Because the Supreme Court basically stated that a fetus is not a person. I am not for abortion. However, legally speaking, this is true, no?
*Roe Vs Wade was based partially upon a person's right to privacy. In this case it JUST HAPPENED TO BE WOMEN. And it was partially based upon the assumption that the world of science, theology and such have not come upon the time at which a fetus becomes a person, under the law and otherwise. Which supports that abortion is fully legal throughout the nine months of a women's pregnancy. Although, many believe it is not moral.
2007-01-08 13:26:35 · 9 answers · asked by ? 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Well,it's actually considered different.The baby would have actually been considered "viable"(be able to live outside the womb at the time of death)so for instance if someone was 12 weeks along-not viable,8 months-viable.That's how they usually judge it.But that could be the start of another argument completely.
2007-01-08 13:36:58 · answer #1 · answered by G M 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not sure of the question.
Roe Vs. Wade didn't deal with anything other than the right for a woman to have an abortion (lets thats how its interpreted).
Many states however have their legal codes so that killing a pregnant woman is indeed considering two people.
2007-01-08 13:32:42 · answer #2 · answered by amatukaze 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If the mother is in her last trimester (the last three months of the pregnancy) then the fetus comes in to play and you can be charged with 2 homicides. another way to put it, if the baby can be viable outside the womb at the time of the crime, it is a separate charge. But boy can we tear this apart and dissect this subject from every angle, so this is just my two cents.
2007-01-08 14:09:34 · answer #3 · answered by NolaDawn 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is NOT the same thing. If a woman chooses to abort it is different than someone killing her and her baby because it was not her choice. My uncle about 10 years ago got drunk and hit a woman's car and she was 8 months pregnant. She was ok, but it killed her unborn son. He spent 9 months in jail for it, which I don't think was long enough.
2007-01-08 13:41:42 · answer #4 · answered by Ryan's mom 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Supreme Court is not the last stop on the tour. We have legislatures to make laws.
2007-01-08 14:53:27 · answer #5 · answered by Chainsaw 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ya...sean Peterson or something? He got done for both, didn't he? Then again, if Lacey had have been only 4 weeks pregnant, and maybe he didn't know, how could he be guilty of killing 2?
Of course, she wasn't and he did.
2007-01-08 13:40:14 · answer #6 · answered by dazedandconfused 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This sounds like a mostly academic question. If you kill a person it is still 100% wrong, what does it matter whether you kill one person or two?
2007-01-08 13:36:11 · answer #7 · answered by WOMBAT, Manliness Expert 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not always. I know of case in which the murderer was charged with both the murder of the woman and the unborn child. The guy in California, whose name I can't remember at the moment, was charged with both the murder of his wife, Lacey, and the murder of their unborn son, Connor.
2007-01-08 13:33:32 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The law varies state to state, but thanks to Scott Peterson (the murderer of Laci and Conner Peterson, it can be filed as a double homicide, here in california.
2007-01-08 13:38:29 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋