Seriously, looking at the Scott Peterson trial, why was he charged with murder of a fetus, when abortion is legal?
Is it kind of like the murder trial vs. the civil trial for Simpson and Robert Blake? In one hand your guilty in the other your not. or is that only the woman can kill the baby?
I'm just fishing for ansers for research!
2006-07-07 12:11:02 · 12 answers · asked by trulyblssd 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Murder is the unlawful killing of another person. When a mother has chosen to carry the fetus to term it is treated like any other person in court cases. So, if the mother is killed the murderer also gets charged with the death of the fetus. It is not legal to go up to a pregnant woman and force her to have an abortion...so doing so is the unlawful killing of another person.
2006-07-07 12:19:25 · answer #1 · answered by laetusatheos 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
foetus is not a baby so a woman does not kill anything since this is not viable life. Oh by the way where is it that a woman can kill a baby ????
in the scott peterson trial the woman was not planning on having an abortion hence murder of the future baby
2006-07-07 12:20:43 · answer #2 · answered by vitriol for the masses 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Mark is right on this one. Laci did not consent to the abortion of her baby. Another point, Laci was to far along in her pregnancy a legal abortion even if Laci was alive and consented. THe subject of abortion will always be a debated issue. As for OJ and Robt.Blake our laws are made by humans, unfortunately not God. All anyone can do is live their lives the way they believe God would want...and come judgement day--its God's decision where you go from there. OJ and Blake --I am sure will not pass GO. Where they go will be very HOT...Is there a Hell? Another debated issue..
2006-07-07 12:26:54 · answer #3 · answered by Denise L 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Americans have not matched their conscious with their voting on this issue. We can understand the loss of an unborn child and feel it as the loss of an actual living family member. Yet, we think this is somehow hocus pocus and real science would determine that we are upset by the loss of a blob of tissue. We have blind faith in science we have never seen and ignore the simple logic of a question such as this.
2006-07-07 12:18:11 · answer #4 · answered by spencer 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is one of the glaring examples of the hypocrisy within this debate. Those who deny the human viability of a fetus turn and charge murder to one who kills it without the initials M.D. behind their names. They scream intolerance to those who appose them and yet are tolerant of none who deny their claim. This simply goes to show that the argument is not for women's rights it is for what will make them happy and damned be to any person or child who would stand in their way of achieving that happiness.
2006-07-07 12:20:32 · answer #5 · answered by foxray43 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the law is confusing. I did ask a lawyer about the Scott Peterson issue. The lawyer said that because Laci did not "consent" to have her baby die.
2006-07-07 12:15:31 · answer #6 · answered by christigmc 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I see your point friend. I myself am pro-life. I see abortion as murder. If its murder when a child is a 12 months old, why isn't it murder when a child is 3 months old?
2006-07-07 12:16:17 · answer #7 · answered by Candice H 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
abortion should not be legal. It is murder, anyway you look at it. It was just to give lawyers a lot of work that made it legal.
2006-07-07 12:18:07 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Simple. Although abortion is legal, he was not licensed to perform any type of medical procedure and his resulting actions constitute murder.
2006-07-07 12:15:10 · answer #9 · answered by Mark F 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
(I agree with your question!)
All you people who say it's not killing if the mother "consents", then what happens in China when they force mothers of one child to have an abortion? You guys are so hypocritical!
2006-07-07 12:17:49 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋