- Moderator
- #101
Fetal homicide laws do not recognize fetal rights.
Furthermore, fetal laws do not challenge abortion rights because, although each act results in the same end (the destruction of the fetus), the actor is different in each scenario. Feticide laws and the right to abortion are based on the rights of the actor, not the rights of the object. In each scenario, the actor is a different person with a different set of rights. With abortion, the woman, through her authorized doctor, is the actor. With fetal murder, a third person, who does not have the same rights as the woman, is the actor.
Throughout the law, when different actors engage in exactly the same behavior, one may get penalized while the other may not. The reason is because Actor A may have affirmative rights to act in a certain way, whereas Actor B has no rights to perform the same act.
...The law says that the woman can abort her fetus, but a third party abuser cannot. Is this hypocrisy? Is it legal schizophrenia? Do the limitations on the aggressor somehow imply limitations on the mother? No, no, and no.
The permissions of the mother and the limitations on the criminal depend on the rights of the respective parties, not the rights of the object being acted upon. Roe grants the mother alone the right to consent to abortion. She, and only she, holds that right. An abusive third party does not. We need not assume that limitations on a criminal abuser create constitutional fetal personhood. They mean nothing more than the simple fact that different actors have different rights; a third party bad actor has no right to terminate someone else's pregnancy.
This idea has been used again and again by courts to quash equal protection challenges to fetal murder laws. Criminal and civil defendants, when faced with charges of either feticide or fetal wrongful death, often plead that the charges are a violation of equal protection.
Furthermore, fetal laws do not challenge abortion rights because, although each act results in the same end (the destruction of the fetus), the actor is different in each scenario. Feticide laws and the right to abortion are based on the rights of the actor, not the rights of the object. In each scenario, the actor is a different person with a different set of rights. With abortion, the woman, through her authorized doctor, is the actor. With fetal murder, a third person, who does not have the same rights as the woman, is the actor.
Throughout the law, when different actors engage in exactly the same behavior, one may get penalized while the other may not. The reason is because Actor A may have affirmative rights to act in a certain way, whereas Actor B has no rights to perform the same act.
...The law says that the woman can abort her fetus, but a third party abuser cannot. Is this hypocrisy? Is it legal schizophrenia? Do the limitations on the aggressor somehow imply limitations on the mother? No, no, and no.
The permissions of the mother and the limitations on the criminal depend on the rights of the respective parties, not the rights of the object being acted upon. Roe grants the mother alone the right to consent to abortion. She, and only she, holds that right. An abusive third party does not. We need not assume that limitations on a criminal abuser create constitutional fetal personhood. They mean nothing more than the simple fact that different actors have different rights; a third party bad actor has no right to terminate someone else's pregnancy.
This idea has been used again and again by courts to quash equal protection challenges to fetal murder laws. Criminal and civil defendants, when faced with charges of either feticide or fetal wrongful death, often plead that the charges are a violation of equal protection.