Ok Ok, to all the left wingers socialists out there who embrace abortion can you explain this?....?

Question

Ok I work in law enforcement now and Ive seen several capital murder cases. Now you left wings love abortions and don't believe its murder. Ok then, do you remember scott peterson? you know killed his pregnant wife, well when he was tried, why was he tried and convicted for murdering the unborn son. Ive seen this before in other cases too. I thought you libs out there believed that, the unborn arent really people but simply a blob of tissue. so why have men been found guilty and sentenced to life or execution for killing the unborn? Why? isnt that a glob of tissue? or is it only a glob of tissue when a woman just dont want the baby so she kills it? is it only a glob of tissue when you want to win votes and money to the left wing agenda? So when a man kills the pregnant woman or harms her and the unborn inside dies then it was a person but when a teenager gets knocked up and goes to a clinic then its only a glob of tissues? is that your logic? Yeah, I see through that one

its not about consent you morons! if the man was charged with a murder thats a heavy charge and to be charged with murder that validates that the victim was a person
without consent is mere tresspassing
or stealing. a rapists "steals" sexual gratification from a woman through force.
get it through to your head. unborn babies are people

Answer 1

I read all of the answers you have received thus far and they don't really address your question - and it's a very complex question unlike some of the simplistic answers.

Based on the logic in some of the answers:
A man who kills a pregnant woman is guilty of two murders. That implies that killing the fetus is murder, plain and simple, no gray area there.

It also implies that we have laws in this country that state a woman has the right to kill the same fetus, but without any consequences.

Consent is the difference. Consent? If consent is the difference, why is suicide a crime?

And I also find that "ProAbortion" should never be euphemized with phrases like "ProChoice."

Call it what it is - Post Pregnancy Birth Control
- anything but ProChoice.

This is obviously a very complex and controversial issue. I personally believe a woman has the right to make decisions about her own body - which implies that she has a right to choose abortion, but only if the doctor is going to abort her!

Answer 2

It's called lack of consent. And lots of things change legally when there is or is not consent.

For example, sex without consent is called rape. Sex for money is called prostitution. But sex based solely on consent is neither.

In the examples you give, the killing of the unborn without the consent of the mother is a separate crime, defined by a separate statute. Because it is without the consent of the mother, it is legally distinct from a medical procedure performed with the informed consent of the mother.

That's the whole concept of pro-choice. Choice. Meaning that it is up to the mother to determine if she remains preganant. Not somebody else. Hence the reason consent is a crucial issue.

I'm surprised that someone in law enforcement doesn't understand the legal significance of informed voluntary consent, versus actions performed without consent.

{EDIT}

The flaw in your question (and your logic) is that you say "two murders" (mother and fetus) without taking into account that the laws in question doesn't actually treat the crimes that way.

Read the laws. For almost all states, the law making it a crime to kill a person is either a different statute, or a different section of the statute, versus the crime for forcibly terminating a fetus without the consent of the mother. The statutes and laws as written make the distinction between a person and a fetus, and make consent a fundamentally relevant fact in the determination of whether it is a crime.

So, why is is so surprising or hard to understand that people make the same distinctions that the lawmakers do, or that consent is so important when it is also crucial in the statutes?

Answer 3

I think "dude's" point is--It's not alright to kill a person just because of consent, so why would it be legal to kill an unborn child--legally because of consent of the mother.
There was a case in Maine, where I live, where a man killed his sister who was pregnant, and her boyfriend and his brother. He purposely, shot her in the stomach, the baby was in fact born alive and died later. They did not charge him with the murder of the child.
He was "insane", he drank too much cough syrup, and was irritable. Unbelievable.
I know what you're saying dude, it's just that the Pro Choice organization is too powerful. I don't care one way or the other.

Answer 4

As usual, a distortion and exaggeration used to take the issue out of context.
Laci Peterson chose to have her child. If she had not chosen to have it, this would be a non-issue. It boils down to consent, as Coragryph said. Since she chose to have the child, and was close to delivering when she was murdered, it was a double murder. The issue is not whether the fetus was a person. Laci said it was when she decided to have it.
And by the way, are you angry because Scott Peterson was charged with double murder? If you are antiabortion, you should applaud the decision to charge him with two counts of homicide. As you infer, the fetus was a person too, yes?

Answer 5

I don't think anyone "embraces" abortion. It should always be a last resort & I agree with you about cases like Scott Peterson. Even though I feel he's a sc**bag, he shouldn't have a double murder charge. People like me who are pro-choice don't think that our government has the right to tell us what we can & can't do with our bodies. It is a moral decision, not a political one. For the record. I got pregnant while using birth control. She's an adult now. Pro-choice doesn't mean pro-abortion. I had a choice & chose to have her!

Answer 6

As has already been said, it's about consent. Abortion is legal but it is NOT legal for a doctor to walk down the street, grab the first pregnant women he sees, and perform an abortion on her fetus against her will and without her permission. This is effectively what Scott Peterson did.

Answer 7

Abortion is part of what I call Pick-n'-choose equality of the modern woman.

Women want good pay, so in jobs, they expect equal opportunity and equal pay.

But, after 40 years of feminism and billions of dollars, you can soon note that women aren't demanding to be registered for Selective Service, though the Selective Service boards which are in place of course must include women. The draft isn't convenient, so men can have that benefit.

Um, and it was convenient for women to go to any college men go to, so the last male college, VMI, was ordered to allow women. Yet, women really wanted their own colleges, so there are still around 90 women only colleges. The little pigs say, "Well, we women have special needs."

Um, so do men. I am reminded of the grunting and squealing of the pigs I slopped on my father's farm in the 50's.

So, when we talk abortion, when it's convenient, it's just a blob of tissue, take it away. But, when it's not convenient, then it's a priceless human being, toss him in jail for life.

Answer 8

Mmhmm. properly, first he desperate to cheat for 0.5 the relationship (8 months), so as quickly as I found out, I in basic terms stopped all touch. no longer some thing i like remembering. yet a solid e book has by no ability left me for somebody else. That, i'm proud to declare, is a superb element.

Answer 9

as an officer of the law dont you know the difference

Answer 10

Simple, he should not have been charged with two murders.