• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Are foeticide laws compatible with pro-choice views?

Crawtator

Critical Thinker
C
Joined
Apr 13, 2016
Messages
398
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.
 
Depends on the pro-choice view, I guess.

Someone who recognizes a right to abortions of convenience in any trimester is probably not going to accept any feticide laws at all.

On the other hand, someone who thinks women should have the option of aborting in cases of rape or incest, prior to the second trimester, may also accept feticide laws applying to abortions of convenience and abortions in the second and third trimesters, without any internal contradiction.

---

In a similar (but not entirely analogous) vein, favoring capital punishment for some heinous crimes is not incompatible with recognizing a right to life of innocent children still in the womb.
 
Do these statutes say anything about the age of the foetus?

I would have thought that there was a cut-off point. Before a certain age, a foetus can legally be aborted but after that age, it has a right to life and foeticide laws kick in.

I could be totally wrong of course but if that is the case then there is no dichotomy of opinions.
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
Do these statutes say anything about the age of the foetus?

I would have thought that there was a cut-off point. Before a certain age, a foetus can legally be aborted but after that age, it has a right to life and foeticide laws kick in.
Click to expand...
Like you, I would have also thought so.

psionl0 said:
I could be totally wrong of course but if that is the case then there is no dichotomy of opinions.
Click to expand...
Apparently, we are both wrong,

At least 29 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation/development," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization");
Click to expand...

From http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

TBH I was a bit surprised. I am not certain but that would appear to make spontaneous miscarriage a crime, would it not?

More reading required, I guess, but at first blush it seems odd to me.
 
abaddon said:
TBH I was a bit surprised. I am not certain but that would appear to make spontaneous miscarriage a crime, would it not?

More reading required, I guess, but at first blush it seems odd to me.
Click to expand...
I read the link and I did not see anything to suggest that any state has a law that would make spontaneous miscarriage a crime. What did I miss?
 
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.
 
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...

The problem is the severity of a punishment for foeticide. The worst it is, the less sustainable it is for a pro choice proponent.

You can destroy your own property. If I destroy it I get destruction of property. But because it is only property,there isn't the crime of property-cide that I face decades of prison for.
 
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.
 
Crawtator said:
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?
Click to expand...

Politics.

Pro-life legislators view a fetus as fully human. They want to make abortion illegal but they can't because of Roe v Wade. But they can pass other laws that treat a fetus as fully human without violating Roe v Wade. Of course they are quick to point out that that makes the laws incongruous, with their proposed resolution to that incongruity to be to overturn Roe v Wade and make abortion illegal.

In other cases pro-choice legislators may have been pressured into voting for
feticide laws because they are part of a larger bill that they want passed or in order to have any feticide law. For example, pro-choice legislators may want a feticide law, but they need some votes from pro-life legislators who insist that the bill cover all fetuses.
 
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...

Possession and consumption of alcohol are state laws. However, the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 cuts federal highway funding to states where the purchase age is not at least 21. As a result, all states set the legal age as 21. The Act was challenged in South Dakota v. Dole. The Supreme Court ruled that the Act was not unconstitutional.
 
A recent Pew Poll found that 73% of all fetuses are anti-Natalists.
I don't think the anti-abortion laws take that into consideration sufficiently.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
Possession and consumption of alcohol are state laws. However, the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 cuts federal highway funding to states where the purchase age is not at least 21. As a result, all states set the legal age as 21. The Act was challenged in South Dakota v. Dole. The Supreme Court ruled that the Act was not unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Cheers

The US are seriously into the precedent makes the rule.

Hope you don't set a bad one
 
Not sure where a contradiction comes into it. One is voluntary, one isn't therefore can't see why in principle they should be treated the same.
 
Darat said:
As are all the systems based on English common law, such as New Zealand.
Click to expand...

True

It is just weird to me how when you have conversations in the US whole swathes of the population know what each case was (or at least the names).

I have heard to the max of Roe v Wade, but wouldn't have a clue of cases here

Here it is just we gave this in the past as a minimal and that as max so mmmeeehh chuck it inbetween... 5 years jail or whatever
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom