Double Standard?

Question

In Arkansas, there are three people sitting on death row today because they were hired by the boyfriend, who didn't want to pay child support, to kidnap his girlfriend, who wanted to have the child, took her off to a remote area and beat her within an inch of her life with the express purpose of killing the child. And when she was on the floor, she begged for two things: Her own life and her baby's life. These men were charged with two crimes, the murder of the girl, and the murder of the unborn baby. Explain to me why it's murder in this instance, but not if the girl wanted to end the pregnancy? How can the unborn child be a living entity in one scenero, but not the other? Side note...I am in no way condoning what the boyfriend did.

Answer 1

Her intentions for the baby doesn't matter, the fact is the baby has a soul, is a living human being, that's what they are looking at.

Answer 2

It's not about whether the fetus is a viable human or not; it's about the permission. Obviously these people did not have permission from the mother to harm her baby or herself. That's where the murder charge comes in. They are outside influences trying to end another human life for money. Murder, pure and simple.
On the other hand, a mother-to-be who chooses to abort her baby is in a much more gray area. Technically, scientifically, fetuses fall under the category of a parasite. It would not be able to sustain its own life until it reached a certain stage of development, usually after the 6th month; therefore it is in a symbiotic relationship with the mother and as such is seen, medically, as a potential liability to the mother's life.
I am not saying that I agree or disagree with this. That's merely how it is in the law.

Answer 3

In reference to acts of violence towards a pregnant woman, most states have statutes stating at what age the fetus is considered a seperate entity and additional charges are applicable.
Most states follow the federal guidelines on how late in a pregnancy a fetus can legally be aborted.

Answer 4

The difference...a mother aborts at the appropriate time that the law determines life has not begun yet.

When someone murders the pregnant mother we are to assume that the child would have reached the point of sustainable life if he hasn't already.

Answer 5

The girl has her own decision to end the pregnancy because it is hers. Other people shouldn't have the choice to kill someone else's baby. Other than that, the fetus must have been far enough along that it's considered a real human.

Answer 6

The whole point of Roe v. Wade is that the gov't should not have a say on someones personal and private medical procedures. In this case, she was not making the decision and that was not exactly a medical procedure.

Answer 7

I am not sure what Arkansas Law on the subject is but most states provide that if a fetus is over a certain stage in development, killing it is murder.

Answer 8

.You raise a great question that really deserves a good answer. the only thing i can think of is the ones that wanted to abort there chose to the other lady pleaded for the baby's life,i don't believe in abortion myself,by mans law in a state is different then God law the others will have to deal with it later on judgment day

Answer 9

To be blunt, she is terminating the pregnancy. But, those who decide to terminate their pregnancy do it for various reasons--reasons that they decide wouldn't be a good life for the baby.

Answer 10

A woman has a right to choose. Roe v wade...don't like it, change the law or move.