- DarkJet7
- |
- Intrepid Legendary Member
The world is not beautiful: And that, in a way, lends it a sort of beauty.
~Kino's Journey
Posted by: theHurtfulTurkey
Posted by: DarkJet7
the fetus will never be "human"
Fetuses are genetically human from conception, genotypically and phenotypically..That's why I added the quotes, the fetus is technically human, but if it was intended to be aborted then it will never grow an experience life and do all the things that we atribute to being human, things that could be impaired by a mother drinking/doing drugs while pregnant.
Posted by: SweetTRIX
Posted by: DarkJet7
Posted by: SweetTRIX
Because both instances happen to a fetus, which is not legally considered human. Not as big a leap in logic as you think.
The difference is that the aborted fetus was never intended to become a child and never will, but the fetus that's inside the body of a drug addict or a drinker is intended to be a child, and may well be born someday, so why not try to protect the fetuses that actually will become children someday?
This difference is irrelevant. You cannot charge someone for abuse based on an intention. They are either damaging the fetus, or they aren't. If that is to be considered child abuse, it would fly in the face of current legal precedent, as fetus' are not considered children. Legally, you cannot allow abortion under the principle that fetus are not human, and then charge a pregnant woman for child abuse based on damage caused to a fetus.
The parents desires/intentions/wants regarding the fetus has nothing to do with the charge.First off, i'm not saying it's child abuse, OP's title is misleading.
I'm not trying to "charge someone for abuse based on an intention", i'm trying to charge people based on the effects of their actions.