Pro-abortion people, answer me this?

Question

Why is abortion not murder (because the fetus is not human yet, doesn't feel pain, whatever whatever) but killing a pregnant woman is considered murdering the baby? This happened with that Scott Peterson case and probably with this pregnant woman now on the news. So what should change, should abortion be considered murder, or is killing a pregnant woman not so bad as the current law says?

Answer 1

From what I've read, the difference is in if the baby could have survived. The baby has to weigh a certain weight for them to consider charging the murderer with two counts of murder.

But I think another point is missed here..usually it's murder because that child was wanted. Unwanted children can be murdered at will. This is really the crux of the abortion issue. Doctor's work feverishly to save a wanted baby, while others murder the unwanted.

I also think it's rather interesting that the pro-abortion bunch are offended at being called that. Pro-choice is a play on words to make it seem okay. Pro-choice...a woman's right to choose is a woman's right to choose to murder her unborn. The baby's choice is irrelevant.

Miscarriages are not the same thing. They are the natural course of things. A miscarriage happens because there was something wrong with the baby and it could not sustain life.

True pro-life is exactly that...pro-life. This includes cases of incest and rape. A baby should never be victimized and murdered because of the circumstances of it's conception. How can their life be less valuable in a situation like that?

The statistics show that 99% of all abortions are for convenience. 1% are because of rape and incest.
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html
That's 99 human beings out of every 100...who will never get to practice their constitutional right to life because their life was inconvenient to another.

Abortion is murder. If a healthy fetus is left intact and allowed to grow, a human being is ALWAYS the result. If it's a human when it's born, it's a human when conceived.

Answer 2

It's fetus. Produced by human's body like sweat, blood and other stuff. If aborted when it's less then 2 months I don't see what difference it makes. Killing a pregnant woman is a murder, and the current news about the murdered pregnant woman was at least 7 or 8 months pregnant! That's literally a baby waiting to pop, but unfortunately killed...Come on now, you can't be that stupid for asking such a question...

Answer 3

In the case of Laci Peterson, she was pregnant more than the six weeks (not sure of the exact length of pregnancy that a woman must be under in order to get an abortion). She was eight months pregnant, which is only one month short of a full-term pregnancy. There is a huge difference in the development of the fetus of one that is three weeks along, and one that is 8 months along.
Abortion should not be considered murder.
And killing anyone should be considered "bad" (using your word).

Answer 4

First of all, I've never known someone who was "pro-abortion". Most people agree it's a negative thing that should be avoided if at all possible. We simply think that it should remain the woman's choice if it so happens she does become pregnant against her wishes.

Second, as pregnant as Laci Peterson was, she could not have had an abortion. It would have been illegal.

Killing a pregnant woman, I think, should be more of a crime, because it is HER body, and HER choice, not the choice of anyone who decides to abort her kid for her via murder.

Answer 5

Because the baby had gotten to a point where it could have survived on it's own outside of it's mother's womb.

And it's pro-choice, not pro-abortion. I don't know who anyone is pro-abortion, they just think it should be an option.

So why, if abortion is murder, is it okay if there was incest or rape involved? Wouldn't you be killing a baby then for the sins of adults? Why is it okay if the mother's life is potentially in danger-- not the definite ones, but the one's where it's only a possibility? Why does the mother's life mean more than the babies life, when she's the one who chose to get pregnant? Shouldn't she have to take the risk if it might involve saving the child, rather than kill the child to save herself? I've never gotten that reasoning from anti-choice people.

Answer 6

I'm pretty sure it's because with abortion you have the mothers consent.

But now if you murder a pregnant woman...I think it's considered murdering the baby because she didn't plan for the baby to die. Hmm..not sure if that makes sense...

but then again you can argue that abortion is like pre-meditated murder and blah blah. you can argue this anyway.

Then again, isn't there like other things more specific to it, like doesn't the pregnant woman have to have been pregnant for a certain period of time before...

hmm. good question though. i mean I can see it both ways, how it's not the same, but it is.

i'm pro-life by the way. well actually i'm not sure.
I haven't thought much about it. i just don't really care enough. haha....kind of sad. but yeah.

have a good one!

Answer 7

Because the legal system is old and needs to be redone. Killing a pregnant woman, especially if you don't know she's pregnant (not showing yet?) shouldn't be any different. Killing is wrong, but if you don't know there's a baby shouldn't that be a negligence charge, not a second murder? And it should depend how pregnant...6 months vs. 1 day is a definate difference! It should be case-by-case, not black-and-white every time.

Abortion is not killing any more than removing a tumor full of cancer cells is murder. I agree that late-term abortions are wrong unless it's a health issue. And Pro-Choice is the correct term, thanks. I'd rather have my rights than let some man take them away.

Answer 8

I'm not very sure on the laws regarding murdering a pregnant woman, although I'd have to assume that in order to be charged with BOTH deaths, the fetus must be of a certain age. For example, if the woman is 1 day pregnant I highly doubt the killer would be charged with 2 counts.

I really don't think it should change at all.

Answer 9

I am pro-choice. Women should be allowed to decide what to do with their bodies.

A person who kills a pregnant woman is commiting murder. She (murdered woman) didn't make a choice for her body and life. Some moron decided for her. That's the difference and that's murder!

Answer 10

Here is something else that people might want to consider:

In many states, it is illegal to kill a dog at any point after birth and even accidentally doing so can result in prison time. The gestation period of dogs is less than 3 months.

Aborting a human fetus at three months after conception is legal and will not result in prison time in the US.

This means that current US law grants a dog greater right to life at 3 months after conception than it does for humans.

To me, that just doesn't seem logical.

...

I agree that women should have the right to choose what to do with their own bodies. I just disagree about giving them the right to change their mind after they choose to create another living human inside it.

Pregnancy is easy to avoid. Contrary to popular belief, you can't get pregnant without either having sex or undergoing in vitro fertilization. Once you choose to create life, you no longer have the right to destroy it.