It isn't it illegal for doctors to kill unborn babies?
2007-06-25 13:03:57 · 17 answers · asked by bro_ken128 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Immigration
To not have a child is a choice made by a woman in the case of abortion. A pregnant woman who gets hit isn't making that choice so it's not the same at all. There is no comparison between the two.
2007-06-25 13:09:29 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
Here's the inconsistency:
Abortion rights are premised on the argument that the unborn do not have the right to life. If a woman's unborn baby dies because of an assault, her desire to go through with the pregnancy prior to the assault doesn't change that original premise, otherwise the whole justification behind abortion goes out the window.
If the government prosecuted the attack as an assault and the death of the fetus as property damage, then that would be much more consistent. After all, if a woman can arbitrarily terminate her pregnancy because her unborn child has no right to life, then basically the law says that she owns the fetus as property. However, if the fetus' death is labeled murder, then that just doesn't make any sense. You can't murder anything that isn't alive or doesn't have the right to life.
I don't care how pro-choice people try to rationalize this - it's a blatant inconsistency in the law and that's going to end up biting the abortion movement in the rear. Eventually, the inconsistency will have to be reconciled. I hope the issue is reconciled on the side of LIFE.
2007-06-25 13:18:31 · answer #2 · answered by TheOrange Evil 7 · 5⤊ 2⤋
on condition that fetus nevertheless has a heart-beat. And in some states it truly is illegitimate. a doctor replaced into sent to penal complex on the instant for existence for performing 3 abortions, i've got faith he replaced into in Pennsylvania. a woman terminating a being pregnant herself, below her very own unfastened will, interior HER physique... And somebody else assaulting her, and killing her unborn toddler against her will (consequently the interest attack) is a substantial distinction. does not unavoidably make the two of the two diverse in a judgment of right and incorrect, yet they are actually not a similar the two. -a million/2 empty, a million/2 complete?-
2016-10-19 00:38:41 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Violence toward another person is never the answer'better to walk away. No woman should be hit especially a pregnant woman..And to kill her unborn baby is one of the worse things I can imagine. Abortions are by choice and con scent, That is legal even though I don't agree with it.
2007-06-25 13:27:36 · answer #4 · answered by Josephine C 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The laws making it murder to kill a unborn baby were passed as a way to set a precedent to declare an unborn fetus as a human life, thus making it easier to outlaw abortion.
Hasn't worked yet, tho.
2007-06-25 13:12:30 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 5⤋
Killing is killing.
To attempt to split hairs over the life of a baby is repulsive.
2007-06-25 13:07:46 · answer #6 · answered by Skooz 4 · 6⤊ 2⤋
Because the woman makes that decision.
Although I think abortion is wrong, that is the reason.
Rachel...your answer does not hold water because partial birth abortion is STILL legal (though more barbaric than most terrorist activity, still legal)
2007-06-25 13:07:43 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Most abortions aren't carried out in the 3rd trimester by killing the mother and the baby she almost carried to term.
2007-06-25 13:06:45 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 5⤋
Its wrong on all aspects....It is wrong to abort an unborn child and it is wrong to murder a mother who is pregnant....
2007-06-25 13:08:56 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 2⤋
doctors can if they have to for some reason or the mom asks them too. but, either way it's stupid because it's still murder.
2007-06-25 13:07:54 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋