So why is first degree Murder illegal and abortion legal?

Question

Murder in the first a basic definition
So what is the difference in one choice or the other after all a choice is a choice and a choice to take a life is defined as beloew. As I see it abortion is a choice as is murder and it is clearly A Premeditated choice.

SO why is one choice socially acceptable and the other a capital crime?


What is wrong with this NATION or WORLD?



Premeditated murder is the crime of wrongfully causing the death of another human being (also known as murder) after rationally considering the timing or method of doing so, in order to either increase the likelihood of success, or to evade detection or apprehension.

State laws in the United States vary as to definitions of "premeditation." In some states, premeditation may be construed as taking place mere seconds before the murder. Premeditated murder is usually defined as one of the most serious forms of homicide, and is punished more severely than manslaughter or other types of murder.

"Prem

Premeditated murder" was first brought into trial in the 1963 trail of Mark Richardson. In which Richardson was found guilty of murdering his wife Cindy Cleave. Richardson had plotted his wifes murder for three years from the time that they were married. He was found guilty of premeditated murder and sentenced to life in prison. The trial of Mark Richardson was played out in the hit series "Walker Texas Ranger" on the episode titled "Guilty Conscious". [1]

In the U.S, there is no Federal offense of premeditated murder.

your best friend nice slippery slope agruement logical fallicies don't hold water here.

Answer 1

I really wish people would think about the *****long term effects of having an 'unwanted child' and how it will effect everyone. Whenever I read/hear about a child being beaten to death it BREAKS MY HEART.

Finance trouble is only ONE contributor of domestic violence.
One reason women choose abortion is financial. I'm NOT saying the child WILL be beat to death BUT isn't there a chance? I'm NOT saying that kids who are 'wanted' are NOT abused; but if we can prevent abuse should we? I'd rather have women decide to abort rather than bring a child into the world with anxiety, frustration, anger and resentment. That can't be healthy for the child. Sometimes these hardcore unresolved emotions lead to drug use, abuse and neglect. How many people who need healthy emotional support actually get it? Not many. Abusive spouses will not tolerate their other spouse to have any contacts, usually.

On the other hand, let's say that ALL women did have the child but couldn't afford to. Who's paying for the childs' healthcare and education. How many children is that in one year? Its not a few its thousands every year.
Also, I'm not saying that the woman deciding to have an abortion is abused or will be.
This issue will never really be resolved. It should be kept personal.

Adoption is an option but you cant make a woman have a kid. Is THAT constitutional?

Here's some reasons women get abortions in the first place.
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/reasonsabortions.html

Answer 2

A fetus is not yet a person, a fetus more closely resembles a parasite in the early stages. I know you probably think this is a creul thought but look at the facts not emotional aspect. Abortion is a tough choice for all to contemplate, but somes times the lesser evil acheives the greater good. Look at history man and the lentghs some women went to, to self induce abortion. It happens wheteher it is legal or not then often both mother and fetus die, great idea. Not only that think about mothers with drug/alcohol addictions do we really want them having children with all the problems this entails. What about rape victims? Is it correct to make a woman suffer this torment? WEll yes we are all a collection of cells a fetus can not survive on its own, until it can it is not what we think of as human. I know know what about those on life support? Well guess what sometimes the family decides to pull the plug? Is that murder? Abortion is unpleasent, lets educate children about birth control methods so there is less need for abortion but still that fail safe when such methods don't work.

Answer 3

I understand your disgust with us as a nation, and a society, but there is more to it than that. For murder you have to have intent or you don't have a murder. As for abortion, we still have not designated when a fetus is a living human and when it is just a pile of cells. That question has been put on the back burner if you will, probably since abortion and human rights were thought of. Premeditation is also needed for murder and our government has not got that quite right yet. You can't put blame to anyone in such situations until our government comes around and people demand they do the "right" thing here.

Answer 4

I have thought about this issue seriously for over a decade. The best way to takle something like this is to look for flaws in logic by arguing both sides to the best of your ability. This exposes the lies we tell ourselves so we don't feel guilty. It also exposes the over-zealous right to life approaches we see.

1. The question on when it becomes a human.

Arguement 1 - That if the unborn child could live outside the womb then it is a human life and this is the determinate factor.

Arguement 2 - When medical science advances so much it can create an artificial womb then we are down to conception being the start of human life. Would we then make the rule that it has to be able to live unassisted outside the womb? Does being on life sustaining equipment make you less human? When is someone dead is sometimes the same question as when is someone alive.

Realization - There is no way to tell when human life begins without getting all religious and non-scientific. There are several shades of grey.

2. The issue of it being a persons choice.

Arguement 1 - It is my body, it is my choice.

Arguement 2 - It is not THEIR body we are talking about; We make choices, we don't own them..

Realization -

Ownership: My mother does not own my body, that is a rediculous claim. The determination of ownership is as abiguous as the beginning of life. Does ownership begin at the same time as human life? I believe that premise to be true.

Decision: My mother made choices for me. Damn foreskin is gone forever! It was MY body, yet she made the choice. Although this is not as serious as deciding whether I lived or died, it still is a decision I could have made myself at a later date. Is this not true with abortion? Could a person not choose to live or die at a later time? It would appear to be an almost unanimous decision with a few exceptions. Death is a choice that can be postponed until the owner can make it themselves.

3. The issue of Rape or Incest.

Arguement 1 - It wasn't their fault they are pregnant so they should not be resposible for the consequences of someone elses actions.

Arguement 2 - It wasn't their fault they are in the womb so they shouldn't be responsible for the consequences of someone elses actions.

Realization - Perpetrators are perpatrators no matter if the perpetrator was a victim too. For those who make this arguement as the only reason abortion should be allowed it is false reasoning. If it was wrong before it is wrong here too. Although far more easy to understand why someone would want to make that choice.

4. The issue of people having abortions being inevitable.

Arguement 1 - People are going to have abortions anyway so we might as well make it legal so they can have it safely done.

Arguement 2 - Female Cicumcision(for those of you who don't know what this is - they cut off the clit and labia minora for starters.) It happens, and kids die because, like abortion, it is done unsafely behind doors for fear of legal repricutions. Should we make it legal to have done in hospitals as well?

The realization - You cannot compare one thing some consider as a crime to another thing some consider as a crime and have it be a valid arguement for making them both illegal or legal. Those having the abortions believe it to be okay whether legal or not. Those performing female circumcision believe it to be okay whether legal or not. They are however two seperate things. We could make the same comparison to almost any crime, drunk driving, robbery, etc. Concerning strictly the issue of legality this arguement is a valid argument for the pro-choice crowd.

5. Blowing up abortion clinics and killing people.

Arguement 1 - So you're defending those bombers? What about them?

Arguement 2 - What the ^%@$ is wrong with you?! We are talking about abortion not blowing people up. That is two very different things.

Realization - Ever see a child try to get out of trouble by ratting out his brother/sister for a seemingly more severe offense? This is the same. Change the subject to an argument you can win to take the heat off when you can't seem to defend yourself properly.

MY CONCLUSIONS

I don't believe anyone actually likes that abortions happen. It would be better if these unwanted pregnancies never occured. The pro-choice crowd are not baby killers(with some exceptions), and the pro-life crowd are not doctor killers(with a few exceptions).

Why not murder? We actually have decided that it is. Punch a pregnant woman in the gut and cause her to lose her baby - they're getting charged and won't be popular on the cell block either. As many have already stated it boils down to when the life is human life, and it is a very grey area. We have set it up so that after so much time passes a pregnancy cannot legally be terminated. That is the best we can come up with.

If completely set against all abortion your time would be better spent discussing ways to prevent the situations creating the choice for abortions. After all, like crime, it happens whether legal or not. Lower numbers are good.

It seems that over 90% of abortions in California are from pregnancies that were from consensual sex(1996). With 3700 abortions a day nationwide that could translate into 3300 abortions each day or 1.23 Million a year(roughly the polulation of Dallas and over twice that of Seattle). If you were to stack that many fetuses up how big of a pile would that be?

The population of Dallas because someone can't say - no glove no love? or being to lazy/embarassed to drop by the drug store the next day?

The prevention angle will get you farther than the murder/illegal arguement any day.

Answer 5

Although I am generally against abortion, by your rant I'm assuming you want to talk about the "legal" differentiation and not the moral one.

The difference is found in defining when a life is a separate entity from the parent. In most places they consider this to be the point in fetal development where the fetus could remain viable outside of the mother's womb. On the upside, with the advances in neo-natal care, this point is narrowing the window.

Other "legal" considerations include the risk of life to the mother, whether conception was the result of a rape or the result of incest. And yes, let's not forget about the health risks to the child if the fetus is allowed to develop through the term of the pregnancy (Most prevalent are cases in which mental retardation or severe physical birth defects are probable).

Answer 6

A bunch of arguments are made to deny the unborn the right to live that are not made to deny a born person that right. I don't agree with any of these arguments, but here are a few.

Women will have abortions anyway, so it should be made safe for a woman or there will be 2 deaths instead of 1. This idea was supported by claims that 5000 to 10000 women died each year in illegal abortions. Once abortion was declared legal in all states, the number of abortions performed about doubled; so 500,000 more unborn babies were killed each year to save 5000 to 10000 women (well, except for the few women who still die each year from "safe" legal abortions -- click link below).

For those who think the unborn are just a "collection of cells" as "YourBestFriend" suggests, it is understandable that they would value several thousand born people more than 500,000 unborn lives. For those who believe the unborn are people, the argument should make as much sense as making it legal to drive drunk because some drunk drivers die in high speed chases with police that would not have happened if they weren't afraid of being arrested or having thier license taken away (or course more drunk drivers would lead to more deaths without the high speed chases).

My problem with "the collection of cells" argument is that destroying lives does not just destroy what someone is, it also destroys what someone could become. I want the government to protect my potential to become whatever I can become in the decade or two of life I have remaining, not just protect what I have become (which time will destroy anyway). I can't agree that my couple decades of potential life should be protected if I agree that the century of potential life the unborn have the potential to live (considering longevity projections) should not be protected.

http://www.yaktivist.com
Polite Discussion, Respectful Disagreements regarding nonlethal pregnancy termination technology, death penalty alternatives, nonlethal weapons.

Answer 7

It is simply that in the case of a born human, you are killing something that everyone agrees is human. With abortion most people believe the fetus is not a human. Your "belief" that a fetus is a child is simply flawed in the minds of most people. And your "proof" is more religious in nature than a result of logical reasoning. Most of what you claim is refuted in the Bible and in logical reasoning.
And what you preach is dangerous. Each fetus you "save" uses enough resouces to cause the death or suffering of at least 12 humans that are already born. So when your failed logic is practiced, people die.
Most sensible people believe that a child that is wanted is entitled to all the protections of society from conception till birth and then forward. Most sensible people know that if the child is not wanted, it will be abused. So not only are children killed by the act of being pro life, other children suffer.
And adoption does not help. Adoption of a child that is a forced birth simply takes away the opportunity of another child to be adopted.
There is simply no way out for the pro life advocate. Anything you do is wrong.
Society should encourage pro choice and make pro life against the law.

Answer 8

The main difference is the simple fact that the law does not recognize a fetus or unborn child as a living human being. Since the law does not make this recognition, there is no expectation of rights and there can be no murder. It is a basic legal definition of what is and is not an individual human life that is responsible for the difference.

Personally, I would tend to agree with you and would like to point out that legal definitions and law have changed over time. Slavery was once considered acceptable in this country as those with black skin were not equal to those with white skin. This definition of racial equality has been changed over time by various laws and court rulings including the 13th and 14th Amendments, Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown v. Board of Education, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and others. There may come a time when abortion is considered murder from a legal standpoint. However, under the current definitions set by our legal system, it is not murder.

Answer 9

People choose to think of a fetus as not human out of convenience. We can rationalize in our mind that we are doing nothing wrong this way. It is a trick to alleviate guilt.

The pro-choice crowd tries to make it a woman's right issue when it is actually a "human" rights issue by calling it "choice". That statement is just spin and a ploy to further an agenda.

Sure, it is a choice. So is rape, robbery, and non-abortion related murder. People make choices every day. Sometimes good, and sometimes bad. When someone CHOOSES to rape someone they are punished for that wrongdoing. They CHOSE poorly. Same with rape. A woman can make a bad choice (abortion), and she will pay for it in the end. She should not have this special right to murder simply because the baby is inside her!

Even the greeks found the idea of abortion to be barbaric! That is where the hippocratic oath came from. And yet they sanctiond other acts that we would consider barbaric. We should be better than this.

Answer 10

Yes, what is wrong with this nation or world? A fertilized egg is just a collection of cells that could be a viable human. Until an embryo is able to live outside the womb, thinking of these cells as a human is ridiculous.

If aborting a non-viable collection of human cells is murder, then the people who have surgery for cancer are committing murder.