Please re-read the question in that spirit, and answer according to your beliefs.

And it is no longer a fetus at that point.
Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean here.
 
I don't understand what you're saying here, as a pregnancy that has already self-terminated (water breaking) cannot be terminated. Abortion is premature termination of the pregnancy; it says nothing of the survival or not of the baby. (of course the baby usually is dying, that's why they need to be aborted)

I think I see the confusion, termination refers to the pregnancy. Not the fetus, it may survive the abortion or it may not (or already be dead). The pregnancy is aborted.
 
Last edited:
Crawtator said:
This is somewhat of a spinoff from the thread in US Politics discussing different state laws concerning abortion. I've long been concerned with what I perceive are inconsistent approaches among states concerning what is murder of a fetus. There are a few states in which it is perfectly legal to have an abortion and the fetus does not seem to have any absolute right to life. Some of the same states also have laws against feticide (or foeticide) which criminalizes the wrongful death of the fetus, whether the mother or outside perpetrator.

I've noticed quite incongruous statements made about this and have never understood why the dichotomy of opinions. Can it be rationally claimed that there is a right to abort a fetus and still have feticide laws on the books in the same state? Or are these two positions irreconcilable?

FTR, I really haven't made up my mind and was looking for input from everyone. I really just can't wrap my head around these statutes existing in the same jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

Are laws against Assault with a Deadly weapon consistent with a Doctor's ability to cut someone open with a scalpel during surgery?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom