If abortion is not murder?

Question

Imagine a scenario in which a pregnant woman, in her first trimester, is shot in the stomach by a gunman and the “not yet human” fetus dies as a result. Is it murder?

If so, then isn’t abortion also murder?

If not, then can a father abort his unborn fetus without the mother’s consent?

Answer 1

Coragryp...(whatever) is not answering your question. Is it murder?? The pro-choice position MUST insist it is NOT murder.

That said, since the act involves harming the woman, the assailant would be guilty of assault at the lower end and attempted murder at the other.

Somebody said that one couldn't give an answer that would satisfy everybody, but that is the case with nearly every issue. One is a matter of science, the other is not. Human beings are what they are because of the human genetic code. Each person, at conception, has his/her unique genetic identity. There is NO OTHER OBJECTIVE WAY to classify human beings. This is obvious to pro-choicers which is why they flop around with "personhood" arguments. They want to deny science in order to defend their political bias.

**Edit**
"Give Me Liberty" offers nothing but bald assertions in his reply. The fetus is a "parasite"? That's all? The fetus, as the word defined demonstsrates, is an unborn child. It has its own unique genetic identity which his how human beings are biologically classified. This is not my opinion, it is a biological fact.

"Mental capacity"?? This is offered as if it has logical force. A newborn baby doesn't have the "mental capacity" to make its own choices either. Does "Give Me Liberty" support infanticide??

Pro-life "nuts" as those who are losing an argument (for many who lose arguments resort to name-calling) do not even have to work up a sweat refuting pro-abortion arguments. Their opponents skewer themselves with transparently fallacious arguments while ostensibly professing fealty to liberty.

Answer 2

No, it's not murder. It's either assault or attempted murder, and also wrongful abortion. All are crimes against the mother. If the father aborted the fetus without the mother's consent, it would be assualt and wrongful abortion.

Abortion is considered a medical procedure, and the mother is the patient. It's illegal to preform any medical procedure without the patient's consent. Legally, it's assault.

It's the mother's decision because the fetus is inside her body. Whether or not she should be allowed to abort the fetus, an abortion necessarily involves preforming a medical procedure on the mother, so for anyone else to abort the fetus without her consent would violate the mother's right to refuse medical treatment.

Answer 3

To commit murder, one must form the intent to kill. In your hypothetical, you do not say whether the gunman knew of the pregnancy. If not, then he/she is not guilty of "murdering" the fetus. Certainly, though, he/she is guilty of attempting to murder the woman.

Obviously, intent is implicit in abortion. The question then returns to, "is this a human life?" No answer can satisfy everyone on this matter.

As for a father aborting a fetus without the mother's consent, I would say that would be prosecutable as assault and battery at least. No one should be able to make a decision to abort a pregnancy but the woman, unless she is incapacitated.

Answer 4

"not yet human" ? Well, it certainly isn't a kitty cat.

in the first scenario, it is attempted murder of the WOMAN

a father trying to abort the fetus without the mothers consent would constitute physical assault at least and attempted murder at worst on the WOMAN.

Why are you ignoring the fact that even if a woman is pregnant, she is still a born human being that would have to suffer and maybe die in your first two scenarios? classic anti-abortion mentality, the woman is worthless in the presence of the fetus.

Answer 5

Yes he can abort his unborn fetus without the mother's consent if he is the one carrying the fetus!!
For the scenario it's not murder however it's attempted murder because he/she did shoot the carrier of the fetus.

Answer 6

The issue is NOT a mother's right to control what is within her body when another human being is involved.

Case law is conflicting in this regard, but there have been manslaughter convictions for the death of unborn children.

It's unbelievable to me that some folks here are using the "intention" argument to justify one over the other. Amazing. If I accidentally kill you and my behavior was not negligent, I wouldn't go to prison; but if I intentionally killed you, that's another matter. If the unborn child is a human being (it CANNOT be anything else), and if the mother, assailant, whomever, intentionally kills the unborn child, then it's a criminal act.

Abortion is murder.

Answer 7

It is a question of liberty. Does a fetus have the right to control the woman? Does the gunman have a right to control the woman? Does the government have the right to control a woman's reproduction choices? Does a church have a right to use law to control a woman? Or does the woman have the liberty to control her own body.
The fetus has no right in nature to control the woman because the fetus is a parasite on the woman. The fetus and the woman are joined together to the disadvantage of the woman in some circumstances and to the advantage of the woman in other circumstances. Of the two joined together only the woman has the mental capacity to make the decision of what is best for both the woman and the fetus. The fetus cannot decide for itself and it is dependent on the decision of the woman for both her welfare and the welfare of the fetus. It is impossible for the fetus to determine what is best for the woman or itself. So the fetus cannot decide for the woman.
Those who are rapist and murderers want to control a woman. It is in their benefit to cause a child to be born that carries their genes. And it is to their advantage to kill a fetus that they do not want to be born. However we cannot allow a murderer to control what a woman does with her body because then there would be an incentive for murderers and rapist to practice their art.
Can a government steal a woman’s liberty right and control a woman’s reproductive rights. Several have tried to do so and have failed miserably. For example in South Africa this year over 4 million illegal abortions were performed with at least 30000 women paying for those abortions with their own lives. It is proven that when abortion is made illegal, women simply ignore the law and end the pregnancy. And what these women have done by ignoring the law is good for mankind. Only a woman knows the circumstances regarding her own life. Only a woman knows if she was raped, or tricked into giving birth. In a society that forces birth, it is to a man's advantage to impregnate any woman using any lie or deceit. When men do this they are relieved of paying for a child and are rewarded with the birth of a child carrying their genes. Governments are run by men and therefore men frequently take the liberty of the woman away by force. When the liberty to abort is stolen, it is morally right to for the woman to ignore the law.
A church does not have a right to take away the liberty right of a woman to an abortion. Churches are run by men for the benefit of men. In a church a political force is used to impose the will of a man upon the life of a woman. When a church sets up a relationship between a man and a woman it is in the financial interest of that Church to ensure that the Church is populated by the greatest number of people. To do so enriches the Church at the expense of the woman. A woman becomes simply a vessel at the direction of a church that is used by men to enrich the Church. Those churches that support a woman’s right to abortion are the true churches the churches that take away the rights of any person are founded on evil doctrine.
It is only the woman that has the knowledge, ability and joint interest for the fetus and woman that should make the decision regarding abortion.
I am embarrassed by people such as you that make up issues that twist the logic behind liberty. It is hard for me to believe that one human would attempt to muddy the issue of abortion. There is only one true answer to who has abortion rights and you seem to have the mental capacity to understand. It is a simple process to determine who has a right to do any thing with regard to a person's liberty. You are an embarrassment to those who have the ability to reason. Either that or you are a pro life nut, or you are a stakeholder in the abortion issue.

Answer 8

if it's not "yet human".... then what is it?

technically, according to the law I think (I could be wrong, and it may depend on the state), it's part of the woman's body if it's not human... so no one can do anything to another person's body without permission...(so the father couldn't abort it, since it's not his body)

some states have laws that affect unborn children being hurt... some do not... if I remember correctly...so... it depends on your point of view...

at the very least it's assault with intent to kill for the mother probably...

you're getting into some legal grey areas here... and it basically comes down to people's opinion on the matter...

Answer 9

Although the two scenarios result in the same fatality, the intentions are not the same, and therefore have different consequences. The father had the intention of murdering his unborn child. This is plain murder. In abortion, the mother simply does not want the child, and the child is eliminated as a result of sympathy. The child will most likely have a crappy life if he stays in the world. So you see, one is murder, and one is sympathy.

Answer 10

Yes, it is murder! The intentional taking of an innocent human life is always murder. The baby inside of her is a separate human being, and has the right to LIFE, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness!