Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

SecretMethod70 · 11-16-2004, 07:52 PM

Let me reword myself to make it more clear - that's probably my fault - I think the law should not reflect BIASES in public sentiment. Law *should* of course be based on the fundamentals of public sentiment, however, being that all power of the state and, thereby, all laws, come from the public.

So, then, the basic public opinion is one that human life is important, notwithstanding the minority who hold an opinion such as art's. The BIAS in public opinion is, in regards to an unborn child, to define life dependant on the situation in which it is being considered. What I mean when I refer to an objective reason for the law is that the definition for life is not dependant on the situation under which it is being considered, however the bias in public opinion has led to a law which, in effect, treats it that way in order to please the public masses.

Let's consider, for example, why such a law is put into place. Lawmakers did not say "Gee, the state loses something when an unborn child is killed by an outside force, so we're going to make it illegal." No, lawmakers were responding to pressures from the public to create a situation which recognized that a person who terminates a pregnancy without the mother's consent is doing something wrong.

I have always recognized that a woman choosing to have an abortion and a third party making the choice for her are two different things. What I object to is not that it is illegal, it is how we define the crime. I'm looking at the situation more from a philosophical perspective than a political one.

Let's look at it this way:

If you were to ask a person who is pro-choice why they are pro-choice, most would tell you that they are so because they do not believe the thing inside the mother is a human life and therefore it is a private decision for the mother (defining privacy as that which does not affect other, non-choosing persons).

If you were to ask someone why, then, they believe it is wrong for a third party to terminate a pregnancy without the mother's consent, it would not be that the third party is taking a human life, but that the third party is denying the mother her right to choose. In effect, they are saying that the third party is committing an invasion of privacy, not murder. Emotional biases, however, lead most to wish for severe punishment for third parties who commit such an act, and in order to accomodate this the law has chosen to define murder in a convenient sense, acting as if second degree and first degree murder are somehow also related to "how human" the life was.

My point is not that it should not be wrong for a third party to commit such an act or that it should not carry a strict penalty. It is simply that it is not murder if you do not believe abortion is murder. Most people who are for abortion do not.

So, I believe that such an act requires a newly defined crime because it does not fit into the category of murder. In fact, I would say that for those who do not believe abortion is murder, the act of a third party terminating a pregnancy without the mother's consent is more closely aligned with rape in that rape can be considered a Grand Invasion of Privacy. So, much like there is theft and GRAND theft, I would prefer to create seperate categories for invasions of privacy. In other words, a peeping tom is invading privacy; a rapist or someone who strips a mother of such an intimate choice is committing a GRAND invasion of privacy. This allows for a law which is severe against those who terminate a pregnancy without the mother's consent, but is not inconsistant with the public framework that the laws are based on. (Another possible way to look at it is Assault and Grand Assault.)

To share a bit of how I came to this conclusion, I've been discussing this matter with my roommate who is soon to be a graduate student in philosophy. We both had watched the debates over this law on C-Span when they were taking place last year, so we are both familiar with the fact pro-choice lawmakers have long seen this inconsistancy and objected to it. What discussing this with him brought to my attention was a way to define the paradox that we see in regards to defining life. The paradox is not so much in that we CHOOSE to define life in convenient terms, it is that we do not publically define life in objective terms at all. Our attitudes towards life, as seen in our attitudes towards abortion and third party non-consentual abortions, do not really change at all. We are, realistically speaking, defining life not based on the biological status of the being, but on the INTENT of the mother. Clearly, this is a wrong definition for something as scientific for life, but it is not necessarily something that should not be considered. Thus, the wording of the laws should reflect the basis on maternal intent and not on personhood.

11-16-2004, 07:52 PM	#63 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	Let me reword myself to make it more clear - that's probably my fault - I think the law should not reflect BIASES in public sentiment. Law should of course be based on the fundamentals of public sentiment, however, being that all power of the state and, thereby, all laws, come from the public. So, then, the basic public opinion is one that human life is important, notwithstanding the minority who hold an opinion such as art's. The BIAS in public opinion is, in regards to an unborn child, to define life dependant on the situation in which it is being considered. What I mean when I refer to an objective reason for the law is that the definition for life is not dependant on the situation under which it is being considered, however the bias in public opinion has led to a law which, in effect, treats it that way in order to please the public masses. Let's consider, for example, why such a law is put into place. Lawmakers did not say "Gee, the state loses something when an unborn child is killed by an outside force, so we're going to make it illegal." No, lawmakers were responding to pressures from the public to create a situation which recognized that a person who terminates a pregnancy without the mother's consent is doing something wrong. I have always recognized that a woman choosing to have an abortion and a third party making the choice for her are two different things. What I object to is not that it is illegal, it is how we define the crime. I'm looking at the situation more from a philosophical perspective than a political one. Let's look at it this way: If you were to ask a person who is pro-choice why they are pro-choice, most would tell you that they are so because they do not believe the thing inside the mother is a human life and therefore it is a private decision for the mother (defining privacy as that which does not affect other, non-choosing persons). If you were to ask someone why, then, they believe it is wrong for a third party to terminate a pregnancy without the mother's consent, it would not be that the third party is taking a human life, but that the third party is denying the mother her right to choose. In effect, they are saying that the third party is committing an invasion of privacy, not murder. Emotional biases, however, lead most to wish for severe punishment for third parties who commit such an act, and in order to accomodate this the law has chosen to define murder in a convenient sense, acting as if second degree and first degree murder are somehow also related to "how human" the life was. My point is not that it should not be wrong for a third party to commit such an act or that it should not carry a strict penalty. It is simply that it is not murder if you do not believe abortion is murder. Most people who are for abortion do not. So, I believe that such an act requires a newly defined crime because it does not fit into the category of murder. In fact, I would say that for those who do not believe abortion is murder, the act of a third party terminating a pregnancy without the mother's consent is more closely aligned with rape in that rape can be considered a Grand Invasion of Privacy. So, much like there is theft and GRAND theft, I would prefer to create seperate categories for invasions of privacy. In other words, a peeping tom is invading privacy; a rapist or someone who strips a mother of such an intimate choice is committing a GRAND invasion of privacy. This allows for a law which is severe against those who terminate a pregnancy without the mother's consent, but is not inconsistant with the public framework that the laws are based on. (Another possible way to look at it is Assault and Grand Assault.) To share a bit of how I came to this conclusion, I've been discussing this matter with my roommate who is soon to be a graduate student in philosophy. We both had watched the debates over this law on C-Span when they were taking place last year, so we are both familiar with the fact pro-choice lawmakers have long seen this inconsistancy and objected to it. What discussing this with him brought to my attention was a way to define the paradox that we see in regards to defining life. The paradox is not so much in that we CHOOSE to define life in convenient terms, it is that we do not publically define life in objective terms at all. Our attitudes towards life, as seen in our attitudes towards abortion and third party non-consentual abortions, do not really change at all. We are, realistically speaking, defining life not based on the biological status of the being, but on the INTENT of the mother. Clearly, this is a wrong definition for something as scientific for life, but it is not necessarily something that should not be considered. Thus, the wording of the laws should reflect the basis on maternal intent and not on personhood. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling Last edited by SecretMethod70; 11-16-2004 at 07:59 PM..