If a mother decided two months into her pregnancy that she wanted to terminate her pregnancy, this is her government protected right. However, if an inebriated man drives his car unintentionally into the woman and the 2 month old fetus dies, he is charged with murder......why? I could understand him being charged with theft (stealing the life of the fetus from the mother) but why murder? Pro-abortionists live by the premise that a fetus is not an independent life.
2006-07-03 04:57:52 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Just as the woman made a choice to engage in an act that leads to pregnancy, so too the drunkard made a choice to engage in an activity that led to his inebriation.
2006-07-03 05:20:41 · update #1
Dam, what an awesome question.. I can't wait to see all the answers you get from this one.
2006-07-03 05:02:42 · answer #1 · answered by lvn_jb06 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Pro-abortionists do believe that premise but they aren't the only ones in charge of the government. In addition, assuming she is pregnant when the drunk driver hit her, more than likely she still wanted the child and was going to carry it to full-term. Therefore while it may or may not be murder yet it is assumed that fetus would have eventually become a human (if not one already) and it is murder.
As far as it being murder if she gets an abortion two months in (I believe the legal limit for abortion for any reason is three months and six months for the woman and the state to decide together, after that the state only decides in the final three months), that goes to the question of mostly the intelligence level of the fetus. More than likely since the brain hasn't really developed beyond the brain stem (the part that handles only the essential things like breathing and heartbeat) the fetus doesn't really know its alive and can be argued that it doesn't lose anything by the abortion. To add context, when tuna companies have a problem from animal rights groups, it is only about the dolphin that get killed in their nets, not the tuna. That is because the dolphin has an intelligence level nearing ours if not surpassing ours (their is some proof though not conclusive that dolphins are actually smarter than us) while the tuna is just there. Or it could also be likened to a human in "vegetable" coma status. They don't really know their alive so we don't always have a problem if the family decides to unplug him and allow him to die.
That is probably the biggest argument for abortion. Though for the record I am anti-abortion.
2006-07-03 12:08:18 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Murder is the intentional taking of a life, Manslaughter is the unintentional taking of a life, a life is not a posession like a car or material object. It is the intangible essence of life. Therefore the person would not be charged with theft because it's not something they can recover and use tangibly. It's not theft.
If the drunk driver's first offense was this type of accident, chances are he'd be charged with 2nd degree manslaughter, not murder. If he's a repeat offender then he would probably be charged with murder because it's not an accident after the first occurrence.
Then you go to jail.
And furthermore, abortion after 8 weeks as far as I know is not permitted.
2006-07-03 12:08:20 · answer #3 · answered by alwaysbombed 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A mother has the freedom of choice. No woman takes this 'right' lightly. A drunken driver should not be on the road, so this is not a logical conclusion. An abortion is done in a clinic or hospital by a qualified doctor, not in the road by some drunk. You are oversimplifying. What you are saying is that it is acceptable to kill while under the influence.
2006-07-03 12:21:11 · answer #4 · answered by Tokoloshimani 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Choice.
You are assuming that the woman is choosing NOT to have the baby.
This would be a valid question if the woman is driving to the abortion clinic.
Since you asked this question, I can assume you are just trying to bait "liberals" so you can make them look like hypocrites. So you probably really don't care about any logical answer. Plus you used the term "pro-abortionist", an extremely simple-minded term.
2006-07-03 12:02:10 · answer #5 · answered by scott j 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The murder charge for killing a non-viable fetus is fairly recent. I suspect it is part of the effort to end legal abortion by incremental steps.
So - your question is simply the desired effect of the legislators who are making an effort to end abortion.
It should not be a murder charge. It should be a charge of harm to the pregnant woman. (And not theft either - you don't charge theft for physical harm to an individual)
2006-07-03 12:09:50 · answer #6 · answered by oohhbother 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
IN some cases, like rape, I can see a need for abortion... birth control doesn't bother me either but I feel the same way... I mean, if I kicked a woman who wanted an abortion in the stomach and thus killed her unborn child, I could be tried for murder, but if a doctor gives her some "infanticide" or something to kill it, it's totally legally and morally sound....
I mean, how different is abortion from drowning your children in a lake?
2006-07-03 12:04:57 · answer #7 · answered by Ether 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its hypocrisy. Killing an un-born child is murder whether it be at the hands of a drunk driver or those of a doctor. The drunk driver should be charged with murder (or manslaughter) and the doctor and mother should also be charged.
2006-07-03 12:09:05 · answer #8 · answered by arikinder 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
because i'd rather see a woman get a shot so she won't have a baby that she doesn't love or want than see some dumbass who drunk 12 bottles get behind the wheel and run over and kill child that IS wanted and loved.
2006-07-03 12:02:54 · answer #9 · answered by dyboy34 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
One kills a potential human, the other kills an actual human.
2006-07-03 12:02:47 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋