A legal question

B

buffys

Registered Loser
Registered Senior Member
I just ran across this article (don't worry it's very short). Now I'm not starting an anti/pro abortion thread, there are plenty of threads for that if you want debate. I just have a question about Texas law.

The article talks about an 18 year old man that beat his pregnant girlfriend causing a still birth and he is now being charged with murder. Is abortion illegal in Texas now? The article mentioned a recent change in law,
"Texas law now defines an embryo or fetus as an "individual'' and allows for criminal prosecution or civil court action to be carried out for injury or death to the fetus, unless it results from a medical procedure".
Click to expand...
Am I reading that right? Abortion is murder unless a Dr does it? I know laws are often convoluted but do you think this kind of contradiction can be maintained? I don't see how but I'm not an expert, any input from the more learned members here would be appreciated.

NOTE: Again, I understand the desire to be philosophical about this issue but please don't turn this into an abortion debate, I'm just curious about the logic in a legal sense.
 
Last edited:
Sorry to do this but...

bump.

I guess I shouldn't be suprised there have been no responses yet since I don't want an abortion debate but doesn't anyone have any info to offer? I'm really curious about the legal "legs" of this issue.
 
Laws like this one which essentially define a fetus as a human being are made to intentionally create an inconsistency in the law . At some point, this inconsistency will result in a challenge, and the hope of those pushing laws like these is that there will be conservative courts in place then that will outlaw abortion.

If this law was motivated by a real desire to protect fetus', a law could easily be madey creating the same penalties for the crime of "involuntary abortion" or something of the sort which would not require creating an inconsistency.
 
Abortion is murder unless a Dr does it? I know laws are often convoluted but do you think this kind of contradiction can be maintained?
Click to expand...
Same with suicide. Americans repeatedly try to cope with dignified death, but certain religious interests despise such dignity.

Nonetheless, I can get a doctor's note to check out if I live in Oregon. If I try to do it myself, I would be placed in psychiatric observation. Some places they throw you in jail for trying to kill yourself.

Part of what will allow such a law as the one in question to stand is that a medical abortion involves a person's will and accounts for their safety, while an assault revokes that person's will as well as their safety. What happens to that fetus is a mother's right, not a thug's.

They might run into issues defending the focus of the law; the offense is technically against the mother and not the fetus.

In the meantime, Republicans also support this law because it means women can now charge their children for nine months' rent, which justifies child labor, which helps reduce costs in business enterprises. It works out all around.
 
There are those of us who argue - and argue passionately - that the argument

Part of what will allow such a law as the one in question to stand is that a medical abortion involves a person's will and accounts for their safety, while an assault revokes that person's will as well as their safety. What happens to that fetus is a mother's right, not a thug's.

is seriously misconceived because it fails to recognise that a foetus is a person too. It is a living being, genus and species homo sapiens, with its own unique DNA which is different from its mothers. It is NOT a part of its mother (if it were, it would have identical DNA: every cell of your body has the same DNA, you know).

Therefore, we say, the foetus being a person, abortion does NOT involve THAT PERSON'S will and does NOT account for THEIR safety. It revokes that person's will nad their safety.

Can't help you with Texas law, I'm afraid.

But here in the UK we have an organisation (of which I am a member) called Lawyers for the Defence of the Unborn which seeks to promote the interests of the foetus and prevent the pernicious subversion of the Abortion Act 1967. (When this Act was introduced, Parliament had been given express assurances that it DID NOT amount to giving expectant mothers a right to choose to have an abortion - but as it has unfolded in practice it appears that Parliament was misled, and that is exactly what has in practice come about.)
 
I think the opinion that the "law is an ass"
Comes to the fore.
The can not possibly be flexible enough to deal with the issue of foetus and mothers rights and I think this is generally recognised. The law can not be seen to condone the death of one party by another, whether it be euthanasia or abortion or manslaughter or murder, but at the same time it can't provide an adequate solution to an unwanted pregnancy.
Therefore the law can not by design deal with this issue adequately and never will be able to.

This issue is more an issue that can only be dealt with at an on the ground community or societal or " domestic" issue. With the use of coucelling, support networks and appropriate funding.

Alternatives to abortion need to be available and attractive etc etc.....

but again the law is an ass and unfortunately it will always be so.
 
Last edited:
This Texas law doesn’t seem like much of a contradiction. There are lots of things that docs can legally do that the rest of us cannot. Like cut people.
 
If the fetus is a human being who is the slave and property of the mother, then this law makes some sense.
 
he can only be charged with greivous bodily harm, unborn children are not condiered alive and so have no rights
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top