Why is it called "choice" when a mother kills her own child but it's called murder when anyone else does it?

Answer 1

Good question, especially considering that it is the mother's conscious intent to kill the child, while the death of the child is usually only incidental when someone else is the perpetrator.
.

Answer 2

this is a question that I have asked many times- and I never get a straight answer- you would think it logical if not moral and spiritual that if someone killed your child it would be murder, but if you call it choice it is ok. There was a story I had heard on the news once where a woman was pregnant and she was stabbed in her stomach, it killed both her and the baby- the one who did this not charged with one murder but a double homicide. So how come a baby at the same age of development is aborted- it is not a child. By the way , Yo Yo Ma- when you say the definition of a child- is from birth- then why in the Bible and other ancient books and some even in the early part of last century- when you were pregnant you were "with child"?

Answer 3

Great question! No matter who believes what, the lawyers, liberals, and rights groups have made this issue ridiculous. The mother feels that it is her body, her decision. But then she wants child support, medical aide and a condo from the daddy if she decides to keep it. Then if the mother is pregnant and gets attacked or assaulted or even hurt in an automobile accident and the "unborn" baby is killed or ceases to exist inside her, then that responsible person can be brought up on charges of murder. It doesn't matter if the mother makes the decision or does the act, or another person does it, it is MURDER. That is like saying that anyone alive on Earth can be put to death or be taken from life, if the mother says so. Double standards people. No matter what this country decides when a baby is a life form, from whatever point of existence, it has to be consistent for ALL concerned, not just the MOMMA. I am sick of this double standard debate in this country! Good question though.

Answer 4

The definition of "child" has always been a person between birth and full growth. In recent years, with the advent of legal abortion, the definition has been expanded down to the fertilized ovum by religious loons who would have us declare a blastocyst is a citizen of the republic and a woman is an incubator and the property of the state.

But the essential difference (one you don't get because while a zygote is sacred to you, a woman's right to control her own body is not) is that the pregnancy is something occuring inside a woman and to a woman, and when we say the state has a compelling interest in declaring the women's womb the state's property and domain, then we have said the woman herself is the state's property and domain.

But the state runs no health risks. My mother developed a massive infection in child birth that literally stopped her heart for several minutes. In delivery her lower spine was broken, healed badly, and now in her elder years has rebroken, cannot be repiared and she is disabled and in constant pain. She knew the risks and chose them. No one chose them for her over her objection. And while I am certainly happy to be here, a woman's right to self-preservation is not something the state may nullify with my acquiescence.

What right do you have to demand any woman take those risks if she is not willing? As a man who will never face those risks I am certainly not arrogant enough to make that call. Maybe you are. But unfortunately for those devoted to enslaving women as involuntary incubators (and not seemingly inclined to take any responsibility for the consequences they don't incur in their pietism), others like me are equally devoted to insuring that all citizens are secure in the right to regulate their own bodies. I know women. I don't know any zygotes and blastocysts and I feel l fully justified in not holding the value of a woman and a cluster of cells in equal regard, and I don't really much care what someone's silly damned superstition has to say about it.

Answer 5

I agree and wonder the same thing.... it's sad that it's the woman's body she has control of but the government doesn't make her care for her child unless they can see it.
The usual arguement is : they aren't ready to have a child or something worse could happen later. If anybody had any common sense it wouldn't happen in the first place! You don't accidently have sex- you selfishly without any regard to any human life other than there own corupt ways.
The idiots that have actually took their child's life could have dropped them off at a church,hospital,anywhere!
The world is to accepting of the cowards that "want to have fun" instead of owning up to responsibility. If you are in your right mind, and have no medical neurological issues, then you SHOULD have some sense.
What goes around comes around...boy will they be sorry!

Answer 6

is it called choice when a mother pushes a car into a lake for a boyfriend while her sons drown crying for her or is it murder? or chooses to drown them in the tub...would she had done the better thing by not bringing them into the world this far only to murder them with her own hands that nurtured them @ one time? maybe if some woman have a true choice many children would not lead the street life they lead not being wanted or little coffins don;t have to be measured for a mother battling severe post partum or a sadistc need to be free of the kids for a social life...

Answer 7

I don't know , I think the people today are crazy , It is so wrong to do that women today are so selfish all they want is the pleasure and not the burden, I just know if they don't stop and be sorry for what they are doing then they are going to suffer immensely for it . I do not believe in abortion , it so totally against god and just is plain in your face wrong! And if any one asked me if I were pro life or for women's choice I would proudly say I am pro life! I have a lot more to say , but I'm afraid I'll just keep rambling on on how wrong it is and how much it hurts god.

And thanks, I'm glad someone Finally had the guts to post this question, in a good intention!

Answer 8

Actually when the "child" is in the mothers womb depending on how old it is it's either a zygote, embryo, or fetus. Just had to clear that up. Also abortion isn't even the most important f-ing issue around. How about world hunger, all of the on-going wars, and all of the diseases.

Answer 9

I assume you mean abortion.

Well lets see....its not born yet...it can't think. It can't form memories. It can't reason.

If it dies, nobody is hurt, and it is often better that the fetus dies than being brought into the world in a situation where it might be neglected or unwanted.

Don't give me any religious crap either. Religion is responsible for more deaths than all the abortions ever performed. Look through history at all the wars that are fought over religious differences. And continue to be fought to this day!

Abort away women! Your choice.

Answer 10

Murder is a legal term. Killing a child is murder and is fully punishable by law. Aborting a fetus is not.