Abortion discussion without any religious aspect

[intrepidity]

The one sticking point, imho, comes when someone causes the loss of a pregnancy to someone else, and murder charges get involved. For a wanted pregnancy, this seems to make sense, but it strengthens the secular argument against abortion, doesn't it? It confers "personhood" upon a non-viable fetus.

Maybe the solution lies in recharacterizing that loss, in legal terms. Suggestions?

A parallel discussion has to do with penalties associated with someone killing an animal, especially a beloved pet. It doesn't feel right that the pet is considered only as "property" and valued accordingly.

Perhaps the severity of punishment should be weighted according to the effect on the affected person? What are the slippery slopes in that approach?

For example, if someone causes damage to a person's reproductive system (male or female), how different is that from causing an unwanted miscarriage, in terms of the emotional damage the victim suffers?

I'm just thinking out loud here, not trying to establish anything (like how this would actually work in the real world) beyond reconciling apparent contradictions these issues raise.

Any thoughts?

[Mr.Bill]

1. Well, at least so far,

the unborn fetus doesn't count as a second passenger for the carpool lane.

[intrepidity]

2. Heh. I often have to check myself when driving with my dog

because my internal auto-pilot believes there's a 2nd person in the vehicle with me.

[underpants]

3. I feel that the discussions skips over the key element.

Last edited Mon May 9, 2022, 07:01 PM - Edit history (1)

It’s her body. Meaning if she wants to have sex....things do happen, but it’s still her body.

Sex is good. It’s quite fun.

By skipping over that element it almost establishes that there’s something BAD about her. This goes back to Calvinism Puritanism all that demeaning paternalistic bullshit.

[Layzeebeaver]

6. Calvinism - you are where you are because you deserve it.

Pregnant? You deserve it.

Eleven years old with a baby after your creepy uncle and father did stuff? You deserve it.

Creating medicines and procedures that interfere with what you deserve is actually interfering with god’s plans for you.

NOTE: they ignore the plain fact that they tacitly admit that man can create things that interfere with god’s stuff. If this is true (and it is in their minds) then the corollary is that man is as powerful as god. Hmmm…

[LeftInTX]

4. I see pregnancy under civil statutes

If a pregnancy is lost against a mother's will, it is generally considered a civil loss, like the loss of a pet or property. (You could sue a doctor if they did something wrong)

However, there are cases of murder for murdering a fetus, but it is almost secondary to the murder of the mother.

[Phoenix61]

5. No because the charges are specific to an unborn fetus

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence.
Prior to this Act if the law had recognized the unborn as a full human being harm or death to it would have been prosecuted under already existing statues.
That they passed the Act clearly shows they do not consider a fetus or embryo a full human being.

[intrepidity]

7. Hmm.

That somewhat muddies the water. It sounds like it actually moves the law closer to criminalizing abortion. I suppose the caveat about "during the commission of a crime" is the qualifier that establishes the legal distinction. But I could see fundies trying to use it to support their side.

Good info to know for the inevitable upcoming debates I will find myself engaged with.

I wish we could have a law that upgrades our pet's lives above property.
.

[Phoenix61]

8. It moves it farther. Cases prior to the 2004 Act

weren’t prosecuted because murder involves the taking a human person’s life. The fact they passed a statue specific to the death of a fetus shows the law recognizes a fetus is not a human person.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

9. People choose not to press charges all the time, even when harm is done.

I see no contradiction between people characterizing a wanted pregnancy as a "baby" that deserves justice in the case of harm and characterizing an unwanted pregnancy as however they want, to which no harm is done. A person might even experience both feelings in the course of the pregnancy. It's okay to not have an absolute.

ETA: If you're not looking for legal or "workable" ideas, then just understanding that a pregnant person knows best what they want or need is the way to go.

[haele]

10. Abortion is a medical procedure that is based on a mother's decision with her doctor.

Whether or not the feotus is alive at the time of the decision. Sometimes, there isn't even a decision to be made, the body just does it on its own.
The laws that add "feticide" as an additional charge to an assault on a pregnant woman tend to be based on emotional response, and prior to 2004, were considered an aggravated charge enhancement to the original assault.
Even so, the closer to viability, the greater the damage to the woman, so the harsher the penalty.

Haele