This is the same result in every case of this kind that has been heard. A state legislature is free to pass a law that defines someone causing the loss of a fetus as murder, and many states have. It isn't murder, though, unless there is such a special statute applying the law to fetuses.

There is no constitutional right to privacy involved in this type of case.

No doubt, no doubt. But it always leads one to question how the fetus can be accorded the value of human life in one instance, but be understood as less than human in the instances of abortion.

Because the legislature passed a law that said so. It's as simple as that. They weren't covered by previous laws relating to the killing of a person, but there's nothing to keep the legislature from defining something as a crime as long as there are no constitutional limitations.

I am not talking about the mechanism of how it takes place. I am speaking of the rationale. In region A, the fetus is not a human being accorded the dignity and value of human life. And in region B, the fetus is. In region A, I kill a woman and her unborn child with the full intention to do so, no murder rap on the child. In region B, I do the same, I am indicted for two murders. In region A, I am not indcted because the unborn child is not human. In region B, I am indicted because the unborn child is human. In region B, an abortion takes place and there is no killing of a human being, but I am indicted for the deaths of both mother and unborn baby.

Remember, I cannot possibly murder a non-human being. This is a philosophical question, not a simple matter of the law passed one way here and another way there.

If it is not dependent on the law, why was it not murder before the legislatures passed these statutes extending the definition to include fetuses? The common law appled only to the killing of a human being, the legislatures expanded that to include human fetuses as well. It was within their power to do that and they did.

You are still not getting it.I am pointing out a very obvious absurdity. In one place, the unborn child is human. In another place, the unborn child is not. This transcends the law. In the place where the child is human and subjects another person to laws covering murder, I can be indicted for murder becuase the unborn child is human. In the same place, the unborn child can be aborted because the unborn child is not human. It is one of the most obvious contradictions that exist. Human but not human. An utter absurdity!

No, this has nothing to do with "human" vs. "non-human". Fetuses didn't suddenly become "human" when the legislatures amended the law to make murder applicable to them. You say:



No, you couldn't be indicted for this until the legislature changed the definition. Legislatures can't legislate facts like humanity, they can only change the law. And prior to these statutory changes there could be no murder charges for fetuses because the laws against murder did not apply.

You and I are discussing two different things, regardless of how many times I have pointed out what i was getting at. So I am not going to bother discussing it with you anylonger.

MOS is looking at two different legal rules that each apply equally to persons in Texas and sees an inconsistency that troubles him: Women are (by law) free to terminate a pregnancy (and with it the fetus they are carrying). On the other hand, someone else who takes an action with the same result can be prosecuted for murder of the fetus. If it's murder in one instance, why is it not in the the other?

Yoss doesn't see a problem because these rules come from different places, so (apparently) they don't have to be consistent.

Yoss, if Texas imposed the death penalty for murder of a fetus, would you consider that acceptable? Can it not be argued that it is cruel and unusual punishment to put person A to death for doing what person B can freely do? If you choose to answer that question, please ignore any consideration of whether the death penalty itself or the way it is carried out is cruel and unusual punishment.

This contradiction is not lost on the left, as they so often purport. Groups like NARAL and NOW consistently oppose legislation that criminalizes the murder of a fetus. I remember the campaign to not have Scott Peterson charged with Connor's (fetus) murder.

This is a complete misstatement of my position. Historically, there were laws in some places criminalizing abortion, but as far as I know a third party causing the termination of a pregnancy was never considered murder. Certainly it wasn't at common law. And attempts to apply the usual murder statutes to fetuses were unsuccessful.

After Roe v. Wade held that the constitutional right to privacy applied to abortion, laws that restricted the decisions of the woman were struck down. It did not say that fetuses or other stages of human development were not "human", but they did rule that fetuses were not "persons" under the Constitution and never had been. The rights of the woman outweigh the potential life of the fetus, at least until viability.

If it were not for the woman's right to privacy, legislatures could define abortion as murder. Obviously there is no such restriction with regard to a third party. Many legislatures have changed their laws to include fetuses as possible victims of the crime of murder by third parties. In my opinion one motivation for many of these laws was to enable just these very arguments. They were artificially trying to create an "inconsistency" despite the fact that they had not defined this as murder in the past.



Well, I don't consider the death penalty "acceptable" under any circumstances, but I understand that you would like me to address your argument despite that. I disagree with your premise that Persons A and B are doing even remotely the same thing. The woman is making a medical decision that affects her own body, the third party is not. Saying that this is the same thing is like saying that any killing of a person is the same thing whether it's unjustifed or in self defense or in wartime. The circumstances matter.

Yes, and they also consistently ignore data and info showing just how viable the unborn child is, such as the fact that they can swim (removed from the womb prematurely, the otherwise unborn children have been found to be natural swimmers), the fact that their well-developed nervous systems register responses to surgical instruments, including yup, you guessed it, pain. After approx 3 weeks, their hearts are beating. I mean, the list just goes on and on.

Groups like NARAL and NOW, as well as Planned Parenthood (eugenecist Margaret Sanger's brainchild) are very selective in what science they choose to recognize.

but viability is where roe ends...

In short, politicians are not required to make sense or be able to follow a simple logical argument, and most liberals in this country only ascribe value to a child still in the womb according to the supposed assumption that if it's still there, the mother valued it.

but it is the same fetus, correct? which leads back to the original question...how is the mother not charged with murder for killing the fetus yet a 3rd party would be for killing the same fetus?

Or more to the point Happy, how is the fetus a human person in the situation where say, a Scot Peterson kills his wife and unborn child, and if his wife had decided to have an abortion, their unborn child is not a human person under the law. The charging of murder in 1 instance as opposed to the other would be the result of this partly.

It is the same person, correct, yet how is a person not charged with murder for killing in self-defense or wartime if someone would be charged with murder if they killed that person in other circumstances?

There is your answer. If you think that the circumstances of what happens don't matter you are wrong.

well, if we were talking war time or self defense, your analogy would be dandy...but in this case, great non-answer

Because for purposes of a statute the legislature can define its own terms!!!!!! This is not complicated. If the legislature wanted to pass a conservation law that included a definition that said "for purposes of this law, turtles shall be considered to be fish" do you think that (as long as the law was publicized enough so that the unusual definition was understood) that it would be a defense to say "but turtles aren't really fish"? Of course not. If the legislature defines a term for the purpose of a particular statute, then that's what it means in applying that statute!

More interestingly, why can't the father file murder charges when his wife kills the same fetus. It's half his DNA, and he should have rights too, even if it's just considered "property".

Don't pretend to not understand, Happy. You and I both know better.

I agree BF. Then there are the third trimester abortions that are illeagal, so why shouldn't it all be illegal?

The contradictions are so outrageously obvious, that in my estimation, it points to pervasive willfull blindness on the part of those who make these laws.

Exactly. Yoss wants to pretend that we should totally ignore contradictions in law because our legal system is full of them. Simple law, in his estimation is bad law. Those of us who want laws based on reason are apparently in the minority.