Murder or Assault

[evenflow1121]

So does it vary from state to state? or is it Supreme court finalization?

The states are given more power to regulate abortions, and obviously what consitutes a late term, and up to what point you can have one, under the US Supreme Court Planned Parenhood of Pittsburg case which in many ways does away with essential elements of Roe v Wade. They do not set guidelines, but allow the states to set them.

 

[goshawk]

To my mind, it's assault of the woman involved only; at least as long as it would still be possible to have an abortion. I can't remember when that is, suddenly. Start of the third term, maybe? Anybody know?

From the standpoint of the law, past that point there should be considered two people, and before that only one. It's an imperfect solution, of course, as it draws a definitive line of "personhood" where there probably isn't one, but perfect solutions will be hard to come by in any issue like this. Plus, anything else chips dangerously away at Roe vs. Wade, and I think there's rather enough of that going on right now.

From a purely subjective point of view? If the woman is visibly, obviously pregnant, it's murder and assault both.

 

[47MartialMan]

To my mind, it's assault of the woman involved only; at least as long as it would still be possible to have an abortion. I can't remember when that is, suddenly. Start of the third term, maybe? Anybody know?

From the standpoint of the law, past that point there should be considered two people, and before that only one. It's an imperfect solution, of course, as it draws a definitive line of "personhood" where there probably isn't one, but perfect solutions will be hard to come by in any issue like this. Plus, anything else chips dangerously away at Roe vs. Wade, and I think there's rather enough of that going on right now.

From a purely subjective point of view? If the woman is visibly, obviously pregnant, it's murder and assault both.

So the law sets the standard?

 

[goshawk]

So the law sets the standard?

Something has to.

I have a firm belief in the rule of law, and thus addressed the question from a legal perspective, thinking more of how it should be dealt with by society as opposed to how I would deal with it myself. Like I said, it's an imperfect solution, as laws generally are.

Nobody knows exactly when human consciousness begins, though it seems everybody has an opinion. I haven't studied the issue and so don't consider myself qualified to defend an opinion. However, if I recall correctly most medical literature calls abortion dangerous or unnacceptable under most circumstances, past a certain point in the second trimester. It seems to me that if a legislation for this issue is needed (as apparently it is?), that's be a good place to draw the line.

From a purely emotional, subjective standpoint...I don't know. I think I'd take it case-by-case. i.e. Six weeks pregnant, with no visual cues or other indicators of the woman's pregnancy, I'd say assault only. If, on the other hand, we're talking an obviously pregnant woman, I'd include the murder and want the creep given a life sentence for willfully causing the death of a child.

I may've misunderstood the question. I automatically assumed Tgace was asking for an opinion on what we as a society should do with regards to the issue, and I responded from that assumption. If I was wrong in that assumption...well, I guess I made an a** of me and mption. =P

 

[47MartialMan]

Something has to.

I have a firm belief in the rule of law, and thus addressed the question from a legal perspective, thinking more of how it should be dealt with by society as opposed to how I would deal with it myself. Like I said, it's an imperfect solution, as laws generally are.

Nobody knows exactly when human consciousness begins, though it seems everybody has an opinion. I haven't studied the issue and so don't consider myself qualified to defend an opinion. However, if I recall correctly most medical literature calls abortion dangerous or unnacceptable under most circumstances, past a certain point in the second trimester. It seems to me that if a legislation for this issue is needed (as apparently it is?), that's be a good place to draw the line.

From a purely emotional, subjective standpoint...I don't know. I think I'd take it case-by-case. i.e. Six weeks pregnant, with no visual cues or other indicators of the woman's pregnancy, I'd say assault only. If, on the other hand, we're talking an obviously pregnant woman, I'd include the murder and want the creep given a life sentence for willfully causing the death of a child.

I may've misunderstood the question. I automatically assumed Tgace was asking for an opinion on what we as a society should do with regards to the issue, and I responded from that assumption. If I was wrong in that assumption...well, I guess I made an a** of me and mption. =P

Nice post.

However, if we are to understand that law is from the birth of righteous morals, thus such morals are from the birth of religion, then said law is in the name of religion?

Now given that the social order of the era is looking to separate "religion" from "state", which one holds more value?

 

[goshawk]

Nice post.

However, if we are to understand that law is from the birth of righteous morals, thus such morals are from the birth of religion, then said law is in the name of religion?

Now given that the social order of the era is looking to separate "religion" from "state", which one holds more value?

Um, I think I need to do a little conceptual discussion before answering that, hope you don't mind.

First of all, "morals are born out of religion"? That's a pretty sweeping premise, one I'm not entirely certain I can agree with. I'd say rather that morals, human ideals of what is acceptable or "good" and what is unnacceptable or "bad" grew out of our cooperative social structure as an inevitable evolutionary adaptation--much like the altruism gene.

Violence as morally wrong likely grew out of violence as poor survival strategy. Religion, leaving out theological discussion ('cause if I didn't we'd be here all night and probably get booted to the Study) is a system for understanding the world and society both. Thus I find it much more likely that religion grew up around and included pre-existing moral codes than the other way around. =P

Whew. That defined...

I see the separation of state from religion as simply a way of separating morality from religion once more; a way of maintaining a just and ethical society while still allowing for the ethnically and religiously diverse societies the world has developed thanks to the ease of travel we now enjoy. A non-denominational system of right and wrong is an absolute necessity if we want to remain a non-persecuting and tolerant society rather than an oppressive theocracy.

Now,I think what you're asking is whether law or morality is more important (correct me if I'm wrong, here). And I'm really unsure how to answer that question. I mean, more important how? To whom? More important to society, more important to individuals, more important to martial artists...? Society must follow the rule of law; to do otherwise is to invite a) anarchy and b) the imposition of the majority's ideals upon the minority. Therefore, from a purely practical, best-for-the-nation perspective, it's better that law be followed and the devil himself be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Hell, better that he's released if the prosecution couldn't hack it, than to dismantle those laws "just once" because you "just know" he's guilty.

Individually, I'd like to think that I would trust myself to know what is right and go with it, regardless of the law. If I saw someone being raped, I'd do my best to take the rapist apart. Perhaps by the laws of that area, I'd be in the wrong--but for myself, I know what was right in that instance. Better to spend time in jail than to walk on by without doing something. But that's just me.

So, after that ridiculously long reply...could you clarify your question a bit?

Jeez, I think the chatterbug bit me, injected its venom, then decided to possess my keyboard tonight. I'm not usually this long-winded. ::blinks::

 

[47MartialMan]

Um, I think I need to do a little conceptual discussion before answering that, hope you don't mind.

First of all, "morals are born out of religion"? That's a pretty sweeping premise, one I'm not entirely certain I can agree with. I'd say rather that morals, human ideals of what is acceptable or "good" and what is unnacceptable or "bad" grew out of our cooperative social structure as an inevitable evolutionary adaptation--much like the altruism gene.

Violence as morally wrong likely grew out of violence as poor survival strategy. Religion, leaving out theological discussion ('cause if I didn't we'd be here all night and probably get booted to the Study) is a system for understanding the world and society both. Thus I find it much more likely that religion grew up around and included pre-existing moral codes than the other way around. =P

Whew. That defined...

I see the separation of state from religion as simply a way of separating morality from religion once more; a way of maintaining a just and ethical society while still allowing for the ethnically and religiously diverse societies the world has developed thanks to the ease of travel we now enjoy. A non-denominational system of right and wrong is an absolute necessity if we want to remain a non-persecuting and tolerant society rather than an oppressive theocracy.

Now,I think what you're asking is whether law or morality is more important (correct me if I'm wrong, here). And I'm really unsure how to answer that question. I mean, more important how? To whom? More important to society, more important to individuals, more important to martial artists...? Society must follow the rule of law; to do otherwise is to invite a) anarchy and b) the imposition of the majority's ideals upon the minority. Therefore, from a purely practical, best-for-the-nation perspective, it's better that law be followed and the devil himself be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Hell, better that he's released if the prosecution couldn't hack it, than to dismantle those laws "just once" because you "just know" he's guilty.

Individually, I'd like to think that I would trust myself to know what is right and go with it, regardless of the law. If I saw someone being raped, I'd do my best to take the rapist apart. Perhaps by the laws of that area, I'd be in the wrong--but for myself, I know what was right in that instance. Better to spend time in jail than to walk on by without doing something. But that's just me.

So, after that ridiculously long reply...could you clarify your question a bit?

Jeez, I think the chatterbug bit me, injected its venom, then decided to possess my keyboard tonight. I'm not usually this long-winded. ::blinks::

Thank you for yuor post. I was posting in ponderance for a detail reply-I got it.

I think you may have covered all angles-unless someone esle has anything to add.

 

[goshawk]

Thank you for yuor post.

No worries. Evidently I felt like babbling last night. =P

Cheers.

 

[hwarang]

I got one that will really confuse you all... Who cares? how many of you have lost fetuses? .... well if you havent then you have no say in the matter, the moment one of you becomes pregnant then loses her kid or hits a prengant woman in the stomach, then you'll have a say

 

[Feisty Mouse]

If the mother was planning to carry the child to term - assault on her, and loss (homicide?) of the child.

If she was not planning to carry the child to term - assault on her.

~or~

Again, this is where we "horrible" and "moral-less" pro-choicers have to defer, once again, to the mother's (and father's) wishes, beliefs, and intent.

You'd think respecting individual beliefs and rights were some anti-American thing. Oh well.

 

[Flatlander]

I got one that will really confuse you all... Who cares? how many of you have lost fetuses? .... well if you havent then you have no say in the matter, the moment one of you becomes pregnant then loses her kid or hits a prengant woman in the stomach, then you'll have a say

Well, I disagree. In the Study, we examine issues and debate our positions. It seems to me that, irrespective of one's sex, religeon, or experience, they are entitled to an opinion. This is the place to make your case; an area where anyone who chooses can put their opinion up for scrutiny, and perhaps refine or re-examine their position.

 

[hwarang]

Well, I disagree. In the Study, we examine issues and debate our positions. It seems to me that, irrespective of one's sex, religeon, or experience, they are entitled to an opinion. This is the place to make your case; an area where anyone who chooses can put their opinion up for scrutiny, and perhaps refine or re-examine their position.

yes, i guess that sounds right im sorry maybe i shouldnt get all into it like that forgive me for my stoopid post just understand where im coming from if it hasnt happened to you then you cant exactly know what you would or would not want.. certainly your idea of it would change if you were the man who attacked the woman (i think that would be a very bad thing, and you would be a baad person if you did this) then you would be singing quite a different tune if you didnt know she was pregnant.. Im not trying to be mean or anything, just playing the devils advocate and going for underdog

 

[Tgace]

Going "for" someone who attacks a woman...pregnant or not?? Odd position.

 

[hwarang]

Its not really going "for" them, its just trying to see the others point of view, if you cant understand something you cant judge it friend

 

[Tgace]

Thats called "moral relativism" i.e. how can you "judge" somebody since its just an issue of them not thinking they are wrong and you thinking you are. What makes me right and them wrong? How can you judge? Thats why we have Law, it makes those decisions easier...

 

[evenflow1121]

If the mother was planning to carry the child to term - assault on her, and loss (homicide?) of the child.

If she was not planning to carry the child to term - assault on her.

~

Yeah the problem is that the mother would really have no choice here, the state brings the action in criminal court, makes it all the more complicated, so even if the mother said I was going to have an abortion, or I was on my way to the abortion clinic when this happenned, well you see how complicated it all gets now. i am not disagreeing with you, just making a point.

 

[sgtmac_46]

If the mother was planning to carry the child to term - assault on her, and loss (homicide?) of the child.

If she was not planning to carry the child to term - assault on her.

~

Yeah the problem is that the mother would really have no choice here, the state brings the action in criminal court, makes it all the more complicated, so even if the mother said I was going to have an abortion, or I was on my way to the abortion clinic when this happenned, well you see how complicated it all gets now. i am not disagreeing with you, just making a point.

So the mother decides whether it's a child or not for purposes of prosecution? That's a slippery slope if I ever saw one. I think there are two choices. Either A) It's a living child both ways or B) It's property, and then the charge would be felony destruction of property.

 

[evenflow1121]

So the mother decides whether it's a child or not for purposes of prosecution? That's a slippery slope if I ever saw one. I think there are two choices. Either A) It's a living child both ways or B) It's property, and then the charge would be felony destruction of property.

The state brings the charges in criminal court not the mother, but there are gray areas to everything, what happens if the mother was on the way to an abortion clinic when this happenned? Given that scenario should the state still bring a murder 2 in the least case against the assailant? The issue becomes more complicated, if it is a living child both ways, then abortion would not be legal in this country. If you recognize an unborn as a living child throughout all stages of pregnancy, its safe to say the anti abortion side would use that argument, and it prob would be a very strong one in a court of law. The mere fact that the state would recognize an unborn child as living in all stages of the pregnancy (it obviously does recognize its life at the latter stage) would prob strike down abortion law if that ever happenned.

The mother can never decide, its a criminal case, or it would be, but an incident like that could become very complicated in a court of law.

 

[sgtmac_46]

The state brings the charges in criminal court not the mother, but there are gray areas to everything, what happens if the mother was on the way to an abortion clinic when this happenned? Given that scenario should the state still bring a murder 2 in the least case against the assailant? The issue becomes more complicated, if it is a living child both ways, then abortion would not be legal in this country. If you recognize an unborn as a living child throughout all stages of pregnancy, its safe to say the anti abortion side would use that argument, and it prob would be a very strong one in a court of law. The mere fact that the state would recognize an unborn child as living in all stages of the pregnancy (it obviously does recognize its life at the latter stage) would prob strike down abortion law if that ever happenned.

The mother can never decide, its a criminal case, or it would be, but an incident like that could become very complicated in a court of law.

The more important issue is, why is the woman's mindset relavent to whether or not the child is a human life. Moreover, how can a child be both alive and not alive at the same time, it's pure schizophrenia. The law can not have the issue both ways. Either the child is a living human being, worthy of protection from EVERYONE (including it's own mother) or it is property, in which case the fetus should be treated as property which, if lost, is considered like any other owned property of the mother and the subject is charged as if they destroyed a valued object or killed the neighbors dog. There is only two ways to go philosophically with this, and the mothers mindset is irrelavent. What we need is a legal principle that applies across the board.

 

[drdoolittle]

That then begs the question... is the mother worthy of protection against the child? Every woman risks medical harm, up to and including death, to carry and deliver a child. Where is the protection in that line of thought for the already existing person?
Also, about the property comment, do you consider a hand or a foot personal property? Both the mother and child remain 1 physical/biological entity until birth-how do you separate them into two separate sets of legal rights without harming the other? And why would you want to?
My vote would be the mother decides whether she has the status of one entity or two because of the risk that decision carries.
It doesn't matter if its the scenario mentioned above (assualt) or something different...the central question always comes back to when does life begin and who gets to decide that.