A person can be charged with double homicide for murdering a pregnant woman no matter how early or far along she is. Yet a woman cannot be charged with murder if she aborts the child. What is the difference, is it only the desire to want or not want the child?
2006-11-13 03:07:57 · 15 answers · asked by Enterrador 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Electric - Would you please point to where I used religion as my argument? There is none.
2006-11-13 03:13:49 · update #1
There is no difference other than the one you pointed out--if the baby is not wanted, it is not considered murder. Imagine if we applied this same logic to others who are "unwanted" in our society.
2006-11-14 04:09:16 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
Murder is a societal/legal definition - usually the illegal taking of a human life, (which may be premeditated or not - for example 2nd degree murder is not premeditated). Abortion, while arguably is taking a human life, is not so considered so under the law. Roe v Wade was the court case that defined a human life as one that has been born - therefore an unborn child is not a human life at least as far as abortion is concerned. Remember that legal abortion requires the consent of the pregnant woman, so in some instances the killing of the unborn child may be prosecuted. The moral issue is what causes much of the turmoil on this subject and has not yet been resolved, and may never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. As an aside, the execution of criminals for murder is not murder because murder is a legal definition and under the law such execution is not illegal.
2006-11-13 03:44:23 · answer #2 · answered by mustang 1 · 1⤊ 2⤋
It is not true that a person can be charged with double homicide for murdering a pregnant woman no matter how early or far along she is. This is dependent on the jurisdiction, and the rules vary widely. Generally, the distinctions depend on the definition of "murder" and specifically, the part that refers to the taking of "human life." Thus, the definition hinges on the definition of "human life" and at what point in gestation that occurs.
2006-11-13 03:16:12 · answer #3 · answered by jurydoc 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Human existence starts and could be shielded from the 2nd of concept. The medical evidence is obvious, a biologically diverse human individual is modern from the 2nd of concept. that's irrefutable. The conceptus is easily NO blob of the mummy's tissue. in actuality that's in can charge, liberating a chemical from its cells (human chorionic gonadotrophin) that SHUTS DOWN menstruation and starts the outcomes of being pregnant in the mummy. Abortion is, for this reason, the direct, intentional ending of a individual human existence, biologically diverse from that of the dad or mum. It can not be something different than the subjective judgment that this existence has no fee, or lesser fee, than the mummy's. as quickly as a society enables this it has no logical reason, different than the will of persons or the state, to forbid infanticide, euthanasia and selective homicide (as in Nazi Germany) for eugenic or different motives got here across to be persuasive.
2016-10-17 05:34:42 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Mustang -
Roe v Wade did not define a fetus as not a person... oh boy
Actually, in Roe v Wade, the court held that it was not unconstitutional to about in the first trimester, but the state had an interest in protecting the fetus in the second and third trimester.
the argument was later changed in planned parenthood v casey - but even then, the court determined that the state cannot place an 'undue burden' on women who seek an abortion before the baby reaches viability
2006-11-13 03:59:35 · answer #5 · answered by BigD 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
By definition, murder is the premeditated killing another being, usually human.
Throughout history, people have justified the killing of others for many reasons, some valid, mostly not. For example, murder is against the law, but the punishment for that crime is to be murdered. It's a double standard.
2006-11-13 03:12:55 · answer #6 · answered by Mindcrime 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Charging someone with murder for the ancillary death of a fetus during the murder of a human is not right. Murder should be reserved for the will-full killing of a person and a fetus is not a person until they are born. Abortion is never murder.
2006-11-13 03:22:02 · answer #7 · answered by iknowtruthismine 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
BY LAW, murder is illegal and abortion is not. I'd say that's about as simple a way to put it as one can.
As for one's personal views of the differences between murder and abortion, it's subjective and up to the individual.
2006-11-13 03:13:50 · answer #8 · answered by thisisraya 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
this question keeps going around and around... depending on where you live there are laws that protect the fetus from being aborted after the first trimester.. the law to protect the baby from harm as far as murder and such usually happens in the third trimester... there is no debate that a fetus in the third trimester is considered a baby... the problem with idiot doctors like the one in Kansas, makes it look like all doctors do late term abortions and that is extremely rare.. and there are laws in states that do protect that from happening, not to mention moraly most doctors won't do it
2006-11-13 03:13:59 · answer #9 · answered by katjha2005 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It really depends on the way you look at it. It has a many variates and really depends on the person. If you slept with someone by without protection and that someone is married or unable to be your husband, and you are financially unstable, how could you raise a kid? With good fortune? Its a matter of choice but the best solution is to be protected and be careful when seriously making children. Especially with who/
2006-11-13 03:13:05 · answer #10 · answered by Dijan4eto 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
the end result is the same. the dead person for murder is normally a living person who has had their umbilical cord cut. If the cord is not yet cut, the killing is called abortion.
2006-11-13 03:38:52 · answer #11 · answered by OldGringo 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋