how a state can have laws on the books protecting a fetus from intentional, unintentional, neglectful & reckless homicide and or manslaughter, yet concurrently have laws on the books that allow the mother of the fetus to have an abortion? Illinois is the state that I from and we have both fetal protection laws as well as abortion clinics. Any thoughtful answers are greatly appreciated.
2006-10-11 09:38:21 · 12 answers · asked by siobahn 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
based on the first two answers, I guess my question then changes to how is abortion not considered to be intentional manslaughter or homicide?
2006-10-11 09:45:21 · update #1
katjha2005~ I DID look up the laws. That is the only reason I am sure that Illinois has them.
2006-10-11 10:00:25 · update #2
Because it basically says that it's ok for the mom to kill the baby but not anyone else. That's the law.
2006-10-11 09:42:27 · answer #1 · answered by Jasmine 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's because they haven't a clue what they're doing.
If abortion is legal at the mother's request, then that means that the law does not recognize that the fetus has a right to exist, and is therefore not a "person". If the fetus is not a person vis a vis the mother, it is not a person vis a vis anyone else. The theory of abortion is that it is merely part of the mother's body.
If that's the case, then there should be no such laws outlawing causing the death of a fetus by anyone, intentional or otherwise. It is no more than an aggravated assault against the mother.
The question of whether someone is a person or has a right to exist is not situational. You either are or you aren't, you either have a right or you don't. If you don't have a right to exist if one person says you don't, you don't have the right to exist at all.
2006-10-11 16:51:35 · answer #2 · answered by open4one 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the biggest difference is an abortion is done by a doctor. If a woman chooses with her doctor to have an abortion within the time allowed (it is usually illegal to do it in the third trimester) it is legal. If a woman does something to hurt the fetus, then it is illegal because you are doing something that can cause serious birth defects that wouldn't have been there normally. If the woman does something do kill the fetus, without a doctor and such, then it is also illegal. I think that is not so much because she is killing the fetus as it is a danger to her and others. It's the same reason it is illegal for anyone to perform brain surgery unless you are a doctor in a hospital. Even if you are trying to do good. This is what I think, but I'm not a lawyer.
2006-10-11 16:47:42 · answer #3 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The law only protects the mother, not the infant. Apparently, you are not a person unless your mother wants you. Their laws also leave out the father's rights. This is a very sad situation.
According to this law, if you are pregnant and on your way to the abortion clinic and someone assaults you and kills your fetus, you could sue them, or have them put in jail.
2006-10-11 16:49:08 · answer #4 · answered by littleblondemohawk 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
because "intentional, unintentional, neglectful & reckless homicide" of a fetus is a completely different situation than an abortion.
If you are a woman and are pregnant....the decision to terminate your pregnancy is that of YOURS and YOURS ALONE.
If someone else makes that choice for you, via "intentional, unintentional, neglectful & reckless homicide and/or manslaughter" - that is a crime - as it absolutely should be (I'm 100% pro-choice, by the way).
If YOU, the woman who is pregnant makes that choice, and goes through the legal channels & goes to a doctor trained in the procedure - that's a completely different situation.
You can disagree about whether or not even the woman who is pregnant has the right to make that choice - and that is an opinion which I disagree with - but still respect.
Nonetheless - you asked a question - you wanted an answer - and this is the answer to your question.
2006-10-11 16:44:25 · answer #5 · answered by captain2man 3 · 6⤊ 1⤋
It's definitely a conflict of interests. But here's how they reconcile that...Homicide, manslaughter etc. are not the 'choice' of the beholder and abortion is that choice. I completely see the double-standard involved, because I view life as precious. The law, unfortunately, does not....YET....Stay Tuned for changes soon.
2006-10-11 16:48:29 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
OK, I kind of felt bad about my first response to you, so I will rephrase - When you asked for someone to intelligently explain, I thought it was going to be an intelligent question so when it was just another antiabortion question, kind of aggravated me. When I said to crack a book and learn the laws, that was because abortion had previously been illegal, so many women died that the government was forced to legalize it. It will never be illegal again, no matter how much people want it to be - but to save yourself from driving yourself nuts there are other way to look at it. There are laws put in place to protect the fetus, usually depending on where you live you cannot have an abortion after 3 months - the protection law you speak of does not protect the baby immediately it protects the baby usually in the second trimester - again depending on where you live - so there are laws in place both ways that protect the baby, so how can one law be better than the other, when they protect the baby at the same time? There is no debate that at one point the fetus is considered a baby, there is debate however on when that is, so that is why they made the protection law (Laci Peterson, obviously little Connor was a baby) and usually when the protection law kicks in the abortion is out.
2006-10-11 16:48:10 · answer #7 · answered by katjha2005 5 · 2⤊ 6⤋
There really isn't an explanation, but if you were to ask those who favor abortion they would tell you that a woman has the right to choose. If she is pregnant and another person cause injury to the fetus her choice was taken from her.
2006-10-11 16:43:41 · answer #8 · answered by Answergirl 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The law is a body of rules that has been accumulated by different people with different issues over a long period of time. I do not understand why you expect it to be consistent or logical. Straining at gnats and swallowing camels is a prerequisite for lawyers and they write most of the legislation
2006-10-11 16:48:46 · answer #9 · answered by oldhippypaul 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is a very good practical decision by the legislature. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. Both laws are intended to protect a woman's right to make her own reproductive choices. One protects the mother's choice to keep the child, the other protects her choice to terminate the pregnancy.
2006-10-11 16:44:31 · answer #10 · answered by David 3 · 6⤊ 1⤋