"It is considered double homicide when either the baby is grown and matured or when the mother knew of the fetus and decided to keep it," and "Its like it wouldn't be considered double homicide if no one knew of the fetus." -Your quotes.
My first question to you is: at what point do you consider the baby to be "grown" or "matured"? At what point does the law consider a baby to be "grown" or "matured"? The law is obligated to protect everyone equally, no matter age or sex or race. The fetus is also protected constitutionally, as it is guaranteed life, liberty, and a pursuit of happiness, since a fetus is, by definition, "posterity". Additionally, if a pregnant woman is killed, and a pathologist finds a fetus inside the woman (which he/she would in an autopsy), the killer will be charged with double homicide. Furthermore, there is no way to ask the woman if she wanted the baby or not, because she is already dead.
"therefore a women making her choice to not have a baby either due to the fact she's not financially stable or any other reason." -Your quote
It makes no logical sense for a woman to have an abortion because of financial stability. First, there is financial aid for young mothers and other methods of help a woman can get if she is unable to take care of her child. Second, even if there was no help for single or struggling mothers, she would still be able to put the child up for adoption. This is not only more humane, but also logical compared to the alternative: killing the fetus.
@XfactorFr33SpeechGreen7mos7MO
I can see where you're coming from with the double homicide analogy, but let's flip the script for a moment. Many laws around the world define the start of life at the point of viability outside the womb, which is usually around 24 weeks. Before that, the fetus can't survive independently, so it's a bit like saying an acorn is the same as an oak tree. Sure, one can potentially become the other, but they're not the same thing.
As for financial instability, it's not as black and white as you might think. Yes, there are financial aids and adoption, but neither is… Read more
@9FZKSH6 7mos7MO
"Many laws around the world define the start of life at the point of viability outside the womb, which is usually around 24 weeks."
Good point, but this is America, and the American constitution protects our "posterity" and grants its rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To bring other countries into this argument is rather irrelevant, because this argument is focused on American politics -- this is an American political website.
A fetus cannot survive independently. However, neither can my great grandma who is on life support. If we were to shut off her lif… Read more
The Supreme Court has interpreted this as a privacy right for women to make their own medical decisions.
Your comparison of a fetus to a person on life support is thought-provoking. However, the key difference here lies in the realm of potential versus actual life. A person on life support has already experienced life outside the womb, while a fetus has not. This distinction is why many legal and medical professionals differentiate between the two.
As for financial aid and adoption, the point is not that they are completely ineffectual, but that they are not guaranteed solutions and can… Read more
@9FZKSH6 7mos7MO
The fetus is a living, growing human being--not a potential life. It is scientifically proven that it is a life, because it meets the 5 criterion of life. There is no difference in value between a baby in the womb, grandma on life support, or joe smith driving to work. All are live humans and deserve the same rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
So I disagree, however you bring good points
@VulcanMan6 7mos7MO
I'm confused as to why your argument relies so heavily on the right to life of the fetus..? Even a fully grown and conscious adult person does not have the right to use any other person's body without their consent, even if their life is at stake, right? Because no person's right to life can overrule another person's bodily autonomy, so whether or not the fetus has the right to life in the first place would still be completely irrelevant, since even fully grown adults cannot use a person's body if they don't consent...so why should a fetus be any different, espec… Read more
@9FZKSH6 7mos7MO
In no way is the fetus overriding your "bodily autonomy". If a woman has sex, she's probably gonna get pregnant. This is literally how it always has been. Nothing new here. If you have sex, you're gonna get pregnant. Getting pregnant is just the natural part of conception. So, if you conceive without at least expecting the chance of getting pregnant, that's pure stupidity. There's really no other way to put it.
The reason why the child inside the womb isn't violated your "bodily autonomy" is because when you make the decision to interact sexually… Read more
@VulcanMan6 7mos7MO
You seem to misunderstand. This has nothing to do with the circumstances of the conception, this is simply regarding the fact that pregnancy IS the use of the mother's body by the fetus. The fetus is, in every sense, quite literally using the body of the mother to live and grow; that is what pregnancy is.
And, again: no person (even a fetus) has the right to use another person's body without their constant consent, right? Hence why the fetus does not have any right to continue using its mother's body if she does not want it to. That is why the fetus has no say or right to override the autonomy of the mother and her right over the use of her own body; if she does not consent to this being using her body for the next several months, then she has every right to stop it from doing so...even if that means it dies, because it does notRead more
