ok here is a situation a girlfriend and a boyfriend were about to have a baby but they did not want it and had no money for abortion so the girlfriend said to kick her in the somach till she lost the baby the boy friend got arrested for murder but here is the thing
the baby was not alive (unborn means your n not alive for the idiots) and he had permission to kick her and there was no murder or assult involved how can courts do this can they sue the state i know i would
2007-04-10 09:42:16 · 14 answers · asked by ? 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
some of you are wondering why you have a thumbs down well lemme ask you in this question it stated an unborn thing is not living nor breathing! so i gave you all a thumbs down because obviously you cannot read so its not murder
2007-04-10 09:53:31 · update #1
I am not sure how they could prosecute. If people get abortions all the time without the fear of prosecution, why should these people be any different? I think the courts are just trying to set precedent.
2007-04-10 09:49:00 · answer #1 · answered by agkwatson@sbcglobal.net 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
It's murder if you ask me, and the women may suffer some serious damage as well. Not to mention, the baby may be born anyway, but with defects which would cost even more money. Though i'm no fan of abortion except in rape cases and such, i'm sure there are places around that will do it at no charge. Another option is having the baby and giving it off for adoption. Most parents however end up keeping the child after holding it in thier arms.
To answer your question, it's murder. My wife is pregnet, i seen the baby move around on the ultrasound and I feel here kick my wife's stomach from the inside all the time. It's going to be a little girl. The baby might be unborn, but she's definetly alive and well in there. This might not be the answer your looking for, but this is my answer.
2007-04-10 16:51:32 · answer #2 · answered by Jeff 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Simple answer? Because the girlfriend didn't go to an abortionist. Abortionists are the only sanctioned authorities to do the killin'. (Unborn babies ARE alive, by the way. Read a science book. I don't care if you're pro-choice or pro-life. Saying unborn babies aren't alive is WOEFUL ignorance of basic human biology.)
There's a hypocrisy in the law that needs to be rectified. If someone kills the baby inside you and you wanted to keep the baby, it's "murder," not assault or property damage, even though the government doesn't consider your unborn baby a person deserving of rights, like the right to life. If you want to kill the baby inside you, then it's not murder. And if you consent to some guy punching you in the stomach without the assistance of an abortion doctor, you've committed murder. It's almost like there's an abortion lobby, eh?
So, that's why. It's not rational, it doesn't make sense, it's just an inconsistency in the law.
P.S. A fetus has a heartbeat at three weeks and a brainwave by eight to ten weeks. Unborn children live and BREATHE. Babies are born with lungs - what do you think they were doing in the womb for nine months? Holding their breath? My god, you are embarrassingly stupid.
2007-04-10 16:50:20 · answer #3 · answered by TheOrange Evil 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Because the unborn child WAS alive. That's where the courts are inconsistent. That's why it's murder, yet because of the woman's right to an abortion, nothing legally can happen to her. Big double standard.
Who are you to determine if the BABY was living or not? Unborn means not outside the womb. It does not mean "not alive" Even inside the womb the BABY has a beating heart, reactions to stimuli, and a functioning nervous system. That IS alive my friend.
Let's say you are out drinking and driving, and happen to hit a car driven by a pregnant woman, and kill her and her baby...I want to see you use your same argument and tell the courts then that this was not a living baby as you are being convicted of killing two people.
2007-04-10 16:46:58 · answer #4 · answered by saq428 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Are you serious? Did the baby give permission to be murdered? It is a LIVING "BREATHING" life! That is horrible to say it's ok since the mother gave permission...it isn't her decision! Unborn does NOT mean not alive, that's idiotic to say otherwise.
2007-04-10 16:49:05 · answer #5 · answered by Melanie 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
it depends on the state of viability. Sates forbid abortions for almost all reasons after the 2nd trimester because the fetus gets to the point that it can self sustain. Once it gets to that point it will be murder as the mother cannot abort the baby either and it is considered alive by the law.
2007-04-10 18:43:07 · answer #6 · answered by Dr. Luv 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
yes it is murder unborn does not mean not alive not alive is a rock or dead if something moves and feels pain it is alive. it absolutly sickening that someone would do that there are plenty of couples who can't have babies that would would pay a small fortune for one.
2007-04-10 17:09:27 · answer #7 · answered by mystic 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
So sorry, anyway you look at it, it's
murder.
Golly gee, maybe this could have been prevented in the first place if he would have kept his pants on.
Sue the state??? get rid of those funny cigarettes before they fry your brain.
2007-04-10 16:48:04 · answer #8 · answered by TedEx 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Couldn't they have just left the baby at the hospital after it was born? That's what happens when you do stuff like that.
2007-04-10 16:46:15 · answer #9 · answered by Bear 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
If the baby was kicking then it was alive. If the baby had a hearbeat then it was alive. (For the idiot who thinks it was not alive.)
2007-04-10 16:46:15 · answer #10 · answered by zil28ennov 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋