Looking at the REASON for punishment for killing fetus if mother wanted it

When a pregnant woman dies in a homicide, everyone agrees that the perpetrator should get EXTRA punishment due to causing the death of the fetus. Even Pro-Choicers do not seem to object against this.

But the question is WHY, WHY exactly should the perpetrator get extra punishment for killing the fetus? After all, we are told that the fetus "isn't really a person", "doesn't really have any rights of its own".
If we're punishing someone for killing a fetus it means that a creature, a human being, was killed, that this creature's rights were violated by its unjust death, and therefore justice demands that the perpetrator who caused that pay a price.

This is something Abortion supporters don't want to admit at any price.

To get around this, they try to shift all the focus onto the woman; how her rights were violated when the fetus was killed, how her body was affected by the loss of the fetus.

But it doesn't take too much thought to recognize how borderline absurd this logic is. If we're going to be honest with ourselves.

How is the woman's body really affected? Is it affected all that much? This is a biological condition that's going to be over for the woman anyway. A couple months from now, whether she lost her baby or not, the physical condition of her body is going to be exactly the same. (An analogy might be like if I clipped off your toenails without your permission, or cut off the ponytail you were growing in your hair. There is really no permanent physical effect on your body.

And besides, the argument that women want to be pregnant but they have been deprived of that is absurd. It totally contradicts the other common Pro-Choice argument that the condition of pregnancy is such a terrible condition, that women should have the right to free themselves from it. If pregnancy is such a bad thing, then depriving a woman of continued pregnancy is almost doing her a favor, in some sense (when it comes to purely the physical condition of her body).

Then the other ridiculous argument that some Pro-Choicers try to parade out is that the woman "owns" the fetus. This argument is ultimately absurd too, for a number of reasons.
First, it is a temporary ownership. Once that baby comes out, she will no longer "own" it (not in the sense that Pro-Choicers want to try to argue here); the woman has not been deprived of anything long-term. The effect on her alleged "bodily rights" or "property rights" is temporary.

Some Pro-Choicers will even try to make the argument that she continues to "own" the baby even after it comes out of her. This is another absurd and not very well thought-out argument.
Just as one example, what about the rights of the father?? This is pretty much like a parallel of the institution of Slavery, where one human being exercises "property rights" over another. Is this really the sort of argument Pro-Choicers want to insist on making?? We all agree a baby which has exited the woman has certain inherent rights, including the right not to be abused. How can this be if the woman "owns" it?
Isn't it a little bit of a stretch to try to argue that the woman's property rights have been infringed upon if something happens to the baby, and yet the woman doesn't have the right to inflict this bad thing onto the baby herself? It seems this really does not have to do with property rights.
And then to top it all off, these days the government seems to be involving itself in all sorts of decisions that used to be the parents. This impetus comes from the same political camp that the majority of Abortion Pro-Choicers side with. So there is a certainly a lot of hypocrisy trying to claim the woman "owns" her baby, when your political side does not support parents being able to make various other decisions concerning that baby. The argument here could go on and on, but I think this is going off on a long tangent, so it would be better to get back to the main argument.

The main question is how is the woman's body actually physically affected? That fetus is going to eventually come out of her one way or another, whether in miscarriage or birth. It might simply be a matter of timing.

I think anyone who is being honest can recognize that the woman's physical body is not really being affected that much in this situation.

Pro-Choicers will try to argue until their throats are hoarse that it does deeply affect her body, but let's be sensible and reasonable about this situation. Her body is not really the actual issue here. It's the baby, the tragic loss of her baby.
And to admit that, is to admit that is a baby. That it is a tragedy when the unborn baby is killed even when the woman does not want it.

The next argument Pro-Choicers will try to parade out is another ridiculous one, that it only matters what SHE thinks. That the fetus only has the value that the woman asigns to it. This argument is absurd, and I really think Pro-Choicers know they are making a huge stretch here. The fetus doesn't just have more innate value just because YOU think it does. This is almost like trying to assign God-like powers over morality to the pregnant mother. This whole argument is very wishful thinking on the part of many women. Morality and ethics simply doesn't work that way. It's not even logical.

Going back to the original scenario, sometimes the pregnant mother does not actually die. Consider other situations where someone causes the pregnant woman to lose her fetus, even though otherwise very little physical harm is suffered by her. It might be a drunk driver causing a car accident and the pregnant woman to suffer a miscarriage from the impact. Or it might be the woman's boyfriend slipping her an abortion pill because he doesn't want to be a father.

In all of these different possible scenarios, Pro-Choicers will argue that the woman's body is affected in some way. This may be technically true, but is really mostly besides the point. The question is proportionality. Is the perpetrator actually being punished considering only the physical impact to the woman's body, and completely ignoring the impact to the fetus? Of course not. Anyone who's being honest with themselves knows that.
Will a man who gut punches a pregnant woman be punished just the same as if he gut punched a woman who was NOT pregnant?
Do you want to punish a perpetrator in a specific situation and then pretend like you would have given the perpetrator the same exact punishment in a different situation, where no fetus was involved?

I think many Pro-Choicers are simply being intellectually dishonest, with themselves and others, if they don't want to recognize this for what it is.

Of course the perpetrator will be punished more, much more, if a fetus is involved. Even Pro-Choicers know this, and totally approve of it.
So I think this category of argument is a red herring, and a totally dishonest one, mostly. It might only explain 10% of the punishment the perpetrator gets.

So what is left, after we subtract all these attempts at distracting diversionary arguments? People are punished for the killing of a fetus. This is something nearly all Abortion supporters totally approve of. (Even if they don't want to make it into a specific law, they would want the judge to use his discretionary power to impose the extra punishment) We all know that a murder has taken place, and most of the reason for that punishment does not have to do with the woman. Even though the Pro-Choice side believes the rights of the woman override the rights of the fetus, and therefore do not consider it a murder if the woman is giving her consent to the killing.


threads with related stories:
Australia's largest state passes law to recognize life of unborn baby
Norwegian man sentenced to 6 years for giving girlfriend abortion pill laced smoothie

 

.
LOL, OMGAWD ! Your denial of science(biology) is astounding...


Any doctor examining a woman can tell if she's birthed before.... a woman's body is forever changed by pregnancy and childbirth....

So if someone punches you repeatedly in the face but there is no permanent damage that's OK with you??

Sorry you just can't get the FACT that the pregnant woman decides what she wants...

The idea that women decide for themselves sure bothers you for some reason...

Right there you admitted that she owns it while it's inside her....

NOW, DO tell who owns the fetus? The government? You?

OF COURSE you won't answer those questions because righties NEVER can

Why should anyone who hasn't committed a crime have to give up their rights for any amount of time?
What rights are you willing to give up?

Uh, then whose is it? The governments? YOURS?

If she doesn't own it then YOU should pay for it....

And you want Big Government to say whether a woman can have an abortion, control of reproduction, the ultimate control.
You support the government controlling women but complain about government interference elsewhere...so you must just be against women.

LOL, OMGAWD ! Your denial of science(biology) is astounding...


Any doctor examining a woman can tell if she's birthed before.... a woman's body is forever changed by pregnancy and childbirth....

ARE you saying that beating a woman is OK if it doesn't leave permanent damage ??

It's sure more logical than YOU deciding on a fetus's worth.....YOUR "morals and "ethics" just do NOT count...

I'm not going to address the last part (or even read it) since the first part is just more of the same rehashed crap from an Anti-Choicer..

An anti-choicer who canNOT prove women suffer no permanent harm from pregnancy or how thaT SHOULD EVEN AFFECT WOMEN'S RIGHT TO BODILY AUTONOMY.......denying science AND RIGHTS....

 

Didn't you try to argue in another thread "How would we know if she had been pregnant?"

It's interesting your arguments in different threads seem to conflict with each other.

 

OMG …….. just………OMG

 

Certainly.

A fetus is partially a person or a person in development and does have some rights.

At conception it is just a single cell. i don't understand how a cell is a human being. I think it gradually becomes more and more of a human being or person through development.

We certainly do focus on that.

I get the impression you haven't looked into the long-term effects and risks of pregnancy. And even the not long-term stuff over the 9 months is nothing to joke about.

Pregnancy is harmful to the body in the short term, and to a lesser extent the long term. But badness is a subjective judgement that takes a lot of factors into account outside of this and is for each woman to decide.

I agree, the ownership argument is ridiculous.

Most pregnancies are first trimester and just require a pill. They are far less traumatic for the mother than 9 months of pregnancy, childbirth, and months of recovery.

Should you be forced to donate your kidney to your child who really needs it? No, because its your body your choice. Same with pregnancy.

I agree this argument is ridiculous.

A fetus has some level of personhood and rights so of course punching a pregnant woman is worse. But a pregnant woman still has the right not to use her body fto support another person with rights.

 

So presumably you don't really believe slipping a woman an abortion pill is a big deal if it's only a single cell inside of her.

 

You have administered a medication to a person without their consent - that is huge

 

I'm glad you are willing to concede this. Many other Pro-Choicers aren't.

 

But it only matters insomuch as how it affects her, her body, not the fetus.

Isn't that correct?

The abortion pill might as well be an inert sugar pill, if her body is not physically affected in any other way.

It seems you are trying to create a red herring and distract, by trying to focus this all on the woman, little rather insignificant trivialities of how her body might be affected-- even though we all know this is really about her fetus.

 

No that is not correct

it is a medication and you have administered it without prescription of consent. Bidet most legislations you cannot do that with aspirin

 

Being a "progressive" often requires living with multiple cognitive dissonances with a healthy dose of pretzel logic to attempt to justify said conundrums.

 

You said it much better than I could have.

 

Try giving any medication to even someone who is an inpatient at a hospital without their consent



“right to refuse”

It is a basic right of medication administration

 

In the opening post we considered if the fetus is killed, but there's the other side of the coin, yet another variation of these types of scenarios.

Here's a story about a pregnant woman who was shot. She died but her baby ended up surviving.

Pregnant woman shot dead in car, newborn in critical condition: Baltimore police - ABC News (go.com)

Can we agree that the person responsible for her death should get a little less punishment than if the baby had not survived?
(Suppose the killing wasn't intentional, for example)

 

Oops, gave children's cough medicine to a woman who didn't need it without her consent. Guess I am a really bad person.
How horrible. It's probably doing things to her body we can't even imagine.

Could be the plot of a murder mystery novel. Woman poisoned with children's cough medicine... or non-pregnant woman poisoned with abortion pill.

Oh the horror.

Do you really think a perpetrator who gives an abortion pill to a woman who is not pregnant will be punished anywhere near the same amount as another perpetrator who causes an abortion?

So this is all just about her body, and not about the life of the fetus? Do you really believe that?

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Any doctor examining a woman can tell if she's birthed before.... a woman's body is forever changed by pregnancy and childbirth....

So ya got stumped and had to take a quote OUT OF CONTEXT.

So I'll remind you of what the post you quoted said: "Any doctor examining a woman can tell if she's birthed before."

Your OUT OF CONTEXT quote said :
"How would we know if she had been pregnant?"


You're wrong again There's NO "conflict"


AND IT'S OBVIOUS YOU COULD NOT ADDRESS ANY OTHER ISSUE BUT HAD TO CHERRY PICK

 

Distraff said: ↑
A fetus is partially a person or a person in development and does have some rights.

That's because a fetus is NOT "partially a person" .....and has no rights .

 

My point is that personhood is something that develops, and the vast majority of abortions happen in the first trimester when its hard to argue the fetus is much of a person. Also even if it is a person, the government doesn't have the right to force people to donate their bodies for another person.

 

Yes, I don't see killing a cell as a big deal. By the way is killing a human being murder? Is the cell at conception murder? Do you believe in the death penalty?

 

I will agree with you.

That's kind of a separate argument from the issue of personhood and the level of innate inherent rights of a fetus, wouldn't you agree?

With that argument, you kind of concede that yes, a fetus should have rights, but a woman's rights just trump the rights of the fetus; and that this argument would not be different if it were a live adult person inside of the woman, rather than a developing fetus.

 

If that is the case, then you agree that that should apply to both arguments, correct? The claim of that argument should apply as much when deciding what level of punishment the perpetrator should get, as it does to whether it's okay for the woman to get an abortion, if she wants to.

You can't really argue this applies to one but not the other.

If it's just a mostly undeveloped "clump of cells", like many pro-choicers will try to argue, then it's really not so bad if someone else causes her to abort or miscarry.
It's just when I bring up that scenario, it forces you to more carefully question that claim.

It's easy to claim it's just a "clump of cells" when the woman doesn't want it, harder to claim it is when she does.

Maybe someone would like to explain why so many women cry and are devastated over a "clump of cells".

I think it kind of demonstrates many pro-choicers are lying to themselves, or biasedly looking at reality in a certain way, to justify the belief which they hold.
Because there does clearly appear to be an inconsistency here.

 

Yes, its a separate argument, but still very relevant to abortion.

I think the fetus has some rights, but that depends on its stage of development. And yes, the mothers rights to her body trumps the rights of the fetus to use her body. And when the fetus is a cell or a piece of tissue it absolutely doesn't have a right to life.

 

Sure, the level of personhood effects the punishment if we do decide to punish.

We should be determining the personhood and rights of fetuses based on scientific facts not on women's emotions. People have emotional responses for all sorts of things, many of them inanimate.

 

Well, to be fair, very few abortions are done when what is inside the woman is a cell or only a piece of tissue.

I think what you actually mean is a fetus that has not undergone very advanced development and is still pretty small.

More of the total number of abortions that happen are done earlier, but some are done later. So this argument applies much more to some than others.
It is hard to really make any simple sweeping generalizations that apply to all abortions here.

In my personal opinion, the further along in gestational development the fetus is, the better of a reason the mother should have to have for aborting it. It should not be an entirely black & white thing with a simple cut-off point. But that could make for some complicated laws, rather than simple.

 

My point is that your reasoning seems to suggest its wrong to do an abortion when its a cell. So there is something seriously wrong with your reasoning, and how its being applied to other scenarios. And most abortions are done very early on when it is a piece of tissue.