It is indeed a contradiction. The laws against feticide are grounded in the premise that a fetus is a human being protected by law. Abortion laws are grounded in the premise that the fetus is not a human being and are not protected by law. It seems that the difference between the two lies in whether or not the mother is a willing participant. In one, feticide, the mother is a victim of a third party and was not a willing participant. In the other, abortion, the mother chose to end the life of the fetus and was not a victim. The fundamental difference seems to be in the status of the mother: was she or was she not a willing participant. The status of the fetus seems to have little bearing on the matter despite the fact that laws against feticide make no sense unless the fetus is considered a unique individual. Schitzophrenic at best.
But the fact that a person can be charged with two crimes strongly suggest that there are two unique individuals - persons - involved, both of whom have rights that are distinct from the rights of the other. The fetus is obviously not a part of a woman's body as are her internal organs such as the heart or liver which are not considered persons and clearly do not have rights separate from the mother.
It doesn't suggest this to me. What this law is all about is to enable judges to give consecutive life sentences and keep the murderer behind bars for good.. It's not obvious at all. A fetus is not a person until birth. A mother has the legal right not to have her body subject to the moral whims of somebody else. A fetus has no legal rights as a citizen until born, cannot be represented independently by an attorney, cannot be charged with a crime, cannot vote, or even live without his mother.
How can you MURDER something that is not a life? It certainly does more than suggest the fetus is a life. A fetus apparently does have legal rights, since it is against the law for anyone other than mother to stop nature's progress. Also, some fetuses can survive without the mother.
I think you are just being a contrarian. If the fetus is not a person then why is the criminal charged with two counts of murder. If the fetus can be murdered that means it is alive and independent in the eyes of the law. The legality of abortion creates a clear contradiction.
In truth all fetal rights laws are attempts to force courts to define when life begins. After life is defined by the courts its the fate of abortion in America will be known.
It could be argued that all our criminal laws are based in morality and-by extension-in religion. What's really at issue is the degree to which we want to be bound to morality. The solution to issues such as abortion and homosexuality is biology. Strip away the religious and moral matters on which we'll never come to an agreement. Then let scientists tell us if a fetus is alive, and if a man pokin another man in the butt will produce a fetus (that is what sex is about, right? biologically speaking of course). Louisiana law on feticide:
The word "life" has no meaning other than what we give it. Science cannot tell us whether a fetus is a life or not until we clearly define what life is. And I have no idea what you're trying to get at with the gay sex thing...
I was referring to the murder of the mother. Never in the first trimester, when abortion is legal. Not once. Only third trimester fetuses are viable and abortion is not legal at that time anyway. There can be no debate without two viewpoints. I'm a devil's advocate a lot around here, as is CParso. In the eyes of this law, which could be flawed, as many laws are. In the eyes of Roe v. Wade a fetus is not independent. Neither law settles the moral question of whether life begins at birth or before. The life concept is far too complex for a simple definition. Science actually can define life, but this is not acceptable to many moralists who have another definition for human life.
I agree with CParso. The definition of "life" varies between murder and abortion. Both of them end the "potential future" of a life.
