• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Defining "Life" In Legal Terms

Status
Not open for further replies.
lordofthereef

lordofthereef

Android Expert
I think it is highly likely that we will, at some point, have to give a legal definition to life when it comes to a pregnancy, if we want a definitive "yes, abortion is ok, no it is not ok, or it is ok sometimes".

So, what are some opinions on when a life is actually life and should not be allowed to be terminated.

I am of the opinion that a zygote is far from life no matter how it's spun. If it is considered a life, then so are eggs and sperm (and I am sure some people would argue that is, indeed, the case). I would argue that the zygote is just a possibility of life.

My definition of a human life would be one that can be sustained outside of the mother's womb. Prior to that, I am of the opinion that, it is merely on its way to becoming a human life.

Since the topic of abortion is such a touchy one, I would like to try and avoid the "abortion is right or wrong" arguments as much as possible and simply discuss what, exactly, can/should be considered life.
 
Does it not grow? if it isnt alive then to wouldnt grow.

But to debate if a zygote is life or not. You are debating if abortion is right or wrong.
 
that question is further reaching than just abortion......... I truely believe that we need a specific definition...... regardless of whether or not that definition coincides with my or anyone elses personal opinion

as it is we have conflicting laws in every state and in many cases even within the same state

for example.. its perfectly legal for a woman to get an abortion because its not taking a life........ however in some states if that same woman did drugs or drank alchohol which caused her to lose the fetus she can be charged with murder....... so in that case its considered a human life if she kills her baby by drinking when shes 8 weeks pregnant but not human life if she gets an abortion when shes 8 months pregnant...... total contradiction which needs to be defined specifically

but to further complicate things...... how exactly would you define 'can be sustained outside the mothers womb'........ for some fetus' that could be 3 months ...... others cant be sustained well after they are born

would you then say sustained without human interference....... isnt it technically interference when the doctor is delivering the baby? so then by that standard life doesnt truely begin until several days after you are actually born..... since they are put in incubators after birth (human interference)

in the end it truely cant be defined unless we simply accept a definition based on a personal perspective not based in facts........ and you will always have widely varying perspectives
 
What about we go from being dependent on our mother for food. To plants and animals for sustaining us. So we are dependent on something our whole lives.
 
I would personally say that anything that can be sustained with or without human interference outside the womb. If it has been done at 3 months of age, then that would be a proper legal definition I suppose.
 
Dark Jedi said:
What about we go from being dependent on our mother for food. To plants and animals for sustaining us. So we are dependent on something our whole lives.
Click to expand...

Yes, but someone outside of the mother is able to provide this. With a fetus, it is up to the pregnant mother-to-be, for X amount of time to carry that child. X is what I am looking to define.
 
Well, in common law, homicide is defined as "the unlawful killing of a human being".

Here in California, it is possible to commit homicide on a fetus.

Hence, a fetus is a human being under California law... or we just have a serious legal contradiction in our penal code.
 
lordofthereef said:
Yes, but someone outside of the mother is able to provide this. With a fetus, it is up to the pregnant mother-to-be, for X amount of time to carry that child. X is what I am looking to define.
Click to expand...
A newborn baby can not feed itself. It needs its mother to feed him or her but you call it life?
 
Here is one reason why defining a zygote as life is difficult: in vitro fertilization. Here is the watered down version - eggs and sperm are harvested from donor parents and then fertilized in a lab. The best candidates are chosen and then implanted into the mother in hope that they develop. If mutiple zygotes take, the parents are given options as to how many/which to keep.

In vitro is a great option for those with low sperm counts, poor egg viability, etc. so it would be a shame to have this option erased by defining a zygote as life. After all, those fertilized eggs which are not implanted would be considered murder in this case.
 
Dark Jedi said:
A newborn baby can not feed itself. It needs its mother to feed him or her but you call it life?
Click to expand...

It doesn't need its mother at all. With modern science this baby can be fed by anyone, really.

EDIT: I do say modern, but infant formula has been around for some time.
 
FreakyLocz14 said:
Well, in common law, homicide is defined as "the unlawful killing of a human being".

Here in California, it is possible to commit homicide on a fetus.

Hence, a fetus is a human being under California law... or we just have a serious legal contradiction in our penal code.
Click to expand...

This. We have a contradiction. If the mother decides to abort the fetus, it's legal. if a homicidal maniac kills the mother, he is tried for two murders.
 
lordofthereef said:
This. We have a contradiction. If the mother decides to abort the fetus, it's legal. if a homicidal maniac kills the mother, he is tried for two murders.
Click to expand...

This contradiction may hopefully set the foundation for the California Legislature or a ballot initiative outlawing abortion and the California Supreme Court upholding it.
 
FreakyLocz14 said:
This contradiction may hopefully set the foundation for the California Legislature or a ballot initiative outlawing abortion and the California Supreme Court upholding it.
Click to expand...

I think, at the very least, we would need exceptions, say, for rape. Even then, how does one prove she was raped?
 
Just playing devil's advocate here. Let's say prostitution is legalized (I bring this up since it's a discussion you started) and abortion is deemed illegal. Let's also say there is a "whoopsie" with a prostitute. Should the prostitute be required to bring the child to term? Not only is the prostitute out of work for months while pregnant, she may never find that work again.
 
lordofthereef said:
I think, at the very least, we would need exceptions, say, for rape. Even then, how does one prove she was raped?
Click to expand...

A mother can simply sign a document, under penalty of perjury and a possible homicide prosecution if she lies, that she was raped. Prosecutions do take place for falsely signing a document under penalty of perjury.

Prostitutes would be required to use protection at all times while having sex with clients. Current law allows women to take maternity leave, so I'd expect prostitutes to get the same benefit.
 
FreakyLocz14 said:
A mother can simply sign a document, under penalty of perjury and a possible homicide prosecution if she lies, that she was raped. Prosecutions do take place for falsely signing a document under penalty of perjury.

Prostitutes would be required to use protection at all times while having sex with clients. Current law allows women to take maternity leave, so I'd expect prostitutes to get the same benefit.
Click to expand...

On the first point, it would be exceedingly difficult and cost prohibitive (we are talking about the war on drugs being a waste of money) to make sure a woman wasn't indeed raped. Sure she would have to sign she isn't lieing. That doesn't mean she isn't, and it's a pretty damn safe bet she won't get busted for it either.

On the second point, protection fails. It has before and it will continue to do so. Sure there is maternity leave, but it's generally not until you are getting ready to pop. Once you have a baby bump, you probably aren't going to be getting (or even allowed) much business.
 
lordofthereef said:
On the first point, it would be exceedingly difficult and cost prohibitive (we are talking about the war on drugs being a waste of money) to make sure a woman wasn't indeed raped. Sure she would have to sign she isn't lieing. That doesn't mean she isn't, and it's a pretty damn safe bet she won't get busted for it either.

On the second point, protection fails. It has before and it will continue to do so. Sure there is maternity leave, but it's generally not until you are getting ready to pop. Once you have a baby bump, you probably aren't going to be getting (or even allowed) much business.
Click to expand...

Also, when rape happens, there is usually a police report of the alleged event.
 
FreakyLocz14 said:
Also, when rape happens, there is usually a police report of the alleged event.
Click to expand...

You'd be surprised, I think. In any case, the operative term is usually here. Let's say there was no report (often rape victims feel shame and don't file a report). Are they penalized for this?
 
lordofthereef said:
You'd be surprised, I think. In any case, the operative term is usually here. Let's say there was no report (often rape victims feel shame and don't file a report). Are they penalized for this?
Click to expand...

If a rape victim is to get an abortion, it is in her best interest to report it to the police. My bother was a robbery victim. The police had no sympathy for his shame and reluctance to report it. He got lectured by them.
 
FreakyLocz14 said:
This contradiction may hopefully set the foundation for the California Legislature or a ballot initiative outlawing abortion and the California Supreme Court upholding it.
Click to expand...
Almost every law on the books contradicts other laws. The supreme court would have to have prove that the better of society would happen by forcing women to have children.

But let us look at that concept.

You want to ban abortion. Abortion, by you definition, is murder. So you want to force a woman to carry, give birth, and raise a child that she wanted to kill?

Do you know that women can cause great physical harm to the child, ie drink and drug abuse? Do you understand that the child in question could be tied to a table leg for 10 years before it finally starves to death?

How in the most screw up logic can someone say, oh you want to kill your child, ok we will force you to have it?

If you believe in any form of religion, you know the mother "will get hers in the end", why make another life suffer? Adoption is no always an options. Families that consider abortion and then have the child are many times more likely to have voice and abuse. Why would you want to say to a unborn child, instead of just killing you, we will force you to live, allow you to be tortured, and then kill you. Seems a little sadistic to me. If the woman does not want the child, then she would be able to abort it, because it is better for the soul of the child and the woman that is carrying it.

But let us look at the other topic here. Life. Well according to all 50 states life is only there when it can survive by itself. We call it pulling the plug. If a grown man is taken to the hospital and is on life support, it is his families right in all 50 states to to not be artificially supported and to be allowed to die naturally. The fetus can not survive with out the mother, for at least 6 months.

But to stand there and say, "abortion is wrong because it takes a life." Well I think forcing a mother to give birth to a child. Then having the child abused, tortured, and finally killed is way more sadistic then just killing a fetus.

I am not saying that all women that get an abortion are abuser. But you are implying that they are all murders.
 
RiverOfIce said:
Almost every law on the books contradicts other laws. The supreme court would have to have prove that the better of society would happen by forcing women to have children.

But let us look at that concept.

You want to ban abortion. Abortion, by you definition, is murder. So you want to force a woman to carry, give birth, and raise a child that she wanted to kill?

Do you know that women can cause great physical harm to the child, ie drink and drug abuse? Do you understand that the child in question could be tied to a table leg for 10 years before it finally starves to death?

How in the most screw up logic can someone say, oh you want to kill your child, ok we will force you to have it?

If you believe in any form of religion, you know the mother "will get hers in the end", why make another life suffer? Adoption is no always an options. Families that consider abortion and then have the child are many times more likely to have voice and abuse. Why would you want to say to a unborn child, instead of just killing you, we will force you to live, allow you to be tortured, and then kill you. Seems a little sadistic to me. If the woman does not want the child, then she would be able to abort it, because it is better for the soul of the child and the woman that is carrying it.

But let us look at the other topic here. Life. Well according to all 50 states life is only there when it can survive by itself. We call it pulling the plug. If a grown man is taken to the hospital and is on life support, it is his families right in all 50 states to to not be artificially supported and to be allowed to die naturally. The fetus can not survive with out the mother, for at least 6 months.

But to stand there and say, "abortion is wrong because it takes a life." Well I think forcing a mother to give birth to a child. Then having the child abused, tortured, and finally killed is way more sadistic then just killing a fetus.

I am not saying that all women that get an abortion are abuser. But you are implying that they are all murders.
Click to expand...

Getting pregnant is voluntary. Rape aside, when women choose to open their legs, they should be prepared to deal with the consequences. You seem to advocate that the father should do so, but not the mother.

You are also committing a logical fallacy called the fallacy of the extremes. This is when one uses an extreme example to shock their audience into taking their side instead of presenting the merits of their argument. I don't buy such scare tactics.
 
This is just another attempt at people trying to tell other people how to live their lives. Leave people's personal matters to them. Stay out of it. Simple. If you think it's wrong to abort, don't do it, but don't try to tell other people how to live. The end. You don't see me knocking on your door telling you what to do, don't knock on mine.
 
Tommy78 said:
This is just another attempt at people trying to tell other people how to live their lives. Leave people's personal matters to them. Stay out of it. Simple. If you think it's wrong to abort, don't do it, but don't try to tell other people how to live. The end. You don't see me knocking on your door telling you what to do, don't knock on mine.
Click to expand...

Killing your child is nobody else's business, then?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom