Lacy & Scott Peterson case.
2006-07-10 09:25:40 · 31 answers · asked by ♥SA-Spurs♥ 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
Lori and Mark Hacking case in Salt Lake City, Utah.
2006-07-10 09:42:01 · update #1
The murdered woman was carrying a 2nd or 3rd trimester child she had every intention to carry to term.
Abortions are 1st trimester before 2nd trimester devolopment and are legally one part of the woman's body.
2006-07-10 09:27:01 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
While, unfortunately, many people believe that it's because the baby is not a human being until a certain point in time, I hate to disappoint but it is a living being and does deserve a chance at life. But seeing as that is not the question in point, here is your answer. It's because in an abortion, the woman (NOT A MOTHER UNLESS SHE ALREADY HAS KIDS!!!) has decided to make the choice to terminate her pregnancy, I would hope only because not terminating the pregnancy would result in the death or serious injury of the mother-to-be. In the case of a murder of a pregnant woman, she either has not made the decision yet as to whether or not to have the baby, or had decided already that she was going to keep the baby. In the case of the first, the legal system assumes the latter, and thereby charges the murderer with 2 counts of murder.
2006-07-10 16:38:34 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This has always baffled me as well. If we are going to call it a "fetus" until it's fully delivered and not offer it any human rights before then, then how does it get protection under the law as a human when someone else kills it? It's not a matter of "choice" it's a matter of whether or not the fetus has human rights or not. Either it's a human that can have a crime committed against it, or it's not.
If you're not going to charge a woman and doctor for murder when they perform a late term abortion, then I don't think some teenager should be charged with an extra count of vehicular manslaughter if he accidentally kills them both in a car accident. Again, if the fetus doesn't have human rights then the court has no business charging someone for it's murder. It's about equal protection under the law.
2006-07-10 16:35:43 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Interesting question. I think the only time it's considered murder is when the fetus can survive on it's own. That's why you can only have an abortion until a certain point. After the fetus is a certain age, you're stuck. I think it's the same with murder but am not sure. In the Peterson case she was about to have her child. Now if she had only been 1 month pregnant I'm not sure if it would have turned out the same. This law could vary from state to state. But that's my best guess.
2006-07-10 16:30:59 · answer #4 · answered by Ihavenoidea 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
When a woman has an abortion, she is making a choice to terminate a pregnancy.
When Scott killed Lacy (and their unborn child) she was not making a choice. Also... that baby was of a gestational age that if he's been born prematurely at that time, he would have survived. A baby gestationally developed enough to survive outside the mother is considered a murder victim individually. Typically I believe this is considered 26 weeks gestation, although some babies have been born earlier and survived.
2006-07-10 16:30:31 · answer #5 · answered by thegirlwholovedbrains 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because while the suspreme court has ruled that for now at least abortions are legal ( on a false constitutional issue) but legal, but that did not do away with the state laws on when life started, so abortions are merley legalised murder that has been oked by the courts.
Sad, the liberals in the supreme court have caused more death and suffering that Hitler ever thought about with thier rulings
2006-07-10 22:06:15 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Good question!!!
Though we all 'know' that to kill a pregnant women, the killer should be charged with 2 deaths.... it sounds logical/legal/ethical and all..... but using same logic, abortion should be termed as 'murder' even though it was made by choice.....
ethically speaking, I am 'pro choice'. If I know that I will bring a baby in the world and will not be able to fulfill my responsibility for the baby, I am pro choice that I should not bring the baby in the world and let the baby have a bad life....and that's why I think that abortion should not be termed as a murder......BUT this question really stumps me..... even though ethically speaking, we can explain but legally speaking, it does make it look like that abortion is a murderer.... (though I don't accept it yet)
2006-07-10 16:35:06 · answer #7 · answered by jaina986 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I believe that abortion is murder as well. However, I believe in the case of pregnancy, the fetus has to be over a certain age before murder can be charged. I am not sure about this, but I believe I read that somewhere.
2006-07-10 16:29:40 · answer #8 · answered by sheristeele 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, I would assume because the woman had not yet chosen to kill the baby and it is legally her choice. It is a very awkward situation. A woman could be shot when she was crossing the street to the clinic to have an abortion and it would be charged with a double murder, but ten minutes later it would just be one. Its not fair and its not right.
2006-07-10 16:30:50 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because the murder of a pregnant woman is an action committed against the will of the woman and by association any lifeform she is supporting whereas an abortion is an action against a fetus which has no rights.
May not like the answer but there it is.
2006-07-10 16:29:58 · answer #10 · answered by Who cares 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Abortion is a choice that a woman makes and I don't think that right shouldn't be taken away from her,as it is her body and she can do w/ it as she pleases.
When someone murders a pregnant woman that is not a choice because the person murdering is destroying the mother and the child.
2006-07-10 16:29:30 · answer #11 · answered by sandiegogal2002@yahoo.com 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋