If abortion is murder, then why isn't it against the law?

Question

Why aren't women and doctors who perform abortions being prosecuted for murder?

I know it's not murder. I am trying to make people think. I am pro-choice.

Answer 1

Oh because despite the shrill cries of a few the majority of American citizens are smart enough to know that even if abortion were outlawed it would still be performed. Abortions have been performed almost as long as women have been getting pregnant.

Those who cry to make abortion illegal and say it is murder are in the minority.

Answer 2

Well even though it is murder especially in terms of late term abortions also known as partial birth. But the supreme court found that it was covered by the Constitution somewhere, somehow so that is that. Oh well. It is funny that most people who support abortion are against the death penalty though so an innocent child can be killed, in the case of partial birth painfully, while someone who brutally murdered or raped some poor defenseless soul (or more than one) must be allowed to live. Interesting thought process.

Answer 3

The courts are having an an increasing style of complicated time with this. you will remember that Scott Peterson grow to be convicted of a double-homicide, and various, many such situations are bobbing up in all places. What we've customary right here in usa is that the killing of an unborn individual is criminal, see you later because it relatively is complete with the aid of somebody approved and sanctioned with the aid of the State to do such artwork. the controversy, a minimum of in criminal circles, relatively does not have plenty to do with words like "existence" or "human," or something like that anymore. The question of abortion's legitimacy has moved from being a query with regard to the toddler's rights (i.e. does it have a ultimate to existence?) to being a query with regard to the mum's rights (i.e. could she have the final to kill her own offspring earlier delivery?). it relatively is only through this that we are able to make any experience of the rulings wherein somebody would be charged for murdering an unborn toddler on an analogous time as bodily abusing the awaiting mom, in spite of if that mom had an abortion scheduled for day after in the present day. and additionally you will word that individuals like Peter Singer argue that individuals like Andrea Yates should not be punished for positioned up-delivery abortions (a euphamism for infanticide). certainly, the controversy isn't with regard to the rights of the toddler in any respect anymore. it rather is all with regard to the rights of the mum, and the pro-abortion crowd needs to confer onto the mum a "ultimate" to do something that no human beings team is approved to do: end an harmless existence with a burden to illustrate no greater effective desire for such homicide different than effortless convenience. regulation demands consistency. anticipate the present inconsistency in those regulations to inspire differences interior the regulations.

Answer 4

It is a contradiction, but it has to do with the age of the fetus. Most abortions are performed in the first trimester when the fetus absolutely could not survive without the 'life support' of the mother; when life support is removed from a person, it isn't considered murder (remember Schaivo).

Answer 5

It's a very touchy subject, but here's Ron's take on it.

Ron Paul is unabashedly pro-life and argues that it is unsettling to say the least that "if you abort a 'fetus' one second before [birth] it's legal, and one second after it's born, it's murder."

Very confusing. Personally, I think abortions should not be done after however many months another baby has been born prematurely and survived before. It's called viability I think. Of course, it should be allowed if it will harm either the mother or baby gravely. Again, this is my opinion, and no one has to agree with me, but this is coming from someone who's wife was recently pregnant.

Answer 6

Right to Privacy.
It's not murder.
It's only considered murder if it's born and is outside of the womb.
Prosecution for murder by having/performing abortions?
That's ludicrous and will NEVER happen.
It should NOT be against the law. It is a personal and private choice. If someone opposes it for personal reasons, that is acceptable. But when you want to control another's right to choose because you wouldn't have an abortion, that is UNacceptable.

Answer 7

Troughout history, there has been no shortage of laws that criminalize morally or ethically justifieable behavior, or that do the reverse, sanctioning the immoral or unethical.

For instance, in 1849 you might pose a question with a similar structure like "If slaves are people, why does the law treat them as property."

Prior to Roe v Wade, similarly, one might have asked "If women are free, why can we legaly force them to have babies?"


The way I see it, killing unborn babies is wrong, and forcing women to have babies against thier will is wrong, so it's just a matter of choosing which unconscionable alternative you want to support. Are you pro-death or anti-choice?

I'm pro-death.

Answer 8

Roe v. Wade was passed on the premise of one's Constitutional Right to Privacy. The problem is, there is no Constitutional right to privacy. You have an expectation of privacy, but not a guaranteed right. And this expectation of privacy is clearly limited and defined. For intance, you EXPECT privacy when you're talking on your phone in your home, but if you're talking on the phone in a police station, you'd be a fool to expect that you're not being recorded.

No one's being prosecuted for murder because Planned Parenthood and other such groups have successfully gotten people to believe that a baby isn't a human being until it draws its first breath. The fact is, we know that a baby is a human being. Why do we know this? Because no one is surprised with a fish or a puppy or a giraffe when they go to hospital to give birth. Nope. Pretty much every baby that's been born in history has been a human baby, not a puppy. And in fact, there are more than a few people walking around today who survived their abortion attempts -- including a young girl who confronted Bill & HIll while they were visiting her school one day. She made the point that she was alive -- AND a human being. Funny that Bill & Hill didn't have much to say, and sad and pathetic that it was only mentioned on the news for about 15 seconds and then never heard again.

Answer 9

Because the Supreme Court in writing Roe vs Wade said that they didn't know when life begins. In any case laws are made by men and sometimes don't mirror morality or justice exactly. Remember, there was a time when Slavery was legal... and it was a crime to harbor a runaway slave.

Answer 10

I strongly disagree. A life is a life and a living soul at the moment of conception. It is murder. If it wasn't, women would quickly forget when and where they had an abortion. In cases of incest or rape, I could see it. But for the careless among us who are promiscuous and use abortion as a way to erase their promiscuity, I say it's murder. Many will disagree, and give me a thumbs down but I'm sticking to my guns on this one!