The law doesn't even treat fetuses as part of a woman's body, though; that's why someone can be charged with two separate crimes for killing a pregnant woman, or can be charged for harming a fetus in general (see: Unborn Victims of Violence Act). The mother-fetus relationship is somewhere in the medical proxy ballpark, where the mother is charged with providing responsible care, but is paradoxically also allowed to end the life she's charged with protecting (within certain time limits) for no medically-sound reason.

Not a paradox, as there is no better way to provide responsible care to your unborn child than to abort it.

I don't know about you, but I'd much rather be dead than be born with an FASD.

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on May 16, 2016, 01:43:07 PM

The law doesn't even treat fetuses as part of a woman's body, though; that's why someone can be charged with two separate crimes for killing a pregnant woman, or can be charged for harming a fetus in general (see: Unborn Victims of Violence Act). The mother-fetus relationship is somewhere in the medical proxy ballpark, where the mother is charged with providing responsible care, but is paradoxically also allowed to end the life she's charged with protecting (within certain time limits) for no medically-sound reason.

Have you considered that maybe these discrepancies exist because there are discrepancies in the consequences to the actions?

Can you rephrase that? I have no idea what you're trying to ask.

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on May 16, 2016, 01:56:34 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on May 16, 2016, 01:52:48 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on May 16, 2016, 01:43:07 PM

The law doesn't even treat fetuses as part of a woman's body, though; that's why someone can be charged with two separate crimes for killing a pregnant woman, or can be charged for harming a fetus in general (see: Unborn Victims of Violence Act). The mother-fetus relationship is somewhere in the medical proxy ballpark, where the mother is charged with providing responsible care, but is paradoxically also allowed to end the life she's charged with protecting (within certain time limits) for no medically-sound reason.

Have you considered that maybe these discrepancies exist because there are discrepancies in the consequences to the actions?

Can you rephrase that? I have no idea what you're trying to ask.

The "paradox" is come about only because there is a stark difference in consequence between an abortion and imposing an FASD on somebody. If hell existed, and abortions sent the unborn child to hell to suffer for all eternity, it might be more of a paradox, and you'd have a point.

You're the only one talking about FASD. Roe v Wade provides an unqualified right to an abortion; the paradox is in the medical proxy relationship the mother shares with the fetus, which would usually prohibit her from acting in any way contrary to her charge's health, in which case she would lose that right, but when it comes to an abortion there is no reason necessary. A woman shouldn't legally be served alcohol while pregnant for the same reason she shouldn't be able to have an abortion without medical cause, is my point.

btw, I'm not at all turning this into a moral discussion of abortion; that ship sailed years ago on these boards. I simply wanted to clarify the legal and biological terms of what a fetus is.

The mother has a responsibility not to harm her unborn child, and abortions do not harm the unborn child. You disagree.

I don't even think people that defend abortion would argue that it doesn't harm the fetus. But I would say (and I think, agree) that this law is nothing more than a natural extension of the denial of human rights to a fetus; if a mother could get an unqualified abortion under the law, there's zero reason she shouldn't be able to drink, smoke, etc. in that same timeframe, anyway.

Quote from: Verbatim on May 16, 2016, 02:20:05 PM

The mother has a responsibility not to harm her unborn child, and abortions do not harm the unborn child. You disagree.

I don't even think people that defend abortion would argue that it doesn't harm the fetus. But I would say (and I think, agree) that this law is nothing more than a natural extension of the denial of human rights to a fetus; if a mother could get an unqualified abortion under the law, there's zero reason she shouldn't be able to drink, smoke, etc. in that same timeframe, anyway.

Poisoning a fetus will inevitably harm a valid person and deny them what should be their right to a normal and healthy life.
Killing a fetus cannot deny a valid person their rights because they never become a valid person.

Unless what you were saying is that a woman planning to have an abortion can drink and do whatever up until that point, which I guess I could agree with. She'd be held responsible if she decided not to after fucking the kid's life up.

valid person

I'll take legally arbitrary and meaningless labels for 400, Alex.