Poll: Abortion and Murder--When Are They Different?

Terminating an unwanted pregnancy just for that reason is a crime. If you don't want kids there are preventative measures.

If you don't want kids there are preventative measures.

Curiously, those same preventative measures are LOUDLY AND CONTINUOUSLY PROTESTED by the same people who insist that abortion is murder.

Actually, what I meant to say is that CONSERVATIVES loudly and continuously protest the use of any birth control whatsoever.

There is no pro-"life" movement. Just angry men who hate women.

So, you're going to have to give one of those up. Either support wholeheartedly and without reservation the widespread and easy dissemination of birth control methods, or SHUT UP about abortion.

PICK ONE.

Curiously, those same preventative measures are LOUDLY AND CONTINUOUSLY PROTESTED by the same people who insist that abortion is murder.

I keep seeing that written, but what organizations are those? If you write the Catholic Church, please keep in mind that not everyone who opposes abortion on demand is a Catholic, and many of us could care less about what a pope says.

Why isn't she when the criminal is?

Choice and consent.

Then please by all means speak up loud and clear. Did you get up and walk out of mass when the priest told you what to think, even though you do not practice those tenets? Do you support the churches less than exemplary prosecution of pedophile priests?

I am a WASP and have no desire to push my beliefs or religion on anyone. My beliefs in God, led me to the conclusion that I was taught in Sunday School....If you hang out with horse thieves, then people will tjink you are stealing horses!

http://www.delawareliberal.net/2010/07/14/conservatives-come-out-against-birth-control-guess-theyre-okay-with-teen-pregnancy-and-abortion/

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=13367&news_iv_ctrl=1021

http://www.idiotechnica.com/blog/2418/Conservative-Republicans-fight-to-ban-birth-contro.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-walker/santorum-contraception-conservatives_b_1192644.html

These are just a few articles. Over the last several years it has become painfully obvious that the pro-life movement is a sack of bull@!$%#, and that the only real purpose of this movement is to control and demean women.

I have seeded all of these articles. I have only BEGUN to mine the single Google search I did. I will continue posting these seeds about conservatives and their RIDICULOUSLY CONFLICTING opinions for the next several DAYS.

I and many others who consider themselves to be pro-life have no issue with contraceptives, nor do we have an issue with birth control being taught in public schools at the appropriate age groups, so those organizations do not speak for us.

The difference is that when a woman is murdered what is done to her body is not done by her choice. If you want to say a fetus is not part of a woman's body answer this question. How long would that baby survive if the mother was taken out of the equation and tell us how a baby isn't attached to that woman?

If you want to say a fetus is not part of a woman's body answer this question. How long would that baby survive if the mother was taken out of the equation and tell us how a baby isn't attached to that woman?

Bringing a baby up to a full-term in-vitro still remains a remote and costly undertaking, however a number of alternatives to the good old-fashioned pregnancy do exist, some, being more appealing than others. The most obvious one is having a surrogate (a different woman) carry the baby to term. Another is having a large domestic animal do so, with a human child, I believe cows have been used for that, but not sure what is the success rate. The bottom line is - today technology is already at the point where production of a genetic offspring can be outsourced at a reasonable cost to the biological parents. Probably more appropriate term would "genetic donors". I mean this issue really comes down to the "ownership" today I can purchase eggs off the Internet, purchase sperm off the Internet, find and retain a surrogate off the Internet, and get me a baby, that would legally be fully and completely mine - while having nothing to do with it, but pay for it. Weird, huh?

P.S. I agree with you Jeff In VA about the difference part.

Every time this comes up I'm reminded of the hilarious song "Every sperm is sacred" on the Monty Python movie The meaning of Life. Guy with a very religious bent and a subjugated wife and a horde of 70 or so kids singing about how God doesn't want you to waste even a single sperm. Of course they are all dressed in rags, grubby and starving but hell at least there is no waste.

That sort of reminded me of a line from George Carlin.

"Not every ejaculation deserves a name"

at the appropriate age groups

There is the flaw. A girl who started her period @ 9-10 needed to have had the talk @ least a year and a half prior to when she started menstrating.

If you want to say a fetus is not part of a woman's body answer this question. How long would that baby survive if the mother was taken out of the equation and tell us how a baby isn't attached to that woman?

If you left a newborn by itself, how long would it survive? If you left a two-year-old by itself, how long would it survive?

The woman chose to have an abortion, there for her rights are not violated by the act of an abortion.

If in the course of committing a crime someone kills the potential child it is murder because it violates the rights of the woman carrying the potential child.

If you left a newborn by itself, how long would it survive?

A newborn baby was found alive under the earthquake rubble a week later, with the dead mother right next to it.

If you left a two-year-old by itself, how long would it survive?

Not sure about a two-year old, but a three-year old named Mowgli did Ok for himself.

By following the path of false equivalency demonstrated in this article, I'll assume that anyone that performs oral sex would be considered a cannibal and we could expect to see obituaries and funerals for soiled tampons very soon. So called conservatives that pander to overly-zealous religious Americans by beating the drums of social issues and promoting legislated morality in years of general elections is predictable, as they never have any past accomplishments to run on.

My comment now completely conforms to the CoH.

If you left a newborn by itself, how long would it survive?

If you left a two-year-old by itself, how long would it survive?

The legal principles and statutes pertaining to negligence and caregiving to minors are totally irrelevant to the constitutional issues pertaining to privacy, autonomy and self-determination regarding one's physiological functions and dominion over one's own body.

You're confusing behavior and biology.

If you left a newborn by itself, how long would it survive? If you left a two-year-old by itself, how long would it survive?

A newborn can breathe on it's own. A two year old can breathe on it's own. Assuming full term births neither suffer from the debilitating conditions an extreme preemie would have.

To answer your question in summary: Longer than five minutes. A newborn or two year old would survive until their supplies of food and water they can access are exhausted. For a newborn that's anything that can be brought to his mouth. For a two year old, that can be whatever bottles/snacks they can reach (my two year old niece is -brilliant- and is very good at figuring out where food is).

Preterm babies have undeveloped/underdeveloped lungs and will suffocate when outside the womb. Until those lungs develop adequately there is literally no chance of survival outside the mother.

Edit: Also, what Sleuth said.

A newborn baby was found alive under the earthquake rubble a week later, with the dead mother right next to it.

Will you assert that to be the norm off of which we can base a broad conclusion, or perhaps just a freakish circumstance? Newborns are notoriously difficult to keep alive without proper care.

The principles of caregiving and negligence, are totally irrelevant to the constitutional issues pertaining to privacy, autonomy and self-determination regarding one's physiological functions and dominion over one's own body.

So long as arguments like this will be made:

If you want to say a fetus is not part of a woman's body answer this question. How long would that baby survive if the mother was taken out of the equation and tell us how a baby isn't attached to that woman?

... it's very relevant. If one makes the argument that a fetus isn't a human being because it would not long survive outside the womb, why could not the same argument be made for a newborn?

... it's very relevant. If one makes the argument that a fetus isn't a human being because it would not long survive outside the womb, why could not the same argument be made for a newborn?

Because a fetus, with undeveloped lungs, cannot survive outside the mothers body and will suffocate. A newborn will survive so long as anyone (mother or not) provides it food and water.

Ah, so it's simply a matter of length of time for survival on its own then - is that where the fine line is cut? Sorry, but don't see how that's logically acceptable. A newborn has no hope of surviving on its own without intensive external support - thus by the definition used by a great many, it is a parasite. Why should a mother not have legal justification for aborting it? How is it not still just a "potential" person, before it's able to survive on its own?

If one makes the argument that a fetus isn't a human being because it would not long survive outside the womb, why could not the same argument be made for a newborn?

The question is moot because the premise of the question is flawed. The reason a fetus is not a person under the law--quite different from a "human being"--is because it is attached to a full-fledged person under the law and upon whose oxygen and blood supply it depends in order to remain living. Whether it can, or cannot, survive outside the womb at a certain stage of gestation is irrelevant. We don't require persons to use their bodies to keep other persons--or anything else--alive. It's the same principle for not mandating blood donations or organ donations or requiring bystanders to risk their lives to save people who risk imminent death. There is no "duty to rescue" in our legal system--that is, to use one's actual body or risk one's actual life in order to save someone else's life. And, that has nothing whatsoever to do with statutes pertaining to the care of minors in one's charge.

Under the law, a black person was once considered property, and that idea was upheld by the US Supreme Court. Did that make it right? Laws are often challenged, because they're considered to be flawed, or unconstitutional. Do you really want to go there?

Absolutely not. That's why it's since been corrected.

Citizen,

Agreed, but is it really a double homicide since it was only a "potential" child at the time of her death?

We as a nation must take the stance that all potential life will become life until the moment it no longer exists either in the potential form or the true child form.

In other words I assume all pregnancies should be treated as if they will carry to maturation.

Oonly once an abortion is performed or a miscarriage happens is the potential child no longer potential. If the miscarriage happens as a result of a crime or if the woman is murdered the same outcome happens, the potential child was not given the opportunity to exist by someone other than the mothers decision. That violation is the true crime and the way society is punishing that crime is by considering it murder of an unborn child that we assume would have been born given no change to its current path.

I think i rambled.

Ah, so it's simply a matter of length of time for survival then - is that where the fine line is cut?

Intentional ignorance, or unintentional misunderstanding? I wonder, lets see if I can clear this up.

A premature fetus CANNOT survive outside of the womb because the ORGANS NEEDED TO BREATHE have not been developed. The mother CANNOT IN ANY WAY save the child if it lacks the capacity to breathe.

A full-term newborn has the same conditions for survival as a fully grown person. It can take in sustenance and air on it's own, the newborn merely needs these things placed within reach.

Absolutely not. That's why it's since been corrected.

Thank you for making my point for me.

Intentional ignorance, or unintentional misunderstanding? I wonder, lets see if I can clear this up.

Try to keep personal attacks out of your posts. Refute my points logically instead, if you are capable.

A premature fetus CANNOT survive outside of the womb because the ORGANS NEEDED TO BREATHE have not been developed. The mother CANNOT IN ANY WAY save the child if it lacks the capacity to breathe.

A newborn CANNOT survive outside the womb without intensive care and external support from an adult. So difficult are newborns to care for, that many die despite care given to them.

A full-term newborn has the same conditions for survival as a fully grown person. It can take in sustenance and air on it's own, the newborn merely needs these things placed within reach.

Can it take in food and water on its own, or would it starve to death or die of thirst without external care and support?

Thank you for making my point for me.

You're welcome, but, to be clear, whether your point was made or not depends upon those to whom it was directed. You're in no position to know or decide if I thought you made your point. And, to me, for what it's worth, you didn't. But, if, to you, your point was made and that's all that matters to you, cool. Enjoy it. But how's that working for you and your allies in terms of what really matters in this issue? Communication occurs when both sides understand each other, not just one.

My point is that if a law is unfair, unconstitutional or ambiguous, then whether it's the law or not does not make it right - and it should be changed. Moreover, it may even be ethical to oppose such a law outright. Your concurrence of that concept appeared to be reflected here, after I posted an instance if a law that at one point was even upheld by the US Supreme Court:

Absolutely not. That's why it's since been corrected.

If you want to say a fetus is not part of a woman's body answer this question. How long would that baby survive if the mother was taken out of the equation and tell us how a baby isn't attached to that woman?

If you left a newborn by itself, how long would it survive? If you left a two-year-old by itself, how long would it survive?

If I left my husband by himself how long would he survive? hmm...

My point is that if a law is unfair, unconstitutional or ambiguous, then whether it's the law or not does not make it right -

Not meaning to parse words, but what is metaphysically "right" is unknowable. Interpreting the law is based on what is knowable and provable. I agree, if a law is unfair or unconstitutional--meaning that it infringes upon the rights of one in favor of another--then it should be repealed. However, when it comes to "ambiguity," there should be no laws. Again, we base law on what we know, not on what we speculate or presume.

When it comes to the issue of black persons at one time having no rights under the Constitution and then later some rights but not equal rights, the salient point should be obvious if you want to extrapolate that to the abortion discussion we're having. And it is this: Black persons were, and have always been, complete and total, full-fledged persons. They are living, breathing, human beings. Fetuses attached to persons are not. Fetuses are not "free-standing" autonomus entities. They're subsidiary to a free-standing autonomous entity (person).

Blacks have always had personhood; it just wasn't recognized by law. The tragedy is that in our early history our forefathers irrationally and unfairly applied the very Constitution that they wrote in order to prohibit such things. And, as I said, it was rightly, and after much suffering and tragedy, corrected.

The challenge for you is to prove that a fetus attached to a person has rights that supercede the rights of that full-fledged person carrying it. That is usually the challenge that makes the pro-lifers disappear. Will you follow suit?

When I read these articles I keep remembering a comment I read the other day on another site, The commenter said they had had a fertilized chicken egg for breakfast that morning, but that the egg, though fertilized was not a chicken, it was a potential chicken. I think it's the same with a human egg, even if it's fertilized it's still not human until able to survive outside of the mother, as a thinking, breathing animal. All the rest of these arguments are just people splitting hairs and trying to control and force people to obey what they want to think or believe. I think it all has to do with control of the female body, that's all. Since most men can't control their own, I don't think they should be in control of anyone else's.

Not meaning to parse words, but what is metaphysically "right" is unknowable. Interpreting the law is based on what is knowable and provable.

Well that gets into the quandary of subjective morality then, doesn't it? To Joseph Stalin, it was lawful and ethical to round up and murder millions of people because of their political stances.

I agree, if a law is unfair or unconstitutional--meaning that it infringes upon the rights of one in favor of another--then it should be repealed. However, when it comes to "ambiguity," there should be no laws. Again, we based law on what we know, not on what we speculate or presume.

But their are laws where ambiguity exists; laws based on the Roe v. Wade decision are among them. For example, many states have made late-term abortion illegal, based on the ambiguity of when a fetus can be considered an unborn child. Whereas other states allow late-term abortions.

When it comes to the issue of black persons having no rights under the Constitution and then some rights but not equal rights, the salient point should be obvious if you want to extrapolate that to the abortion discussion we're having.

It wasn't obvious at the time, just as I think future generations will look back on and condemn us for our laws today.

Fetuses attached to persons are not persons under the law. They are not "free-standing" autonomus entities. They're subsidiary to a free-standing autonomous entity (person). Blacks have always had innate personhood; the tragedy is that in our early history our forefathers irrationally and unfairly applied the very Constitution that they wrote. And, as I said, it was rightly corrected.

And yet under the law, in some states a woman can have a late-term abortion, facing no legal consequences, while the same woman can give birth minutes later, kill the baby, and be charged with murder. Do you truly see nothing wrong with that?

You didn't respond to the last paragraph of my 1.36:

The challenge for you is to prove that a fetus attached to a person has rights that supercede the rights of that full-fledged person carrying it. That is usually the challenge that makes the pro-lifers disappear. Will you follow suit?

I noticed you didn't disappear, but you were silent. In all fairness, I did add that paragraph during my editing grace period. Maybe you didn't see it.

Do you truly see nothing wrong with that?

Yes. I see plenty wrong with it. States have no business, imo, tampering with abortion rights. Roe v. Wade is clear, and imho, didn't go far enough. There are legitimate, medical reasons for a late-term abortion. A licensed, reputable doctor is not going to perform a late-term abortion as an elective birth control method for a healthy woman with a healthy viable fetus. It's too serious of a procedure for that at that late stage. Late-term abortions serve a legitimate, medically sound purpose in dealing with very sick women and/or very compromised fetuses with no hope for survival. IMO, only the most cruel and barbaric of persons would deny a woman and her doctor that option when called for.

The challenge for you is to prove that a fetus attached to a person has rights that supercede the rights of that full-fledged person carrying it. That is usually the challenge that makes the pro-lifers disappear. Will you follow suit?

My counter-argument is that a newborn also has no rights based upon such logic, since it cannot care for itself or keep itself alive without intensive outside support and attention. So if you can justify why a newborn shouldn't be considered a parasite too, you've then answered your own question.

I noticed you didn't disappear, but you were silent. In all fairness, I did add that paragraph during my editing grace period. Maybe you didn't see it.

I had a meeting. Some of us do work.

Yes. I see plenty wrong with it. States have no business, imo, tampering with abortion rights. Roe v. Wade is clear, and imho, didn't go far enough. There are legitimate, medical reasons for a late-term abortion.

In that case, you should have no issue with a mother choosing to terminate a newborn, since as a parasite it is completely and utterly dependent on her for its very survival.

My counter-argument is that a newborn also has no rights based upon such logic, since it cannot care for itself or keep itself alive without intensive outside support and attention. So if you can justify why a newborn shouldn't be considered a parasite too, you've then answered your own question.

A newborn absolutely has the very same rights under the law as a pregnant woman or any other person. Because it is literally, physically incapable for providing for its own needs, we have statutes to ensure those needs are met--if not by the parent, then by a guardian, even the state. So, to suggest that a newborn doesn't have the same rights as any other person is incorrect at the outset.

I've already addressed that--twice, I think, so far. Maybe you missed it. The constitutional rights issues that pertain to privacy and autonomy over one's private, physical body and its functions are entirely differently--legally and morally--from the statutory requirements for caring for minors. One has to do with private physiology and autonomy, and the other has to do with conscious actions that are required to care for those among us who can't care for themselves, whether they be newborns or 100-year-olds in nursing homes.

The unaddressed issue on your part is why does that helpless fetus who can't care for itself take precedence over the rights of the full-fledged person carrying it. I'm inferring from you, so far, that you think that helplessness is somehow justified when it comes to diminishing another persons's rights in service to that helplessness. Why? That is the question. The law as it stands now disagrees with you. What's your rebuttal to the law?

you should have no issue with a mother choosing to terminate a newborn, since as a parasite it is completely and utterly dependent on her for its very survival.

Again, your premise is incorrect. A mother should have no right to terminate a newborn--NOT because it's dependent, which it IS, but because it is a full-fledged person under the law with all the rights and privileges that accrue to a full-fledged person. Being dependent and helpless is not the issue. There are a lot of persons in our midst who are dependent and helpless--babies, children, the sick, handicapped, disabled, old, infirm, etc.. Helplessness and dependency are not the criteria. Personhood is.

By following the path of false equivalency demonstrated in this article, I'll assume that anyone that performs oral sex would be considered a cannibal

I totally shouldn't have snickered at that, but I did (hardily).

had a meeting. Some of us do work.

Understood. Take your time. I can be patient.

I've already addressed that--twice, I think, so far. Maybe you missed it. The constitutional rights issues that pertain to privacy and autonomy over one's private, physical body and its functions are entirely differently--legally and morally--from the statutory requirements for caring for minors. One has to do with private physiology and autonomy, and the other has to do with conscious actions that are required to care for those among us who can't care for themselves, whether they be newborns or 100-year-olds in nursing homes.

And you understand that I reject that line of reasoning, because it is not logically supportable. Neither a late-term fetus, nor a newborn is capable of sustaining life on its own. Period. You fall back on to what the law states, but my assertion is that the law is flawed. We've already discussed flawed law ad nausium.

The unaddressed issue on your part is why does that helpless fetus who can't care for itself take precedence over the rights of the full-fledged person carrying it. I'm inferring from you, so far, that you think that helplessness is somehow justified when it comes to diminishing another persons's rights in service to that helplessness. Why? That is the question. The law as it stands now disagrees with you. What's your rebuttal to the law?

Then why does a helpless infant who can't care for itself take precedence over the rights of a full-fledged person caring for it - without whom the infant would not survive? Again, you fall back upon flawed law, but then the law also recognizes corporations as persons - do you also agree with that?

Again, your premise is incorrect. A mother should have no right to terminate a newborn--NOT because it's dependent, which it IS, but because it is a full-fledged person under the law with all the rights and privileges that accrue to a full-fledged person.

Again, you're falling back on the law, which I believe to be flawed.

Neither a late-term fetus, nor a newborn is capable of sustaining life on its own. Period.

Correct. But for reasons that are contrary to what you claim are my reasons.

What a fetus requires to sustain life and what a newborn requires to sustain life are two entirely different concepts. They aren't comparable. You're trying to make them comparable.

A fetus requires oxygen and nutrients by way of its host's/mother's blood supply. It requires the physical and temporal presence within her actual body. There is no conscious decision-making on the part of the mother when it comes to her heart and lungs pumping blood, oxygen and nutrients into the fetus. They do so even when she's asleep or possibly if she were unconscious. The mother's uterus and its lining which provide the residence for the fetus during gestation are simply there by virtue of her physical being.

On the other hand, a newborn doesn't require its mother's body for sustenance. It requires overt decisions of others and judgment regarding behaviors that are appropriate and necessary to keep it alive, such as feeding times, warm clothing, nurturing, medical care and other interventions regarding the newborn's life outside the womb--a life that's operating on its own blood supply and oxygen, not someone else's. Those interventions don't require someone else's bodily functions, only someone else's judgment and action.

That is the salient difference.

Do we agree on those points so far?

If not, let me know and be specific.

What a fetus requires to sustain life and what a newborn requires to sustain life are two entirely different concepts. They aren't comparable. You're trying to make them comparable.

Sure they are - both a fetus and a newborn require intensive attention, nurishment and care in order to remain alive. Thus they are both parasites. All you're referring to are levels of intensive care provided by outside support. What if a mother discovers she can no longer support the infant for physical, emotional, or financial reasons? Why should she then be punished for terminating what is in essence a parasite?

What if a mother discovers she can no longer support the infant for physical, emotional, or financial reasons?

As tragic and heartbreaking as it is, there are provisions for her to relinquish the care of the child to the state, which can then take care of it until it can be placed in a home.

Why should she then be punished for terminating what is in essence a parasite?

She absolutely shouldn't be! Taking steps to place the child with the state or elsewhere isn't negligent. It's certainly a sad state of affairs, but not negligent or punishable.

What I'm gathering from you, so far, UNA, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, is that because the fetus is obviously dependent upon its host/mother for life, then therefore, if we have to "side" with one side or the other--mother or fetus--then we have to err on the side of the fetus because it's not capable of "defending" itself or having any choice in the matter; it's voiceless and should be able to depend upon those who do have voice to defend its rights--and that those rights should and do prevail over the woman carrying it due to its "subordinate" status to hers.

Would that be accurate, or at least on the right track? I just want to make sure we understand each other before we go further.

She absolutely shouldn't be! Taking steps to place the child with the state or elsewhere isn't negligent. It's certainly a sad state of affairs, but not negligent or punishable.

Why not allow her to physically terminate the infant at a clinic, since the unwanted infant might well grow up into a life of misery?

What I'm gathering from you, so far, UNA, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, is that because the fetus is obviously dependent upon its host/mother for life, then therefore, if we have to "side" with one side or the other--mother or fetus--then we have to err on the ide of the fetus because it's not capable of "defending" itself or having any choice in the matter.

If we are going to use the argument of whether or not the fetus in question is a human being, based on the logic that it cannot support itself, then yes. My assertion is that the same argument can be made in the case of an infant. It's all in how and where one decides to determine when a human being is a human being. An infant is no less a parasite than a late-term fetus - only the level of care it requires differs. Again, why should a mother be punished for terminating the life of an infant mere minutes after birth, if the same mother can lawfully obtain a late-term abortion? In both instances, the fetus/infant in question have the very same inability to survive on its own - though it's worth noting that in a partial-birth abortion the infant is killed outright (or allowed to die over time).

Why not allow her to physically terminate the infant at a clinic, since the unwanted infant might well grow up into a life of misery?

Because an infant is a living, breathing person, and it would be murder of a person.

An infant isn't capable of taking care of its own needs and requires the intervention of others--NOT their physical bodily functions, but their judgment, decision-making and actions. That doesn't make it a physical parasite. A physical parasite is a scientific term, not a sociological one. And that's not just semantics or just current law; it's based in logic as well as semantics.

THAT is the difference. An infant is a person. It's simply a person with special needs, not unlike anyone else who, for various reasons, can't provide for its sustenance and necessities.

Where we draw the line, as civilized people who value the sanctity of individualism, as our unique Constitution does, is in using one's actual body in service (servitude) to another. IOW, slavery.

No person should have to sacrifice his body and its labor or its functions in service to another, whether it be black slave to white slavemaster, or pregnant woman to fetus, or involuntary kidney donor to dying patient in kidney failure, or swimming Olympian to drowning nonswimmer in the river.

You and I might probably agree on what the morally "correct" thing would be in those situations, and we might probably volunteer to do what we think is the morally "correct" thing. But that is different from what is required in a civil, secular society, and THAT, UNA, I think, is the issue you're not addressing. IOW, we may agree on what's moral and immoral, and thereby morally required in those situations. But, the moral and immoral and subjective interpretations have no place in a secular, civil society.

Because an infant is a living, breathing person, and it would be murder of a person.

So, in order to be termed a person one must be breathing? In that case what of late term abortions, in which an aborted fetus was breathing prior to being killed? Here is just such an example:

The 22-week infant died one day later in intensive care at a hospital in the mother's home town of Rossano in southern Italy.

The mother, pregnant for the first time, had opted for an abortion after prenatal scans suggested that her baby was disabled.

However, the infant survived the procedure, carried out on Saturday in the Rossano Calabro hospital, and was left by doctors to die.

He was discovered alive the following day – some 20 hours after the operation – by Father Antonio Martello, the hospital chaplain, who had gone to pray beside his body.

He found that the baby, wrapped in a sheet with his umbilical cord still attached, was moving and breathing.

And there's this story, but there are lots more. It isn't so clean-cut as you'd like it to seem.

THAT is the difference. An infant is a person. It's simply a person with special needs, not unlike anyone else who, for various reasons, can't provide for its sustenance and necessities.

And I submit that a late-term fetus is logically no different. It too is a person with special needs, completely unable to care for itself without outside support - a parasite, just like an infant.

You and I might probably agree on what the morally "correct" thing would be in those situations, and we might probably volunteer to do what we think is the morally "correct" thing. But that is different from what is required in a civil, secular society, and THAT, UNA, I think, is the issue you're not addressing. IOW, we may agree on what's moral and immoral, and thereby morally required in those situations. But, the moral and immoral and subjective interpretations have no place in a secular, civil society.

I'm simply looking at it from a logical point of view. Personally, I don't think outlawing abortions would have the effect those who favor such an action would prefer. That said, I'm 100 percent dead-set against late-term abortions, unless mothers are also allowed to kill their infants.

So, in order to be termed a person one must be breathing?

No. There are persons who aren't capable of breathing on their own power who are connected to ventilators who are indeed obvious persons.

I think your position is, obviously, that some persons, specifically pregnant women, are obligated to yield to the fetus inside them--that is, iow, if they would like to have an abortion, then they shouldn't be allowed to because the fetus has just as much right to life as she does, but simply can't speak for or defend itself. Therefore, the fetus prevails.

Let's just cut to the chase. Would that be accurate and fair as far as your position is concerned?

Also, let me know if you're talking about banning late-term abortions only, or all abortions.

Since partial birth abortion (or late term abortion) is exceedingly rare and done, most often, when the viability of the child is nil, why bring it up?

Only becuause it is still practiced.

Abortion, not being a crime, is a legally protected right.

Yes, as too once was slavery, and as now corporations are granted personhood. Legal does not equate to right.

A woman must choose to under go the procedure, pay for it out of pocket and suffer through the gauntlet of "loving Christians" who will spew hate at her as she goes to have the procedure. And now, thanks to Radical Right legislation, she gets to enjoy things like invasive sonograms, invasive questionnaires, and non medical counseling.

Logical fallacy: Appeal to emotion. Nowhere in my posts do I mention Chrisians or their stances. We're discussing the logical defense of late-term abortions.

I think your position is, obviously, that some persons, specifically pregnant women, are obligated to yield to the fetus inside them--that is, iow, if they would like to have an abortion, then they shouldn't be allowed to because the fetus has just as much right to life as she does, but simply can't speak for or defend itself. Therefore, the fetus prevails.

Let's just cut to the chase. Would that be accurate and fair as far as your position is concerned?

My position was clear:

Personally, I don't think outlawing abortions would have the effect those who favor such an action would prefer. That said, I'm 100 percent dead-set against late-term abortions, unless mothers are also allowed to kill their infants.

Unanswered questions for UNA (so we understand each other):

1. Why does the fetus have rights that supercede the rights of the person carrying it? I presume you are of the opinion that the fetus's rights prevail over the woman carrying it. Why? We already know that you are of that opinion. The question that you've yet to answer is WHY and how you can justify it under the current Constitution, or how you can justify amending the Constitution to justify it.

2. Do we agree so far that there is a difference in physiological support of a life before birth and decision-making and pro-active support of a life after birth? Yes or no. If not, what is the difference, philosophically, that would have any bearing on constitutional rights?

3. If I'm understanding you correctly, I surmise that you think that because the fetus is obviously dependent upon its host/mother for life, then therefore, if we have to "side" with the fetus because it's not capable of "defending" itself or having any choice in the matter; it's voiceless and should be able to depend upon those who do have voice to defend its rights--and that those rights should and do prevail over the woman carrying it due to its "subordinate" status to hers. Would that be accurate, or at least on the right track, in terms of your opinion and philosophy? Yes or no. If not, please elaborate.

4. I gather that you believe that some persons, specifically pregnant women, are obligated to yield to the fetus inside them--that is, iow, if they would like to have an abortion, then they shouldn't be allowed to because the fetus has just as much right to life as she does, but simply can't speak for or defend itself. Therefore, the fetus prevails. Would that be accurate and fair as far as your position is concerned? Yes or no. If not, please elaborate.

I'm not trying to needle you. I'm just trying to get to a point where we at least understand each other's position and opinion, and then go from there. That's all. Nothing more. I respect your opinion, whatever it is.

Again, I'm not trying to nitpick; I'm only trying to make sure we understand each other before we go forward. You can't have a good, productive discussion if each side doesn't understand the other's position and the logic and rationale that went into formulating it.

As far as all of those questions are concerned, I have no problem answering them myself and providing my rationale. Also, I have no problem whatsoever answering any questions or challenges of your own to me. If so, just shoot. But, at least, answer my questions above if we're to go any further. Otherwise, we're not going to have much of a meaningful discussion. And I will readily admit, that's frequently the M. O. of many of the pro-life side who can't answer the pertinent questions. I'm getting the impression you're different, and can. I hope so.

The moment a fetus can be removed from the mother and handed over to another person to care for it is when a fetus can be equated to an infant.

CK - I wasn't bashing Christians, in general. Only those that like to line up and "counsel" you as go into a women's clinic... And I admit... you are right... they aren't all Christians, but they sure like to preach from their book...

1. Why does the fetus have rights that supercede the rights of the person carrying it? I presume you are of the opinion that the fetus's rights prevail over the woman carrying it. Why? We already know that you are of that opinion. The question that you've yet to answer is WHY and how you can justify it under the current Constitution, or how you can justify amending the Constitution to justify it.

Currently, it doesn't. Using the "parasite" logic, neither should an infant. Either make late-term abortions illegal, or legalize the killing of newborns. That would be logical, using the "parasite" comparison.

2. Do we agree so far that there is a difference in physiological support of a life before birth and decision-making and pro-active support of a life after birth? Yes or no. If not, what is the difference, philosophically, that would have any bearing on constitutional rights?

It's not a yes or no answer. Like much of life, it's full of ugly gray areas: You saw the links wherein late-term aborted fetuses survived on their own for a time, so the similarity between they and a newborn infant is undeniable.

3. If I'm understanding you correctly, I surmise that you think that because the fetus is obviously dependent upon its host/mother for life, then therefore, if we have to "side" with the fetus because it's not capable of "defending" itself or having any choice in the matter; it's voiceless and should be able to depend upon those who do have voice to defend its rights--and that those rights should and do prevail over the woman carrying it due to its "subordinate" status to hers. Would that be accurate, or at least on the right track, in terms of your opinion and philosophy? Yes or no. If not, please elaborate.

Only in the case of late-term abortion, wherein the unborn fetus has the same capability to survive outside the womb as a newborn infant should that be the case. Nothing else is logically supportable.

4. I gather that you believe that some persons, specifically pregnant women, are obligated to yield to the fetus inside them--that is, iow, if they would like to have an abortion, then they shouldn't be allowed to because the fetus has just as much right to life as she does, but simply can't speak for or defend itself. Therefore, the fetus prevails. Would that be accurate and fair as far as your position is concerned? Yes or no. If not, please elaborate.

No more than a mother with a newborn infant is legally obligated to yeild to the baby, which she must keep alive.

CK - we may not come from the same side all the time... but you took the time to tell me where you were coming from... why should I not do the same?? :)

In re 1.61:

I'm also entitled to my own opinion, and that was pretty disappointing, but not unexpected when it comes to the "pro-life" defense. Under the Constitution and current interpretation pertaining to individualism, liberty and privacy, there isn't much defense, if any.

The specific, pertinent questions and issues in 1.56 weren't addressed--that is, responses and arguments that would actually get you the result you would like. And for that, I'm eternally grateful. The questions, in context, were skirted and answers--no, responses--spun. Not answers. Skirting and spin won't elicit the ultimate result you would like. Again, thank goodness.

I'm also entitled to my opinion, and that was pretty disappointing. But not unexpected when it comes to the "pro-life" defense.

I didn't see any of your posts deleted. They contained valid queries, and from what I could tell, free of logical fallacies.

The specific, pertinent questions and issues weren't addressed--that is, those that would actually get you the result you would like. And for that, I'm eternally grateful.

Confused. Were you referring to one of my comments?

I didn't see any of your posts deleted. They contained valid queries.

Sorry. Don't understand. There's no reason for any of my posts to be deleted. I was commenting on your not addressing the pertinent Constitutional issues as well as individualist issues and even small-government issues that the abortion question entails. I won't belabor it any further. I've asked specific, simple, yes and no questions, repeatedly, which you've declined to answer specifically as to yes or no. Believe me, I get it. I understand what that declining and deflecting means. I've had enough of these conversations to get it. If you can't or won't answer a simple question as to, yes, we understand each other, or no, we don't understand each other, and this is the reason why, then, this isn't going to go any further. It's more of the same kind of non-discussion that pro-choicers end up having with pro-lifers.

IOW, they're scared to death where the logic and Constitution are going to take them, so they will do anything to avoid going there. Believe me, I get it. Again, I'm grateful. I'm not fearful of direct questions, logic or the Constitution. I'm comfortable where it's taken us, and I prefer to stay there. I'm open to challenges, and won't hesitate to answer a direct question with a direct answer. I'm confident, as I think most other pro-choicers. I don't get that impression from pro-lifers. Either they aren't confident, or they're not educated as to the Constitution and rights issues they claim to be championing.

Ah, so because I didn't provide the answers you expected, then you're disappointed. Understood. And this isn't a courtroom wherein yes or no questions must be answered accordingly. It is an issue chock-full of complex gray areas, and they must be addressed accordingly. Were I "typical" the pro-lifer you apparently expected, I'd have offered a black or white solution - making a hard yes or no stance on abortion in all cases (as your stance appears to be a yes in all cases). Again, sorry to disappoint.

Wrong. You didn't provide answers to the questions I asked. I don't care what any answers are as long as they're pertinent and directly answerable to the specific questions. I don't have to like your answers or agree with them. I think my record's pretty clear that I don't begrudge a difference in opinion. But I'm astute enough to know when a direct question is skirted or an answer spun. I expect direct answers to direct questions or a logical, reasoned and rational response at least.

Even between the most polar of opponents, good communication is not impossible as long as both parties are confident in their positions and know they can support them, no matter what, and that they can answer specific questions, or explain without defensiveness why they can't and what the alternative is.

That is not what's going on here. And I'm not going to waste any more time with matching wits in semantics. I tried, and I gave the benefit of the doubt. I did my part. And, I'll provide my own arguments as to the questions I asked of you. I think I have already, and I'll point to them, and then wrap it up. That's the way it usually goes with the pro-choice vs. pro-life debate.

this isn't a courtroom wherein yes or no questions must be answered accordingly

Of course not. The yes or no questions, which were pretty simple and straightforward, were for the purpose of making sure I understood where you stand. I stated that clearly and in no uncertain terms.

You obviously don't want to commit to a simple yes or no answer (yes, that's my opinion, or, no, that's not my opinion, and here's the clarification), even if it's just confirming mutual understanding thus far in the conversation. I don't mean to stereotype, but I've had enough of these conversations to at least suspect that the reason pro-lifers don't want to commit to a stance, even a simple, innocuous one, is because they know if they do, their logic is going to be attacked and defeated, and they, understandably, don't want to go there.

It's an obvious defense tactic. I get it. I'm not stupid, nor are others on the pro-choice side who want to talk about the issue in clear, concise and understandable terms and have been trying for years, and come up with this same result.

If we are going to use the argument of whether or not the fetus in question is a human being, based on the logic that it cannot support itself, then yes.

But that was not the question. The question had nothing to do with the fetus in question being a human being. You didn't answer the question I asked. You answered a question that wasn't asked but that you could safely answer within your belief system. I get it.

Wrong. You didn't provide answers to the questions I asked.

Incorrect. I didn't provide answers that you wanted to see - I did provide answers.

I don't care what any answers are as long as they're pertinent and directly answerable to the specific questions.

They were pertinent, though they did not lead toward the conclusion you desired, but then life is often like that.

I don't have to like your answers or agree with them. I think my record's pretty clear that I don't begrudge a difference in opinion.

Perhaps, though reading what you've typed above, I have doubts regarding your ability to begrudge such differences in opinion.

But I'm astute enough to know when a direct question is skirted or an answer spun. I expect direct answers to direct questions or a logical, reasoned and rational response at least.

And my answers were both logical and reasonable, despite your opinion to the contrary. That I didn't answer "yes" or "no" seems to have really irritated you, for whatever reason - but then as I asserted - it's not a yes or no issue.

Even between the most polar of opponents, good communication is not impossible as long as both parties are confident in their positions and know they can support them, no matter what, and that they can answer specific questions, or explain without defensiveness why they can't and what the alternative is.

Concur. Thought we were doing rather well until Post 1.64.

That is not what's going on here.

No. Unfortunately you seemed to have abandoned all attempts and logical discourse. Pity.

And I'm not going to waste any more time with matching wits in semantics.

Since you see events in such a manner, such is your choice.

I tried, and I gave the benefit of the doubt. I did my part.

Ah, and now you abandon logic altogether, straying firmly into the land of logical fallacies - in this case, a variation of poisoning the well.

And, I'll provide my own arguments as to the questions I asked of you. I think I have already, and I'll point to them, and then wrap it up. That's the way it usually goes with the pro-choice vs. pro-life debate.

Ah, and now we see more logical fallacies, in this case with your last sentence above - a thinly veiled ad hominem. Again, a pity.

The yes or no questions, which were pretty simple and straightforward, were for the purpose of making sure I understood where you stand. I stated that clearly and in no uncertain terms.

Incorrect. They were designed to lead an opponent into a trap - nothing more. With a pure "pro-life" opponent, they might have even proven effective. Sorry to disappoint.

You obviously don't want to commit to a simple yes or no answer (yes, that's my opinion, or, no, that's not my opinion, and here's the clarification), even if it's just confirming mutual understanding thus far in the conversation. I don't mean to stereotype, but I've had enough of these conversations to at least suspect that the reason pro-lifers don't want to commit to a stance, even a simple, innocuous one, is because they know if they do, their logic is going to be attacked and defeated, and they, understandably, don't want to go there.

Correct, because as I stated - the areas are gray - not black and white (which would handily facilitate a yes or no response). For example, I could ask you this:

Do you support murders with shotguns? Yes or no?

You answer no.

So then the conclusion is that you support murders with other instruments of death.

It's an obvious defense tactic. I get it. I'm not stupid, nor are others on the pro-choice side who want to talk about the issue in clear, concise and understandable terms and have been trying for years, and come up with this same result.

Again, you're trying to paint me into the staunch "pro-life" side with such a statement, when my discourse above obviously demonstrates differently. Why is it so important to you that I be either totally for or against abortion in all instances?

My questions pertained to whether we understood each other thus far in the discussion so that we could go forward in the discussion on the same page, so to speak.

You didn't answer those questions.

A "no" answer from you would not have offended me or put me off. It would have simply required more explanation, either on your part or my part, or both. You didn't provide it or ask questions to further clarify or get to some kind of mutual understanding.

I was very clear in the reasons for my questions of you--to make sure I was interpreting what YOU had to say thus far and IF I was understanding you correctly, so that we could then proceed with our debate.

I was perfectly clear as to the reasons for my questions. My questions had nothing to do with any kind of pronouncement on your philosophy or morality, only on whether I was correct in your stance thus far. You didn't want to clarify or be specific as to yes, I was correct thus far, or, no, I was not correct thus far, and this is how we can better understand each other so we can then go forward.

You don't want to go there. This is entirely defensive and adversarial for you. I accept that. I don't like. It's not necessary. But I accept it.

Broad brush...

No. I don't think I'm the only pro-choicer who's had a dearth of conversations with pro-lifers that were actually on-topic in terms of the issue that matters--constitutionality. I know of one such person here on Newsvine. I literally have no other experience.

Who are these others, CK, that negate the "broad brush"? Seriously. I think it's pretty obvious I'm really open and game for a discussion on the issues that are actually pertinent. When it comes to the pro-life position, I honestly don't know who these constitutionalists are or where they are. I know who and where the moralists/religionists are, but that's irrelevant when it comes to Roe and other reproduction rights issues. Please enlighten me. Thanks.

Now whether or not abortion is right is not the subject of this article.

True. And if you want to delete or squelch those discussions that veer onto whether abortion is right or not is your decision.

But for the record, it hasn't gone unnoticed, as it never does, that when the abortion conversation inevitably comes to the relevant constitutionality, privacy and reproduction rights, the pro-life side can't deliver. At least so far. I'm still waiting with an open mind and still listening. But, in the meantime, pretty disappointing, but not unexpected.

Believe me, I get it.

Sorry for the derail, CK. Bowing out...

When Are They Different?

Well, the main instance when they're not different, is when the issue is used to court votes. Once an election is won, the fetuses are for the most part abandoned. Then the primary goal, of helping the wealthy, gets the lion's share of the attention.

Then why does a helpless infant who can't care for itself take precedence over the rights of a full-fledged person caring for it - without whom the infant would not survive?

Because legally, an infant is considered a person. The fetus is not.

Personally (no pun intended) I don't think abortions should be done after 20 weeks unless the life of the mother is in danger or the fetus will obviously be born with a life-threatening deformity or be a late term miscarriage. JMO.

Pat... that happens to be the law, pretty much, at the moment. Give the Radical Right time...

But it's like I said... when a pregnant woman is murdered, it is assumed that she was going to carry the fetus to term. Hence the double murder charge.

Abortion, on the other hand, is a legal medical procedure, that is decided between a woman and her medical provider.

Better, CK?? :)

I agree with Pat's sentiment and I guess the current law, so what option would that be in your poll? Im not sure any of those answers cover that thought.

I also agree with this thought as well:

Only once an abortion is performed or a miscarriage happens is the potential child no longer potential. If the miscarriage happens as a result of a crime or if the woman is murdered the same outcome happens, the potential child was not given the opportunity to exist by someone other than the mothers decision.

So I guess I could choose only if its during a cirme?

I was kinds reading through Truth Slueth and UNA's conversation, and had a thought. What about mentally incapable people that need full time care even in adulthood. Are those people considered parasites on state's budgets or their legal gaurdians? So let say if my grandpa loses his mental capacities and needs 24 hr care. Needs to be fed, cleaned, diaper changed the whole nine yards. Is he then considered basically a parasite to you UNA? So with your line of reasoning my father could decide to rid himself of this parasitic burden of paying for the care my grandfather needs, is that what your suggesting? Is he no longer a person with rights simply because he cant feed himself anymore? Or does it just pertain to new born babies?

I keep seeing that written, but what organizations are those?

The same organizations trying to get politicians to change the laws to suit their beliefs.

I had the same questions, SmallTownPete. What about late stage Alzheimer's? Or stoke victims? They are similar to newborns. Only bigger...

I think that because the legal stance tends to be (as I understand it) if a pregnant woman is killed in the commission of a crime, it is understood that she is intending to carry the child to term, but I think that she has to be so far along in the pregnancy. Past the point where she could have a legal abortion. Which would make sense. At least to me...

The intentional killing of a living "BREATHING" human being is NOT the same as the termination of a mass of cells that any lab tech can make in a petrie dish. NO, abortion is NOT murder! The "attack" on a women's right to have an abortion "IS" an abomination!

The criminal took away the womans RIGHT TO CHOOSE, and decision of a baby life by someone OTHER than the MOTHER is a crime...

same goes for banned abortions, it violates the WOMANS RIGHT to control HER bodY...

ABORTION IS NOT ILLEGAL WHEN IT'S DONE IN ACCORDANCE TO THE LAW.

Which is before Late-term pregnancy, because it's still a symbiant, before it's a baby.

WHEN IT'S A SYMBIANT, IT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN A PATIENT ON LIFE SUPPORT.

So no, abortion's not murder.

1st test tube baby is 33 years old - whats your point about the newborn living for a week with no mother??? Yeah thought so.

I and many others who consider themselves to be pro-life have no issue with contraceptives,

LOL. UNA_Lion, in the short span of days that have passed since this was posted, we've seen virtually every outlet of the right-wing go berserk in an effort to deny women access to birth control. Between the stern moralizing of the Catholic Church, and the Roy Blunt bill that is to be introduced allowing employers to selectively cover your healthcare needs, it appears that overall the conservative movement in this nation is hell-bent on denying access to contraception, thereby making abortion more necessary. So, you and "many others" had better pick a side, pretty quick.

You and many others who keep voting these neanderthals into office might want to reconsider the consequences of your actions.

The double standard occurs when the very same people screaming about abortion also scream about birth control.

You have to pick a consistent, workable scheme for this, or excuse yourself at a high velocity from the conversation. I will assume because you're a conservative, that you are also one of the people who throws a hissyfit about contraception. Because the only time I see the right talking about contraception, it is to complain about how onerous it is, or how it 'could' fail, or how we should all just abstain from sex because it makes you all feel icky.

When you're willing to admit that this is actually about controlling women, you might have a credible voice in this conversation. Right now, you're just promoting MAJOR DOUBLE STANDARD yourself.

Personally, I think it is silly to charge the murderer of a pregnant woman with double murder. Murder is horrible regardless of the circumstances.

Birth control and abortion are two different things. Abortion must never be used as birth control, and I agree that there need to be laws governing the practice of abortion (not banning it, I must point out), however, birth control prevents abortions and should be available to any woman or man who seeks it.

I find it ludicrous that in a society proclaiming itself to be advanced and forward thinking, there can be such hue and cry by groups that seek to ban both birth control and abortion in this freedom-loving nation. When it comes to the GOP, they brandish their ideas like lesser government, more people power, etc., and then they come back and say, "Hey, wait a minute, we are going to control what you do with your bodies!" Government then appears to have full authority over how we reproduce or when! If you are Catholic, and your beliefs forbid you to practice either birth control or abortion, fine, go ahead and practice it. But who are you to tell the rest of the people in the USA that we have no right to practice what we want either, because your church prohibits it? You call this freedom of religion? There is more than one religion in this country, many people of many faiths live here, and atheists too, and all have a legitimate right to live life as they deem fit. The law must never serve one religion, one denomination, or one section of society, majority or minority. Not here, not in the USA. Abortion rights should not be based on the belief system of one faith either. That law needs to be above and beyond religion.

Truth and consent seem to be the best explanation,

Thanks Truth Sleuth

Can anyone give a reasonable explanation--other than "It's the law" of course--for the double standard?

I think the double standard exists for purely emotional reasons coupled with political motivations to chip away at reproductive rights.

Feticide has traditionally required the "born alive" rule. A fetus can't be the victim of a homicide if it hasn't been born, and born alive.

I'm personally of the opinion that fetuses that are killed during the commission of another crime have been aborted without the mother's consent. It's an illegal abortion, and should be prosecuted accordingly. When the woman gives her own consent to have an abortion and has one legally, there is no crime. When the woman gives her consent to continue the pregnancy to term, again, she's also stated her personal choice and wishes.

But no one has the right to abort the fetus against her will and without her consent, and those who do should face the full force of the law. But to equate that kind of crime (illegal abortion by force) with the homicide of a person--a "born alive" person--regardless of age, is simply not logical.

Fetal homicide laws are fairly new, and about 14, I think, states have not enacted such laws. Those that have, imho, are reacting emotionally to the tragedy of pregnancies that are ended by violence instead of looking at the issue rationally, logically and with the objectivity and dispassion that an equal application of the law applies. There is no equality in this matter, as I see it. In many of those cases, I'm sure there is concern and advocacy for a fetus that was obviously very much wanted and whose birth was anxiously awaited, it's just a misplaced concern motivated by abortion politics.

Another factor is that by equating illegal abortion with homicide of a born-alive person, it diminishes the moral and legal importance of real, bona fide homicides of real, bona fide human being persons. But that's another subject for another time, I guess.

Doesn't get better than 1.4

Double standard? Where do you see double standard? Let's step back from the abortion vs. murder issue, and take a look at this example:

I come home in a really bad mood, I kick my door open, I slash the paintings on the wall, and I paint the walls with a spray-paint, cause I do not like the color anymore. Amazingly enough - no crime committed, even if the neighbors called in with domestic disturbance, as long as I haven't beaten up the wife, and verbally accosted anyone - the police got nothing.

No imagine that I do exact same thing to your house - kicking the door, slash the paintings, spray-paing the walls, in the most courteous manner possible. Is there a crime there? I am not a DA but even can see 5 or 6 criminal counts.

It is just a matter of possession. Same as pregnancy.

Since fetuses are not "people" under the law and may be discarded by the woman at anytime up until the late tri-mester, prior to that a fetus is merely "property" of the woman under the current laws. If tghis is the case, then the killer at best could be charged with destruction of private property but technically not murder since the fetus is not legally a person.

It's a grey area... There is generally a recognized chance the fetus wouldn't make it all the way anyway, but if a woman was planning on carrying it to term that definitely counts as something more than private property.

So far I like the explanations of truth, intent and consent. Very intriguing question, CK.

Since fetuses are not "people" under the law and may be discarded by the woman at anytime up until the late tri-mester, prior to that a fetus is merely "property" of the woman under the current laws.

Actually, no. A non-viable fetus is not property - it is part of a woman's body, soley within her control. A viable fetus isn't property either - even though it is not yet a person.

Because it goes to intentwhich is neccessary for the conviction of Murder in all cases except fetal Homicide.

I disagree - it goes strictly to ownership. Whether I destroy my own house, or yours, the intent is the same - to let off some steam, and show the world how pissed off and stupid I am, but the difference is not the intent of the criminal, but rather the property rights of the owner.

I think we can all agree that the fetus would belong to the woman, at least for the duration of the pregnancy.

prior to that a fetus is merely "property" of the woman under the current laws

Agreed, so?

technically not murder since the fetus is not legally a person.

The fetus apparently is considered a person for the purposes of the destruction by the non-owner. I am not a lawyer, but I am sure that there are things in law that are viewed differently for the purposes of different crimes. I would imagine that certain things that are in the interest of society at large, such as protection of pregnant women can have added charges to it in order to dissuade the evildoers.