2007-06-12 03:38:12 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
That is a state issue.
I'm anti abortion and pro choice -- that is a tough call for me and I would not want to sit on a jury to decide a person fate. I'd probably go with manslaughter.
With abortion there is no easy moral answer. This is not a black and white issue. It's highly emotional, especially for the woman going through it as well as the father when he is involved.
My advice for the anti abortion crowd. Don't try to put laws in place to stop abortion -- there will always be too many loopholes that people can get around, the only people you will stop are the people who can least afford it. But rather the anti abortion crowd work with the pro choice crowd to make abortion rare through education, moral teachings, even religion without resorting to a one size fits all attitude. Then open your homes up to all the unwanted children in this world that no one wants.
There you will gain my respect. As of now, the anti abortion crowd does not.
peace
.
2007-06-12 03:54:31 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
You look attempting to confuse subject concerns right here and overlooking the main ingredient - someone's desirable to self-determination. whether the female became figuring out directly to terminate the being pregnant, that doesn't propose it incredibly is okay to reason her to lose the being pregnant in this way, by making use of an attack which, whether it led to her no actual harm (nevertheless that looks fairly impossible) previous the death of the foetus, might positively be annoying and in spite of everything, a termination led to in this way is extremely distressing and totally distinctive from a well being midsection technique. The assailant ought to of direction be punished for inflicting grievous actual harm. He has carried out so, in inflicting the shortcoming of the foetus in this way. rather, the foetus does no longer have been lost in this way devoid of him inflicting actual harm to the female.
2016-10-07 08:48:08 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Oh my goodness. This is easy, Have you not heard of tort law?
TORT - A negligent or intentional civil wrong not arising out of a contract or statute. These include "intentional torts" such as battery or defamation, and torts for negligence.
A tort is an act that injures someone in some way, and for which the injured person may sue the wrongdoer for damages. Legally, torts are called civil wrongs, as opposed to criminal ones. (Some acts like battery, however, may be both torts and crimes; the wrongdoer may face both civil and criminal penalties.)
Why don't we have funerals for miscarried Zygote?
2007-06-12 03:44:14 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
That is certainly something to think about for those who say "I am personally opposed to abortion, but its not my business to make it illegal." Legal abortion has hurt women who would never have one by allowing some men to feel the "right" to have one is really an obligation to have one if it causes hardship to the father of their baby?
There may be a lot of accurate legal reasoning to all the explanations of why it is a woman's choice but a man can be compelled to pay child support, but it is impossible to get some men to accept that when they fear parental responsibility will harm them as much as some women feel they will be harmed by parental responsibilities.
Would it be better if men were allowed to trade their parental responsibility to a qualified adoptive parent in return for the adoptive parent receiving the father's share of custody rights? I'm sure there would be drawbacks, but would it cause a reduction in the type of attacks you speak of, and would mothers and babies be better off with a willing adoptive parent than an unwilling and hostile natural parent?
Women would have the same right to trade their parental responsibilities to qualified adoptive parents, of course.
http://www.yaktivist.com
Polite Discussion, Respectful Disagreements regarding nonlethal alternatives to Abortion, Death Penalty, Lethal Weapons.
2007-06-12 04:01:46 · answer #4 · answered by Yaktivistdotcom 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It could be classified as both. Depending on the state of the fetus.
2007-06-12 03:44:52 · answer #5 · answered by Rocco R 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It is murder if the punch was intended to kill the fetus. If it was simply a punch not intended to kill it would be manslaughter.
2007-06-12 03:43:43 · answer #6 · answered by gerafalop 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
In CA it is murder (think Scott Peterson), and other states are following suit.
2007-06-12 03:41:58 · answer #7 · answered by Holmes C 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think it should only be considered assault, because if it's treated as murder, then that could lead the way to eventually outlawing abortion altogether.
2007-06-12 03:44:47 · answer #8 · answered by tangerine 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Depends on the state. More than likely it is solely assault.
2007-06-12 03:41:15 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
that is an assault. the pro-choicers selfishly believe that as long as the mother is not harmed it doesnt really matter what happens to the fetus.
interesting question
2007-06-12 03:43:03 · answer #10 · answered by Jahpson 5 · 2⤊ 4⤋