Can anyone justify abortion legally?

Question

Example: If someone murders a pregnant woman and her unborn child its double homicide, but no doctor is ever charged with homicide for an abortion.

Example: If you believe a woman can decide at any point whether she wants a child or not, what's to stop her from killing her child when he/she is a teenager... or other age?

Please, use LOGIC.

Answer 1

If a woman is walking home one night, gets jumped on by a bunch of thugs, gets raped - and gets pregnant in the process, I don't think she'd want to keep a baby out of that. Abortion would be acceptable.
Even if a woman is married, she may be "raped" by her husband if sex is not consentual and, say, a divorce is imminent. In such a case I would think that the woman would be right in wanting to get an abortion.

Answer 2

If someone murders a pregnant woman and her unborn child, it's double homicide if the fetus is far along enough in development to be able to survive outside of the mother's body, which is also supposed to be when abortion is illegal, so your first argument is weak in logic because it uses a misinformation tactic.

"If you believe a woman can decide at any point whether she wants a child or not..." No sane person in our culture would ever argue the point that a woman can arbitrarily decide every morning whether or not she wants to deal with a child that day. The decision is whether or not the woman wants to carry a fetus to term, not what you stated, which was irrelevant and not applicable to the point at hand. Because of this, your second argument is also weak.

Please, use LOGIC.

If you've noticed, I have not stated on which side of the issue I stand, and I will not do so; I have only tried to demonstrate the faults of your arguments. I will now proceed to make the point that has been used to argue the justification of "abortion legally." I note that you used the word "legally" in your question. This means that we must refer to the Constitution (I assume that you are American because otherwise, you would most likely not be raising the issue of abortion). From the fourth amendment, the Supreme Court has interpreted a general sentiment of individuals' right to privacy. Because early term abortion is considered a decision directly affecting a woman's body (which it undoubtedly is), such a right falls under the right to privacy, so such a right cannot be abridged by legislation without just cause.

Answer 3

Murder is undesirable. I personally believe that until the fetus is born, it is not a child, otherwise they wouldn't call it a fetus. It cannot live without life support unless it is carried full term (in most cases).

I believe in Choice. People will continue to seek abortions whether they are legal or not. I find it ironic that Pro-Life demonstrations resort to violence at Abortion clinics. Aren't they supposed to be non-violent?

As far as abortion being murder vs. someone killing a pregnant woman and in turn, her child being murder? If a woman has a miscarriage, is she charged with murder? The result is the same, the fetus dies. The fact that her body rejected the pregnancy is irrelevant. That should be murder just as much as abortion, or someone killing a pregnant woman.

If I were the cause of an accident and it killed a woman, I would be charged with manslaughter, a second count if she was pregnant. Shouldn't that same punishment be levied against the woman who causes an accident and causes her to lose the pregnancy?

Defiantly a sticky subject and may ways to approach any conclusion. I don't think the arguement will ever go away. Roe v. Wade says its legal, yet there are still fights over the issue. If/When it ever gets overturned and abortion becomes illegal, the fight will continue, except there will be more deaths of women who are trying to get the procedure in basements, back alleys, across the border... where ever they can get it done.

Answer 4

It is a double homicide only if the woman is in the final trimester, when the fetus would be viable. An abortion does not remove a viable fetus.

Nowhere in abortion law does it say a woman "can decide at any point whether she wants a child or not." She can decide if she wants to continue a pregnancy up to a certain point.

After the child is born, of course, it would be murder.

Answer 5

First example: the mother is having a medical procedure performed internal to her own body, and has consented to that procedure. The murderer does not have the woman's consent, unlike the doctor.

Many things change based on consent, or lack thereof. For example, sex without consent is rape. Sex with consent is not. So, the law makes a big distinction between acts done with consent and those without.

Second example: the mother is having a medical procedure performed internal to her own body, and the embryo is not yet capable of independent life. Thus, absent the mother's willingness to continue being a living incubator, the embryo would die anyway. And it's illegal (and unconstitutional) to force one person to sacrifice their life or health for the benefit of another, against that person's will. That's forced servitude, and prohibited by the 13th Amendment.

However, once the fetus has reached the point of viability, it could survive and continue growing independently of the mother, in an artificial incubator. Same for a baby that is born alive. It can now survive on its own, without the forced participation of the mother's body. So, at that point, it counts as an independent human life, and is protected as such under the law as an independent being.

These questions are trivial to answer, because they only require the most basic applications of logic and acknowledging the most fundamental distinctions recognized by the law. Is there consent. Is the alleged victim actually alive. Can the alleged victim live independently of any other person (with or without medical aid). Is the medical (or other) procedure to be performed internal to the woman's body, or on some other independent living being.

These are really basic distinctions that exist throughout most related aspects of the law, and are not unique to this particular issue. People who can't understand that obviously don't understand how the law works.

Answer 6

As usual, you have failed to understand what it takes to create a human.

Most patriarchal thinkers don't realize that a human life is not a collection of cells that respirates. It is the contribution of the caretaker PLUS the organism.

Therefore, if the woman chooses to end the life of the unborn fetus, she is voluntarily withdrawing her contribution to its life. If she is murdered, that decision is taken away from her.

Once a child is born, and someone takes care of it, the value of that caretaking is added to the newborn's value. This combined value is what creates a PERSON, and yes, killing that person is always MURDER. Not even the primary caretaker, who has contributed to that person's development, has the authority to take that person's life.

If you can understand this, then you will know why abortion is legal.

Answer 7

If you kill someone's dog it is cruelty to animals. But if I bring my dog to a vet to be put down it is not a crime and the vet is not charged.
The reason for this is that i am in SOLE possession of the dog, if other people kill it it is wrong, but if i enlist a trained to professional and authorize him, it is OK.

Similar logic applies in the abortion. A women is recognized to have SOME control over her body, She alone can decide(up to certain point) if she should use HER body to develop a fetus. If somebody else destroys the fetus despite that woman's wishes he is culpable. But if a woman get a trained professional to stop the process of the fetal development she is within her rights.

Answer 8

Dear coragryph:

Ha, ha! The Supreme Court said it wrong in Roe v. Wade??? They said the 14th amendment prohibits laws banning abortion. You say it's the 13th amendment?!?! Heeheehee!!!

Let's keep trolling through the Constitution for more after-the-fact-excuses for Roe v. Wade! How about the 8th amendment? It is cruel and unusual punishment to prevent a woman from having an abortion!!! How about calling on the 1st amendment? Free Assembly Clause! If government prevents a woman from choosing to have an abortion, then she can't freely assemble with any non-safe-sex-practicing male!

Answer 9

Well, your example is not logic infused as they fall under two separate areas with regards to the law.

Ie - with regards to the murder of an unborn baby - this was not the woman's choice - it was something that was inlficted on the baby without consent.

With regards to abortion - it was terminated woth consent.

This is how it is justified legally.

Answer 10

Ownership,...Anything on the exterior and interior of your body is yours, in the eyes of the law. Until something is developed enough to exist outside of the womb it's not considered independantly alive, up until that point it is completely dependant upon it's "carrier" for the essentials of life. That doesn't mean that the fetus isn't alive, it's alive because the woman is alive. Until it can live without the woman it's not truly alive.