People say that to kill is different to murder.So you go to jail if you murder because when you murder you intentionally planned to kill someone.When you kill someone is like when your at war or it was self deffense and it wasnt a plan.But abortion is a plan so isnt it the same as murder?? and if it is then why arent those people going to jail for murder??
2006-12-16 06:24:48 · 19 answers · asked by Kat 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
"betsydad" said murder is the killing of a human being.
So is a fetus a human being??
2006-12-16 06:39:06 · update #1
F.Y.I. People I had an abortion when I was 17 years old and Im not trying to offend people with this question and I dont care if you hate me for that decision I made.
2006-12-16 06:59:17 · update #2
I beleive that its not murder and that maybe you feel guilty for what you did so thats why yo might be asking this question.
2006-12-16 07:24:29 · answer #1 · answered by K 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The courts are having an increasingly difficult time with this. You'll recall that Scott Peterson was convicted of a double-murder, and many, many such cases are arising all over the place. What we have established here in America is that the killing of an unborn person is legal, so long as it is done by someone licensed and sanctioned by the State to do such work.
The debate, at least in legal circles, really doesn't have much to do with words like "life" or "human," or anything like that anymore. The question of abortion's legitimacy has moved from being a question about the baby's rights (i.e. does it have a right to life?) to being a question about the mother's rights (i.e. should she have the right to kill her own offspring before birth?). It is only because of this that we can make any sense of the rulings wherein someone can be charged for murdering an unborn child while physically abusing the expecting mother, even if that mother had an abortion scheduled for the next day. And you'll note that people like Peter Singer argue that people like Andrea Yates should not be punished for post-birth abortions (a euphamism for infanticide). Indeed, the debate is not about the rights of the child at all anymore. It is all about the rights of the mother, and the pro-abortion crowd wishes to confer onto the mother a "right" to do something that no other people group is permitted to do: end an innocent life with a burden to demonstrate no greater need for such murder other than simple convenience.
Law requires consistency. Expect the present inconsistency in these laws to inspire changes in the laws.
2006-12-16 07:52:13 · answer #2 · answered by gktroy 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is murder from a moral standpoint. A fetus is a viable life in the womb that will be born into the outside world absent aborting it. Many liberals who do not wish to take responsibility for those they bring into this world. They have succeeded for the time being in convincing the Supreme Court that abortion is not murder. What a shame. They are wiping out a huge part of generation after generation. And the people being killed do not even get to be heard. But, it's apparently"convenient". As Andre Linoges said in Storm of the Century - "What's a little scrape between friends these days?"
Andre was, of course, the devil incarnate.
2006-12-16 06:35:03 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Quick, how long would the baby live without a host? Not long.
What do all people have in common? They were born.
Is a still birth a person? Did the mother murder the baby by producing a still birth?
You're going down a slippery slope if you make abortion murder, then why not make bad prenatal care murder if a woman doesn't know she's too ill to bring a fetus to term?
2006-12-16 06:29:37 · answer #4 · answered by bluasakura 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
at common law, a "human" was defined as a person actually "born" from a woman. this means that, historically, the law did not recognize unborn fetuses as "humans". furthermore, murder requires the intentional killing of a human. so, no murder for abortion.
this led to all sorts of interesting cases. say a man punches a woman's womb, resulting in a miscarriage. she could sue for emotional distress and battery, but there's no claim against the life of the unborn child.
there is a movement in this country to make the murder of a pregnant woman "double homicide". this is a naked attempt to establish the unborn child as a legally-protected human.
2006-12-16 07:59:46 · answer #5 · answered by lawstudent 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
nicely besides the very incontrovertible fact that it particularly is homicide distinctly in terms of overdue term abortions additionally in many situations occurring as partial start. however the preferrred court docket got here upon that it became lined by making use of the form someplace, indirectly so because it relatively is that. Oh nicely. it particularly is humorous that maximum people who help abortion are against the dying penalty nonetheless so an harmless newborn would be killed, in relation to partial start painfully, whilst somebody who brutally murdered or raped some adverse defenseless soul (or extra effective than one) must be allowed to stay. interesting theory technique.
2016-10-15 01:48:04 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
A fetus is no more a human than a fish. It cannot survive in air, needing a supply of oxygen and nutrients from it's mother. Until it is viable outside the womb, it is not an independent human, and can be killed if the mother so chooses.
When a fetus reaches a point at which it would be viable if delivered, then it cannot be killed. That is the defining point for an independent human.
2006-12-16 07:05:20 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Even more bizarre is if you kill a fetus committing a criminal act you can be tried for the death of the baby .Remember, Only the woman has the right to choose( to kill her baby if she doesn't want it.)Any one else does it except the abortion doctor,they go to jail.
2006-12-16 06:32:30 · answer #8 · answered by Michael 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its all about the semantics of what is 'human'and what is 'life' pro abortion people deny either apply to a fetus so thus the termination of a fetus does not count as the end of a human life in their definition
2006-12-16 08:51:39 · answer #9 · answered by janssen411 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
because some people have decided that life starts at a point further then conception, myself personally, i dont believe that, and i do think abortion is killing,,,,, but for those who dont consider it a life,,, they dont consider it killing a life,,,,,,, its one of those things in life, omg what would happen if they find out they were wrong? of course, who is to say that the person, the spirit they sent back,,, would ever encounter them,
2006-12-16 06:28:49 · answer #10 · answered by dlin333 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋