Value of a Fetus. Time to overturn Roe v. Wade?

[I miss Reagan]

In a spectacular murder case in Missouri, Lisa Montgomery strangled to death Bobbie Jo Stinnett, who was eight months pregnant. Montgomery cut open Stinnett's womb and kidnapped her child. This is a horrific crime that, like the Scott Peterson case, opens an uncomfortable window into our culture's tortured reasoning on anything related to unborn life.

    During the coverage of the crime, the status of the Bobbie Jo Stinnett's unborn girl steadily changed. All at once on AOL News during the weekend, there were headlines tracking events in the case: "Woman Slain, Fetus Stolen"; "Woman Arrested, Baby Returned in Bizarre Murder"; "Infant in Good Health." Note how a "fetus" -- something for which American law and culture has very little respect -- was somehow instantly transformed into a "baby" and "infant" -- for which we have the highest respect. By what strange alchemy does that happen?

From Fetus to Baby

It is baffleing to me how the left chooses to define a baby or a fetus. When a pregnant mother describes the child in her womb she refers to it as her baby not her fetus. Recent cases such as the one refered to above and the Scott Peterson case in which he was convicted for killing his "unborn child" place the pro-choice movement in jeapordy. Finally logic is replacing the foolish belief that it is ok to murder depending on the value you place on a child in the womb or the name you decide to call it.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Time to overturn Roe v. Wade?

No, I don't think so. I think that in a free society the state cannot purport to force a woman to give birth, irrespective of any value you place on the fetus.

[I miss Reagan]

With that logic, in a "free" society a mother should be permitted to terminate the life of her child if she chooses to not be a mother. In truth, a free and just society would not permit anyone to terminate the life of a child that could live out of the womb. In Canada it would have been legal for the mother of the stolen fetus to kill that baby. It makes no sense whatsoever.

[Black Dog]

With that logic, in a "free" society a mother should be permitted to terminate the life of her child if she chooses to not be a mother.  In truth, a free and just society would not permit anyone to terminate the life of a child that could live out of the womb.  In Canada it would have been legal for the mother of the stolen fetus to kill that baby.  It makes no sense whatsoever.

No, because once the child is born it becomes a member of society, a legal person entitled to the same rights and protections as everyone else.

[I miss Reagan]

So as long as we kill it before it is entirely out of the womb it's ok? How did we come to this conclusion?

[Black Dog]

So as long as we kill it before it is entirely out of the womb it's ok? How did we come to this conclusion?

Because there's a distinction between a fetus as a living thing and a real person. It's a necessary one for balancing individual rights.

[I miss Reagan]

So as long as we kill it before it is entirely out of the womb it's ok?  How did we come to this conclusion?

Because there's a distinction between a fetus as a living thing and a real person. It's a necessary one for balancing individual rights.

Interesting. I'm listening.

I've mentioned this to you before but if this is the definition we are going to use, there is no way that Scott Peterson should have been charged with the murder of his unborn son. And adding to that, if we're not going to recognize the fetus as an idividual, then there should not have been an amber alert for the stolen fetus. No one should be charged for any crime other than assault in any attack resulting in the death of a pregnant woman's fetus.

[The Terrible Sweal]

With that logic, in a "free" society a mother should be permitted to terminate the life of her child if she chooses to not be a mother.

I don't see how that follows. A child is a human being who will not require a woman to give birth in some number of months in the future. A fetus (a not-yet human being) will.

[Black Dog]

I've mentioned this to you before but if this is the definition we are going to use, there is no way that Scott Peterson should have been charged with the murder of his unborn son. And adding to that, if we're not going to recognize the fetus as an idividual, then there should not have been an amber alert for the stolen fetus. No one should be charged for any crime other than assault in any attack resulting in the death of a pregnant woman's fetus.

I think it's disingenious to use the cases like these where the gestation is far enough along that the fetus can survive outside the womb to raise doubts about abortion. In both cases mentioned, the women were 8 months pregnant. No, almost no abortions occur at that stage. The overwhelming majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester of pregnancy. The Centers for Disease Control estimates that 58 percent of legal abortions occur within the first eight weeks of gestation, and 88 percent are performed within the first 12 weeks (based on the most recent data from 2000). Just over 10 percent are performed between 13 and 20 weeks. Less than one-half-of-one percent occur after 24 weeks.

[I miss Reagan]

Then why not ban abortions when the woman is 8 months pregnant? If justice is blind and everyone is equal in the eyes of the law then it shouldn't matter if the murderer is the mother or someone else. I'm not trying to be disingenuous. Perhaps we should outlaw late term abortions where the fetus would survive outside the womb?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear I Miss Reagan,

Perhaps we should outlaw late term abortions where the fetus would survive outside the womb?

A very good point. It makes sense with the murder-charge relevancy as well. If someone cannot decide about abortion until that late in the term anyway, they could be deemed to have 'blown their chance' (and should have blown their husband instead) and should consider adoption.

[August1991]

I have posted this link elsewhere on this forum.

Those in favour of forbidding late-term abortions should read it (in particular the testimonials).

Clinton said that when he first heard about the procedure, he thought he would support the bill, but changed his mind after learning more. "I came to understand that this is a rarely used procedure, justifiable as a last resort when doctors judge it necessary to save a woman's life or to avert serious health consequences to her," Clinton said.

CNN article

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

An interesting read. I suppose one could argue that 'extenuating circumstances' could be a defence involving any charges from such a bill, but how is it, as 'I Miss Reagan' asks, can a person be charged with murder of an unborn, when a doctor can't?

Incidentally, I am pro-choice, but have a contempt for those who use abortion as birth-control.

[Slavik44]

So as long as we kill it before it is entirely out of the womb it's ok?  How did we come to this conclusion?

Because there's a distinction between a fetus as a living thing and a real person. It's a necessary one for balancing individual rights.

I belive the question being asked is why is that distinction selectively applied, as with the Scott Peterson case, how can he be charged with second degree murder for killing something that supposedly is non-human. As well why was there a transfer from fetus to infant in just a few short days in covering the above story. Maybe that is not what Reagan is getting at but it seems to me as this distinction you talk of is non-existent in some cases.

[I miss Reagan]

I belive the question being asked is why is that distinction selectively applied, as with the Scott Peterson case, how can he be charged with second degree murder for killing something that supposedly is non-human. As well why was there a transfer from fetus to infant in just a few short days in covering the above story. Maybe that is not what Reagan is getting at but it seems to me as this distinction you talk of is non-existent in some cases.

Well put. This is what I was trying to get at.

All good, well thought out comments rather than knee jerk reactions for such a controversial subject.

[Black Dog]

So as long as we kill it before it is entirely out of the womb it's ok?  How did we come to this conclusion?

Because there's a distinction between a fetus as a living thing and a real person. It's a necessary one for balancing individual rights.

I belive the question being asked is why is that distinction selectively applied, as with the Scott Peterson case, how can he be charged with second degree murder for killing something that supposedly is non-human. As well why was there a transfer from fetus to infant in just a few short days in covering the above story. Maybe that is not what Reagan is getting at but it seems to me as this distinction you talk of is non-existent in some cases.

Well, in order to look at the Peterson case, for example, one must also look at the current political climate in the states. Under Bush, the fight to curtail abortion rights has been stepped up across the board. Prenatal homicide laws are another step in that direction because once you cross the line between unborn fetus and bouncing baby, it becomes a lot more difficult to justify abortion at any stage, or so the theory goes.

I can see why the original poster would be confused, but I have a problem with how the original article is framed. It simply draws the wrong lines by quibbling over the semantics of "baby" vs. "fetus" as opposed to the "alive" vs. "person" distinction I mentioned earlier. Further, to compare the crimes perpatrated upon both Laci Peterson and Bobbie Jo Stinnett with abortion is further muddling the issue: both (it can be reasonably assummed) wanted their children and were prepared to carry them to term. Which brings us back to the issue of choice: Peterson and Stinnett were stripped of their right to choose by their killers. It's strange that the opponents of abortion would put themselves in the same league as Scott Peterson and Lisa Montgomery.

[August1991]

Further, to compare the crimes perpatrated upon both Laci Peterson and Bobbie Jo Stinnett with abortion is further muddling the issue: both (it can be reasonably assummed) wanted their children and were prepared to carry them to term.

BD, it seems to me that legal abortion does not mean anyone can kill a foetus. Legal abortion gives that right to the mother alone.

Your argument, BD, of "person" vs. "foetus" would apply to the mother's right to kill her own child.

To illustrate my point, if a mother opts to have an abortion, it is legal. If she gives birth, and then kills her child, she is charged with murder.

I don't think about this issue morally but rather in terms of incentives.

There is an ongoing case in Vancouver of an abandoned newborn child. If the mother is found, should she be charged? I think so. There should be a deterrent for other women considering child abandonment.

With the same reasoning, should a woman be charged if she has an abortion? No, because the incentive here would simply cause other women to seek illegal abortions.

Child abandonment or infanicide is extremely rare and we can control this. Abortion is common and it cannot be changed. We should be pragmatic.

[Black Dog]

To illustrate my point, if a mother opts to have an abortion, it is legal. If she gives birth, and then kills her child, she is charged with murder.

Yes, becaus ethere's a legal distinction between the two. OPbviously, you can extend that to say you can't kill a baby at 8 3/4 moonths. However, I think comparing these cases with abortion is specious, simply by virtue of the fact that so few abortions are carried out at a stage where the fetus can be viable outside the womb.

[The Terrible Sweal]

The right of women to choose to have an abortion does not revolve around any purported rights held by the fetus. It revolves around the relationship between the citizen and the state, and what the state can purport or not purport to enforce on a citizen. A free society cannot enforce childbirth upon a citizen any more than it can enforce organ donation.

[Guest LLL]

A free society cannot enforce childbirth upon a citizen any more than it can enforce organ donation.

Once you're dead your organs should be free for the taking.

But what if they transplanted a man's brain into a woman. Would she become a lesbian?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Terrible Sweal,

A free society cannot enforce childbirth upon a citizen any more than it can enforce organ donation.

No, but a religious society can. Further, as Hugo and August1991 have argued, so can a democracy. So how can we decide 'whose rights are right'?

[The Terrible Sweal]

Thelonius,

A religious society is not free and could do such a thing. That's why you see the same people who support forced-childbirth insisting that our society is 'based on' God, or some such nonsense -- tyranny is elementary to their agenda.

Conceptually (if in practice imperfectly) the 'western-style' democracies are all 'liberal democracies' in the sense of positing individual 'freedom' as an essential characteristic. From within this viewpoint, systems which purport to be otherwise are considered ideological tyrranies rather than democracies. In my view this is because implementing democracy successfully actually requires that the constituent citizens be free to exercise their best judgement. It is self-evident that the best judgment is based on reason, rather than prejudice or superstition.

I don't doubt for a second that if the majority of citizens in Canada wanted to elect a government to overturn our civil rights they could do so. The courts have no armies. However, the majority of citizens place such value on the institution of civil rights that they will not do so, despite how some of those rights may conflict with their prejudices.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Once you're dead your organs should be free for the taking.

The dead are not citizens.

[CanuckPuck]

(Isn't foetus spelt with an 'O'?)

Whether to abort a pregnancy is not an easy decision for any woman to make. The circumstances for each woman is different. Certainly many women who are pro-choice would never consider having an abortion themselves.

There are many facets of this argument for and against the rights of the foetus and the woman; but the main one is that a persons body and life-choice should not be controlled by the state.

Not brushing aside the argument that we are all responsible for our actions and must take accountability for them, etc., we can not say the rights of the foetus override the rights of the woman if she willingly engaged in sexual intercourse, but does not override the rights of the woman if she was raped or a result of incest, etc. (many say abortion should only be legal in cases of rape or incest). How can the rights of a foetus be held in so regard if they are that fickle?

[RB]

Certainly many women who are pro-choice would never consider having an abortion themselves.

I think you are right. I am for choices but would also like to have my options read to me, but I don't think I would consider abortion.

There are numerous rights available that people don't exercise such as: voting, but we still have to protect such a freedoms

The abortion issue for me as a woman, is about a right of woman to have control over her body. No one should make a decision and invade her privacy concerning her body excepting herself.

It is difficult to understand when a person says we should have some law to control woman's body.

I mean why can't they protest that the males only have sex with the person they marry and also legislate the number of times for sex per year and according to the woman's cycle.