An ethical puzzle: A pregnant woman is walking into an abortion clinic. A man walks up, punches her in the?

Question

stomach, killing her fetus. In the majority of states, this is considered MURDER. (see below)

But five minutes later, the Doc. could do the exact same thing, albeit more humanely, and soicety does not bat an eye.

Does this make any sense at all?
___________________
see e.g. NY Penal Code:
§ 125.00 Homicide defined.
"Homicide means conduct which causes the death of a person or an unborn child with which a female has been pregnant for more than twenty-four weeks under circumstances constituting murder ..."

FYI - THis is not a loaded question. In my personal opinion, making the Doc., the criminal is not the answer, yet I think a fetus that the mother intends to carry to term deserves some measure of protection, but those two beliefs lead to the absurd situation reached above.

Princess - you dumbass, first of all, if you had read my question. You'd realize I was pro choice. And you are simply wrong, several states do allow third trimester abortions.

Answer 1

Not a single state permits "fetuses" to be aborted (a fertilized egg cell does not become a fetus until very late in the game). Also, VERY FEW STATES (if any at all...I can't think of one off the top of my head) permit abortions after 24 weeks (unless there is a problem with the health of the mother or the embryo). This murder statute only protects unborn children if they are 24 weeks old. Therefore, the abortion policy and the murder policy are not inconsistent. If you're going to try to make this type of argument, check your facts first kiddo.

Answer 2

I see a lot of ideas above but I don't see what I consider to be the crux of the issue.

These two laws (homicide and abortion) are, like all other laws, based on a balancing of individual rights versus state interests. And even though it seems like you have many of the same actors in both situations doing similar things, they actually implicate different rights and interests.

In the case of homicide, the state has an interest in protecting the lives of its citizens (even its unborn ones). But what interest does the criminal have in killing someone? Really, none. The attacker may have some right to be free in his own body but that doesn't include using his body to kill someone (even someone living inside his mommy). What are the mother's rights and interests? Really, none (insofar as the attack on the fetus is concerned). She didn't consent to be attacked or know she was going to be attacked or anything else. She's not really part of the homicide of the fetus hypo.

And why should the state punish someone for murdering a fetus that was about to be aborted anyway? I think that's simle - the state should punish this person as a warning to the next guy not to punch a pregnant woman in the parking lot of the clinic, and th next guy not to punch a woman he thinks might go to the clinic, and the next guy not to punch the first pregnant woman he sees.

In the case of abortion, the rights and interests are different. The state still has an interest in protecting the lives of its citizens. But now the actual killer (the doctor) doesn't really care one way or the other. The mother who had no interests before, suddenly has a very real interest in control over her own body. She has a native right to control her body (whereas the puncher has no native right to go around punching people). Her inalienable rights are now in conflict with the states. And, at least in the first six months of pregnancy for unmarried women over the age of 18), her rights are given precedence over the state.

Great stuff. Thanks for the mental puzzle.

Answer 3

Really simply answer.

In two different situations, a man and a woman have sex. In the first situation, she says yes. That's consent. In the second situation, she says no and he does it anyway. That's rape.

You really don't see any difference?

Also, look at the statute again. It applies to causing the death/miscarriage of a fetus who is 24 weeks old or more. That's entering the third trimester. States are absolutely free to enact legislation banning abortions after that point, and the only exception they need to leave is where the mother would die or suffer serious permanent bodily injury from carrying the child.

In effect, the state can make the termination of the fetus (after 24 weeks) illegal in both situations, and the only 'defense' is self-defense, where the abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother. So, there is no inconsistency at all.

Answer 4

The image that a heavily pregnant woman is going to woddle into an abortion clinic is just propaganda. Late term abortions are banned in most places and not supported by the vast majority of pro-choicers except for in extremely rare cases caused by drastic health concerns.

Almost all abortions are performed in the first trimester. If the fetus at that stage died from a punch in the stomach it would result in a miscarraige. There would be no way of knowing for sure what caused the miscarraige, making it very difficult for a conviction. The proper charges to be filed would be the assualt against the woman.

Answer 5

no it is not an ethical question, it is still merely an legal question. The fact that abortion is legal, does not dismiss the law that also views the fetus as living in regard to murder.
( of at least to some legal action)

First in disregard to the fetus, it is an assualt on the women
( first crime)

And the law in fact does not have to make sence. Law is the law regardless of any reasonable answer.

In reverse, why is it not murder for the abortion doctor if it is for the assult.

( and why is not making the doctor a criminal ok, since he is indeed killing a living baby)

Answer 6

If the brain doesn't tell you that you feel pain, do you feel pain?

Once that precious fetus is born into a family that doesn't want it, are you willing to pay for its existence?

Before you ask these questions speak to those that have been through these situations...

Hurray for a womans right to choose!

Answer 7

The difference here is consent and permission. The pregnant mother did not give permission to be punched in the stomach, so additional charges would be reasonable based on the permission and consent factor.

Answer 8

This is what happens when bible thumpers are allowed to influence legislation. We end up with nonsensical, contradictory laws.

A fetus should not be legally considered a person for any reason.

Answer 9

I think it's absurd that ANYONE can kill an unborn child.

Answer 10

Killing an unborn child is unethical and anyone who does it is a bastard.