Addressing the Ethical Debate: The Status of Abortion as Murder

[Hurkyl]

Death of an unborn child who is "quick" (fetus is moving) can be murder, provided there was premeditation, malice and no legal authority. Thus, abortion is not murder under the law. Example: Jack Violent shoots his pregnant girlfriend, killing the fetus. Manslaughter, both voluntary and involuntary, lacks the element of malice aforethought.

I've added emphasis. I've stumbled across a law dictionary on the web (dictionary.law.com) which has this phrase in it. Here's another excerpt from that same definition:

the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority.

Which is pretty much what I plucked out of google. The passage on the fetus appears to be part of a list of clarifications of the law, rather than an addendum saying "Oh yeah, murder can be this or that other thing".


Anyways, this particular line of thought was intended as a response to your statement:

remember hurkyl, you are assuming that life begins at conception and many hold a different opinion of this, especially the U.S. laws.

You seem to have backed away from your assertion that U.S. law holds the opinion that life does not begin at conception, so that ends my interest here.


Incidentally, I'm surprised to learn that, legally, that abortion specifically applies to the time when the fetus is unable to "sustain independent life". I had thought it applied all the way up until birth. Incidentally, I have seen various pro-choice activists use abortion in that form. This suggests a new question: Would you support making legal the killing of a fetus at any time before birth?



However, (4) still deserves discussion:

(4) The only reason abortion isn't murder is because it is lawful.

4. Abortion was legalized for the protection and privacy of the woman because the fetus is not considered a human being in the eyes of the U.S. law.

You didn't answer my question: I did not ask why abortion was legal, I asked that, if abortion was not lawful, if it would be murder. The passage I emphasized from the law dictionary states that the legal answer to (4) is "yes".

Allow me to restate:

If abortion was illegal, then aborting a quick fetus would be murder in the eyes of the law.

Do you agree or disagree?

(What about a fetus that is not yet quick?)

Hurkyl, I am becoming convinced you are selective reading my posts. I have stated over and over that the U.S. judicial system did not make a judgement call in the decision of abortion, but made it legal for the safety and privacy of women . If you are going to attack my views, at least ready my points without a predisposed bias.

Not selective reading, selective response. You keep arguing how wonderful the ruling on abortion is, because it increases the safety and privacy of women, but I don't care: all of us already know that the ruling increases the safety and privacy of women! I don't discuss that issue because, as far as I know, there's nothing to discuss!

The interesting question for debate is the negatives of this ruling, which you appear to be actively trying to avoid.

I would also like to point out that there wouldn't even be a shred of tolerance in any other situation for the taking of a life merely to get ahead in the world. So, why is there tolerance for the taking of a life in this situation? Because it's legal? But weren't you trying to use this example to convince me why it should be legal? If so, you're wrapping yourself in a circular argument.

Again, here is where I get my assumption that you think life begins at conception. I think others would agree you hold that viewpoint.

And you would be right. However, I have not made a single argument based on this belief in this thread.

Recall that I had established earlier in the post (and further justified, now that I'm armed with legal definitions) that the only reason abortion is not considered murder is because it is legal. Furthermore, that the definitions strongly suggest that the killing of a fetus is the taking of a human life, at least when the fetus is quick.

I accuse you of assuming (correctly) that I lean towards believing life begins at conception, and assuming (incorrectly) that I'm arguing from that belief.

Where did you get the idea I was advocating the rights of the man? I was presenting an argument of how his life is affected by the situation.

Because this is the poster-child argument for the rights of the man in these circumstances. It illuminates that the man's thoughts, feelings, desires, needs, actions (aside from sex), situation, or anything are entirely irrelevant -- his future rests entirely on the decisions made by the woman.

I gave a very common example of why women choose abortion.

Your argument is not that abortion is legal, and should be legal, because of the financial situation of the parents. Thus, your example is what is commonly known as a red herring[/color].

I have given a reasonable response to each point brought up.

I disagree. You have argued that it increases the safety of women (which, I believe, you brought up). You have argued that it increases the privacy of women (which, I believe, you brought up). You have provided emotional arguments for the purpose of convincing others through compassion, or fear, rather than reason.

However, the only thing I recall you ever saying on the standing of a fetus is "it's not a human being", and "it's not alive", without giving any rationale whatsoever. I don't consider that a reasonable response.

if you have points you want to address, please don't read my posts selectively.

I address the parts of your post that have relevance to the issues I wish to discuss. Actually, I have already done far more responding to the other parts of your posts than I probably should have.

Perhaps if this continues, this thread may need to be closed.

I wouldn't have an objection to that: you don't seem interested the issue I'm trying to discuss, and I'm not interested (at the moment) in the points you're trying to make, so we're not really getting anywhere.

 

[selfAdjoint]

You can't get an answer to the hypothetical "If abortion wasn't legal would it be murder" out of a lawbook. The present state of the law feeds both the law book and the legality of abortion. If the law were changed regarding abortion, perhaps the definition of murder would have to change too. That's the touble with hypotheticals: we always want to control them, like experiments, but you can't. Thery're the great unknown.

 

[Hurkyl]

I remember now how we got started on this line. I asked:

(1) When someone kills a fetus, you think it appropriate to call it a murder.
(2) When the mother kills a fetus, you think it inappropriate to call it a murder.

Not thinking that "unlawful" was part of the definition of murder. Kerrie responded with

due to the fact that the U.S. laws have granted the woman a choice in remaining pregnant, it is not considered murder.

So, naturally, I wished to press the question, by asking if there was any other reason one would not consider it appropriate to call it a murder. I would have rephrased the question to talk about the killing of a human being (as phrased in the definition of murder), but Kerrie states that it's not a human being until it's born. (Though not really saying why)


Kerrie seemed to agree with the law that allows a murder charge for killing a fetus, so I would like to establish upon what grounds that agreement is based. The next question, of course, is why those grounds shouldn't also apply to the mother. (In particular is the legality of abortion the only reason)


Kerrie did speak about a "fine line" after four months, but didn't elaborate on her views of crossing that line.

 

[Kerrie]

You seem to have backed away from your assertion that U.S. law holds the opinion that life does not begin at conception, so that ends my interest here.

[QUOTE/]

again, selective reading. i never stated that the U.S. laws had the opinion, rather, i made it clear that abortion in the eyes of the law is not considered murder and the fetus was not an independent form of life.

Incidentally, I'm surprised to learn that, legally, that abortion specifically applies to the time when the fetus is unable to "sustain independent life". I had thought it applied all the way up until birth. Incidentally, I have seen various pro-choice activists use abortion in that form. This suggests a new question: Would you support making legal the killing of a fetus at any time before birth?

you are basically steering me to state where i believe independent life begins separate from the mother. in a majority of cases, women will abort up to 12 weeks. at this stage, i would consider the fetus to be just a mass of cells rather then an independent form of life. a baby born at 5 months term even is severely underdeveloped, but with technology today, can survive. the child will have huge health issues however. at 12 weeks along, again, in the majority of abortion cases, there is no way that fetus can sustain life on their own. to the woman, most likely, it is a clump of cells.

You didn't answer my question: I did not ask why abortion was legal, I asked that, if abortion was not lawful, if it would be murder. The passage I emphasized from the law dictionary states that the legal answer to (4) is "yes".

i think Self Adjoint summed up this point quite well. the fact is, abortion is legal, not considered murder in the eyes of the law for the reasons i gave. and if abortion was illegal, there could be many reasons as to why it would be illegal. why are we dealing with the hypothetical rather then what is in the here and now? i have given very valid and solid reasons of my position, trying to ask questions that have no relation to reality whatsoever is a waste of time.

If abortion was illegal, then aborting a quick fetus would be murder in the eyes of the law.

Do you agree or disagree?

that depends on why abortion was outlawed, whether it be for the immediate importance of the fetus, or the morality of the act. again, hypothetical question, which in my opinion, is just dodging the reality that abortion is legal, whether you accept it or not.

Not selective reading, selective response. You keep arguing how wonderful the ruling on abortion is, because it increases the safety and privacy of women, but I don't care: all of us already know that the ruling increases the safety and privacy of women! I don't discuss that issue because, as far as I know, there's nothing to discuss!

that's obvious, you would rather discuss what could have been rather then what truly is. again, dodging the reality abortion is legal for the reasons i have stated over and over. because you deem that there is nothing to discuss doesn't make the facts change.

The interesting question for debate is the negatives of this ruling, which you appear to be actively trying to avoid.

those "negatives" are ultimately your opinion, and again separate from the facts of reality.

Recall that I had established earlier in the post (and further justified, now that I'm armed with legal definitions) that the only reason abortion is not considered murder is because it is legal. Furthermore, that the definitions strongly suggest that the killing of a fetus is the taking of a human life, at least when the fetus is quick.

"Death of an unborn child who is "quick" (fetus is moving) can be murder, provided there was premeditation, malice and no legal authority. Thus, abortion is not murder under the law. Example: Jack Violent shoots his pregnant girlfriend, killing the fetus. Manslaughter, both voluntary and involuntary, lacks the element of malice aforethought. "

The clause does say legal authority, and the mother has been granted legal authority to abort by the outcome of Roe vs. Wade.

Because this is the poster-child argument for the rights of the man in these circumstances. It illuminates that the man's thoughts, feelings, desires, needs, actions (aside from sex), situation, or anything are entirely irrelevant -- his future rests entirely on the decisions made by the woman.

yes, it does, regardless if she chooses to go ahead with the child or not. there has been suggestions that:
a. mother and father both choose to terminate, both go in on the necessary costs.
b. mother wants to keep child, father does not and he is willing to pay for some of the abortion charges. she refuses, he can sign a waiver that he is not financially responsible for the baby and/or can have visitation .
c. father wants to keep child, mother does not. although probably a rare instance, if mother can agree to bear child, she can sign a waiver that she is not financially responsible for child, but he is. she can also sign a waiver of parental/visitation rights as well.
d. both parents keep child, and laws are currently set in place for this scenario.

perhaps men are not granted any say in this situation because there has been so many dad who abandoned their responsibilities, and basically that has ruined it for the "good guys". but, i would venture to say that the law protects the woman solely because the law has determined that the fetus cannot sustain independent life without the mother, nor can it sustain a healthy life if the mother chooses to live her life recklessly while pregnant.

Your argument is not that abortion is legal, and should be legal, because of the financial situation of the parents. Thus, your example is what is commonly known as a red herring[/color].

selective reading again, read my posts again, i also stated that the woman has a legal right to privacy and safety. i gave a common example of why women choose abortion. please stop with your biased views of what you think my perspective is.

However, the only thing I recall you ever saying on the standing of a fetus is "it's not a human being", and "it's not alive", without giving any rationale whatsoever. I don't consider that a reasonable response.

well, reason must be a subjective term then. obviously we don't agree on what's reasonable. the eyes of the law don't see the fetus as a human being either, why aren't you shouting your beliefs to the lawmakers? i didn't make the law, but in this instance, i am glad the law is the way it is because i agree with it, and it protects me personally.

Kerrie seemed to agree with the law that allows a murder charge for killing a fetus, so I would like to establish upon what grounds that agreement is based. The next question, of course, is why those grounds shouldn't also apply to the mother. (In particular is the legality of abortion the only reason)

as i stated above, the mother has legal authority to end the development of the fetus, thus she is protected from any legal prosecution of what some would consider murder. because the law has given the mother the legal authority to carry her baby or not, if another human being takes that life from her, then i think some sort of charge should be assessed because she is choosing to bear that child. so, i think i have addressed your above statement very clearly. the mother and fetus are not considered separate beings until that fetus is able to sustain life on their own.

Kerrie did speak about a "fine line" after four months, but didn't elaborate on her views of crossing that line.

Yes, I did state that. This statement was derived from my own opinion and experience of being pregnant twice. Sometimes a woman is several weeks (even 2 months pregnant) along before she realizes she is pregnant. By the time she is 4 months along, she has had plenty of time to make her decision (assuming the pregnancy was unexpected). If she decides to abort after that, then that may be just a case of a very confused woman uncertain of what she wants in life. Up until that four months, a woman does not feel movement. The fetus us unable to survive at 4 months gestation, but might be able to at 6 months. It really depends on the fetus, and how well the mother has taken care of herself while pregnant-another form of proof of how much control the mother has over the fetus. If she's malnourished, underweight, drinks, etc, that fetus doesn't have as much of a chance to be strong and healthy say as the woman who excercises, eats a balanced diet, and gets plenty of rest. Her fetus, if born at 6 months will be better equipped to survive against the odds of being underdeveloped. So really, there cannot be a definite line of where independent life begins and ends because of all of the variables. It's just not realistic to assess this, which goes to show we are all true individuals with different needs.

 

[Hurkyl]

why aren't you shouting your beliefs to the lawmakers?

For the same reason I'm not arguing for my beliefs here: I don't have what I would consider a strong argument to back them up.

selective reading again, read my posts again,

Let me give you an example of why I'm apparently confused about your posts:

------------------------
according to the U.S. laws, a fetus is not considered a U.S. citizen

american law has clearly defined that the woman has control of her body while pregant

remember hurkyl, you are assuming that life begins at conception and many hold a different opinion of this, especially the U.S. laws.

i never stated that the U.S. laws had the opinion [that life does not begin at conception]

the eyes of the law don't see the fetus as a human being
------------------------

 

[Kerrie]

Let me give you an example of why I'm apparently confused about your posts:

------------------------
according to the U.S. laws, a fetus is not considered a U.S. citizen

american law has clearly defined that the woman has control of her body while pregant

remember hurkyl, you are assuming that life begins at conception and many hold a different opinion of this, especially the U.S. laws.

i never stated that the U.S. laws had the opinion [that life does not begin at conception]

the eyes of the law don't see the fetus as a human being
------------------------

a. The U.S. laws have not defined the fetus as an independent human being capable of sustaining independent life, and not a citizen granted the same equal rights men and women receive.
b. Thus, we can assume that the U.S. laws do not consider that human life begins at conception and voluntary abortion by the woman carrying the fetus is not considered murder by this definition.
c. The woman has been granted legal authority over the decisions to bear a child and will not suffer any prosecution of the law because the ruling of Roe vs. Wade has deemed her immediate privacy and safety above that of the termination of the fetus.
d. Should the woman's fetus be killed at the hands of another against her will, that other person could very well be tried for murder, depending on the circumstances. This is relatively new I believe.

Hopefully that doesn't confuse you. I know you are intelligent enough to interpret that for exactly what it means. When it comes to morals/values/beliefs, it becomes more of a challenge to clearly define what is and isn't like you can in with a subject like mathematics. I apologize for confusing you.

For the same reason I'm not arguing for my beliefs here: I don't have what I would consider a strong argument to back them up.

Perhaps my previous assumption that you are out to attack my beliefs was valid after all. You spent so much energy attacking mine, but then admit to this. What was your original intention then? Obviously you have strong feelings on the subject, so please do share them as freely as I have.

 

[Hurkyl]

What was your original intention then?

I would consider the discussion a success if one of these things happen:

. I gain insight into some particular issue.
. I cause someone to become critical of their beliefs
. I cause someone to realize that they're preaching to the choir -- that their arguments are only valid to people who already share their beliefs.

And worthwhile if:

. I learn something. (done)
. I cause someone to admit that they don't have a strong, rational reason for one of their beliefs.

(These lists not exhaustive)
(Admittedly, I sometimes get carried away with arguing for its own sake and lose sight of my goals)


I think that I mainly aim for the "preaching to the choir" bullet on abortion topics -- it irritates me to no end to see pro-choicers say "Because it's not a life, ..." and then see pro-lifers say "Because it is a life, ...", and watch both sides repeatedly butt heads on whatever topic over which they're arguing, rather than acknowledge the fundamental difference in their positions.

As an example, the argument "Abortion should be okay/legal/moral/whatever because it improves the safety of mothers" isn't very helpful to someone isn't already convinced that the baby does not have a right to life.


However, you seem to have a fairly nontrivial stance that I think would be worth probing, if I could get straight answers to my questions. If someone held a gun to my head and asked me for my best guess as to your position, I would say:

You don't believe the baby is a human being until birth.
You believe the baby has right to life, because it's not a human being.
You have little to no problem with abortion anytime before the baby starts moving.
You are iffy, but tolerant, once the baby has started moving, up until the time it would be viable outside the womb.
*You are against the termination of the pregnancy once the baby would be viable outside the womb.
You believe that the slaughter of the baby counts as murder, at least once it's started moving.


There are several apparent contradictions here -- any of them could cause the discussion to be a success.

I'm still unsure about the starred item -- if it's true, I was actually looking forward to drilling you about how you would justify your position, since it would be something new for me, and sounds fruitful.

 

[Kerrie]

You are iffy, but tolerant, once the baby has started moving, up until the time it would be viable outside the womb.
*You are against the termination of the pregnancy once the baby would be viable outside the womb.
You believe that the slaughter of the baby counts as murder, at least once it's started moving.

I will address these three points you made.
1. You are right, I personally am iffy of women who decide to abort after the 1st trimester (12 weeks) because, even if she found out a little later then normal, there is enough time to make the choice within that 1st trimester. During that 1st trimester, there maybe symptoms of nausea, fatigue, and other little changes, but certainly not movement that can be felt. Once she has passed that 1st trimester, that fetus has developed most of their organs, bones, and is beginning to take real shape. She is well aware she is pregnant (in most cases), and in my personal opinion has plenty of opportunity to excercise her choice.

Note: Many pregnancies end in miscarriage on their own. Here is a blurb from the March of Dimes website:

A miscarriage can be an intensely sad and frightening experience. A pregnancy that had seemed normal suddenly ends, leaving expectant parents devastated. About 15 percent of recognized pregnancies end this way. Miscarriage is pregnancy loss that occurs before 20 weeks, before the fetus is able to survive outside the womb. Most miscarriages occur in the first trimester or 12 weeks of pregnancy. As many as 50 percent of all pregnancies may end in miscarriage, because many losses occur before a woman realizes she is pregnant.

You can visit this link for more information about the first trimester miscarriages, they are very common.

2. I am against the termination of the pregnancy once the baby is able to survive adequately outside the womb, and that is typically around 6 months gestation. Earlier then that, the baby will have some severe health problems. At this point, plenty of tests and labwork has been done to determine for disease and deformities or if the fetus would be a threat to the mother's own life, thus a woman deciding to terminate at this point is just plain horrible in my opinion. I really doubt however that this scenario is all that common. Most women abort before the 12 weeks, some just a little bit later.

3. I am assuming you mean "slaughter" as in if another person commits a crime against the mother and her fetus? Yes, I believe this is totally wrong because it ultimately interferes with her choice of bearing that child.

 

[Hurkyl]

I am assuming you mean "slaughter" as in if another person commits a crime against the mother and her fetus? Yes, I believe this is totally wrong because it ultimately interferes with her choice of bearing that child.

I'm still trying to decide upon a good verb. Mainly, I'm trying not to use anything that would imply the baby has a life (such as a "killing"). I would also like to intend that the crime have as little impact on the mother as possible: it just terminates the baby. (I guess "to terminate" is probably the word I want)


I would certainly agree that the act is wrong. Arguing from the position that the baby is still part of the mother, I think it would at least be described as an assault or a mutilation. However, at the moment, from this position I cannot devise an argument that would allow me to call it murder. (which is why I find this particular combination of stances interesting)

I am against the termination of the pregnancy once the baby is able to survive adequately outside the womb

Similarly for this particular position. The only premise from which I am able to devise an argument that would support your position is one where the baby ceases to be considered a part of the mother at this point. I guess that's slightly different than considering the baby a human being at this point -- I would have used the phrases interchangably.


Basically, I am unable to devise a logical argument against abortion, except in the case where the baby is considered to have its own life.

 

[selfAdjoint]

How about aggravated maiming?