Because of course, murder is a very serious charge. And the jail time extensive. So why then has NO one ever been charged with murder, for performing an abortion?
Could it possibly be because medical science deals with REALITY, instead of mythology?
Seriously, give me one rational (remember that word, it's important) argument that supports removing the right for women to make decisions about thier own bodies. Just one.
2007-04-02 04:23:41 · 38 answers · asked by Yoda Green 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Some of you seem to be mistaking acutal homicide with abortion.
Common mistake I know, especially among the feeble minded.
There is a HUGE difference. Try and learn that.
2007-04-02 14:00:00 · update #1
Ok, to the mouth-breathers that keep bleating "Scott Peterson, Scott Peterson..." he murdered his wife and as a result, killed the unborn child she was carrying, he did NOT perform an abortion.
Can't you idiots see the difference? If not, then you have my pity, you really do.
2007-04-03 00:29:46 · update #2
I don't think there are any cases where abortion is involved. There are just cases where someone murders a pregnant woman.
2007-04-02 04:30:20 · answer #1 · answered by Justsyd 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The only time someone can be charged with murder in the case of an unborn child is when a pregnant woman is physically assaulted.
If she lives, the suspect is charged with 2 counts of attempted murder.
If she dies, it becomes double homicide.
However, this may or may not (depending on where you live) have a statute regarding the stage of pregnancy.
If a woman miscarries without physical violence, that is not murder. It is the body aborting of its own volition.
Abortion is not murder because it is only legal during the first trimester, before the brainstem is formed (and thus, before 'consciousness' is possible).
Also, in cases such as that of ectopic pregnancy, the child will die anyway - and probably kill the mother, if she cannot get an abortion. Therefore, it should be available as an emergency procedure, regardless of 'moral' qualms.
If a blastocyst is classified as a person, the mother still has the right of bodily domain.
2007-04-02 04:37:21 · answer #2 · answered by Johnny Sane 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
That's roughly equivalent to arguing that killing a slave is not murder, because it is done in a country where slavery is legal, and slaves are regarded as mere property. People not being charged for the crime doesn't somehow make it not murder.
Murder is unjustly ending someone's life.
Fact: (Excluding relatively rare issues) A baby conceived is a life that will grow, live, learn, and love. Abortion extinguishes this life.
Pro-choicers, you have the freedom to get an abortion if you want, but you only fool yourselves if you believe that this isn't murder.
Also note: This has NOTHING to do with mythology. Many many athiests are pro-life. Think about it logically, if you believe there is nothing beyond our 70 or 80 years of life on earth, then robbing a new life of it's ONLY chance is even more sinister as far as I'm concerned.
2007-04-02 04:41:12 · answer #3 · answered by Andrew G 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because a woman makes a choice that she may get pregnant every time she chooses to have sex. Western culture has tried to divorce sex from procreation but in reality, the reason for sex is propagation of the species. No birth control is 100%. Even some people who have undergone sterilization have ended up with a baby.
Secondly, if you study the development of a fetus, you know that it moves from being a bunch of cells to a real living being very quickly. Most women are not aware of being pregnant in that very short window before the heart starts beating.
As for the case of rape and incest, it is not rational to say that this is a baby and that is not a baby based on how the child was conceived. That is why I think the morning after pill is a viable alternative. I know that many prolifers believe that life begins at conception but I just am not willing to go that far.
2007-04-02 04:35:15 · answer #4 · answered by Sharon M 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The fetus is genetically distinct. It is not an 'undifferentiated tissue mass' (tissues are, by definition, differentiated). Baring medical complications, the infant maintains an entirely separate blood system.
The medical reality is that the child is a genetically distinct individual, with all the potential for full human experience, unless active intervention or natural miscarriage occurs.
Active intervention carries a moral weight; in the case of abortion, that moral weight is one human potential and grevious potential psychological harm to the mother (the research supports this as well). As such, abortion removes an entire human potential and high risk of removing part of another human potential.
There is no scientific basis on which abortion can be considered ethical.
---------
*bows to Gazoo* Thank you. Scott Peterson isn't the only case of someone assaulting and killing a pregnant woman and getting hit with double murder.
2007-04-02 04:32:14 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
If a pregnant woman, on the way to an abortion clinic to have an abortion, has a car accident and the baby in her womb dies, the driver that caused the accident can be charged with involuntary manslaughter. But if she had made it to the clinic and had the abortion, that would have been legal. That makes absolutely no sense. If it is a life in a car accident, it is a life in an abortion clinic!!! Abortion ends life!!!
God bless,
Stanbo
2007-04-02 04:39:52 · answer #6 · answered by Stanbo 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"Seriously, give me one rational (remember that word, it's important) argument that supports removing the right for women to make decisions about thier own bodies. Just one"
-- The baby isn't part of their body. That's one reason. Making a change to your own body that kills another body is not the same as making a change to your body that does not. Should a siamese twin be able to kill the other twin because it's part of their body?
2007-04-02 04:38:24 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, once upon a time, it was ok to kill someone who was a minority. Does that mean it was ok? Just because you can get away with something, doesn't mean it's all right to do it.
Also, abortion causes medical and psychological problems in the women. Many suffer from depression afterwards (I remember seeing a case study, don't have a link). A few, when they do get pregnant and plan on keeping their new child, then realize that the "clump of cells" they got rid of would have been a baby. That causes depression too. (I've personally seen the latter) I have yet to read where adoption causes depression.
2007-04-02 04:34:09 · answer #8 · answered by sister steph 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
We are all guilty of sin because of Adam's disobedience to God. We all inherited the sin nature. Therefore, unless we have accepted Jesus as our Lord and Savior and repented of our sins, which means to turn away from them, we have all been charged guilty. All sin is rebellion against God.
Our bodies belong to God. We are given earthly bodies to live in while we live on the earth. God tells us that our bodies are to be used as temples of His Holy Spirit.
There is nothing more precious to God than humans. That is why He asked His Son Jesus to die as the sacrifice for us because of our sins. God knows each child the moment that child is conceived. To abort a child is murder and there will be a penalty to pay.
Yes, science deals in reality depending upon their beliefs. There are some scientists who are Christian. They look for what God has done and glorify Him.
Some scientists are not Christian so, they try to prove that there is no God. It can't be done.
Jesus is a Pro-lifer and He has told us to follow Him. As a Pro-lifer He lives and is King of Kings and Lord of Lords and wants you to live forever with Him.
2007-04-02 04:42:12 · answer #9 · answered by 4HIM- Christians love 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They call it the system of justice, but we all know, it's not just.
Thankfully the law of the land is not the only law.
The taking of an innocent life is not just.
Abortion is breaking the commandment, though shalt not murder, even if the law of the land allows it.
2007-04-02 04:41:18 · answer #10 · answered by Poquah 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just because man does not see something as murder does not mean God does not, God veiws hate (of people, not sin) as murder, God sees anger without just cause as murder, but no one has been charged with that. The woman is not just choosing for her own body but for the life of a baby that could not voice it's opinion, that should be reason enough for banning murder of unborn babies.
2007-04-02 04:35:56 · answer #11 · answered by JesusFreak 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋