Remember lacy peterson, or the lady a few weeks back that was killed by her boyfriend cop? A pregnant woman get's killed and it is charged as a double murder, yet if the same woman were to have an abortion then everything would be ok? I'm not arguing prolife/ prochoice!! I want to know your thoughts on the real or perceived hypocracy. If you didn't want it killed then it is murder but if you do want it killed then it's an abortion? Who makes that call? It's not a life if the woman decideds to terminate the pregnancy, but if someone terminates the pregnancy then it is murder? Let's say a pregnant woman was on the way to an abortion clinic and is killed on the way...is that a double murder. Pregnant drug addicts whose babies die because of drugs can be charged with murder. This makes no sense to me. I'm not defending murder here nor do I care about your opinions on whether or not we should have abortion. I'm only wondering if anyone else see's the hypocracy here...your thoughts....
2007-07-24 11:48:50 · 16 answers · asked by yp_joe_arlington_887 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
It's an inconsistency in the law that needs to be rectified.
A fetus doesn't magically turn into a human being with the right to life because its mother wants to keep it. That's absolutely absurd. Either the fetus has a right to life or it doesn't. If the mother wants to keep her child, then shouldn't it be assault or property destruction? For example, David up there compared it to smashing a car, but a car is property. The fetus is a human being. How can the mother own another human being? Isn't that slavery? They're not tantamount situations. It's more equivalent to saying that an outsider can't kill a three year old but the mother can because she owns her kid. If you don't think a fetus is a human being with the right to life, fine, but then don't suggest that murdering a pregnant woman should count as double homicide.
I'm pro-life, by the way, and I obviously want the government to reconcile the inconsistency on the side of human life, but this whole issue does irritate me. You can't have it both ways, people.
2007-07-24 11:56:27 · answer #1 · answered by TheOrange Evil 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
it's just like they say in the pro-life commercials. How come when you want it it's a baby and when you don't it's something else? What a joke society has become due to this very public and WRONG issue. If you are inconvenienced by something personally, even if (especially if) it's your own doing, you can just cut the problem away. Why the hell else do we have girls giving birth in the ladies room on prom night, toss the kid in the dumpster/trash and go back onto the dance floor. In a more sane world where this girl wasn't taught that it was OK this wouldn't have happened.
davidmi711 you have faulty logic..if we were in a car wreck (my fault) and one of your kidneys is destroyed do I go to jail for destruction of property? no.. so if a fetus is just a part of a woman like a body tag then it's no more or less than a kidney so how does it work both ways? it can't be murder if it's property
2007-07-24 13:32:46 · answer #2 · answered by Michael B 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Interesting question.
Never thought about it before.
I've always wondered about murder and manslaughter.
I think murder is an intentionally violent act. It is certainly not considered a medical procedure. But, I suppose there are those who would consider taking a life under any circumstances a "violent act." Is the act of suicide considered murder? How about executing a serial killer? How about taking the life of the enemy in time of war? How about blowing up a clinic that performs abortions and killing doctors, nurses, and patients?
Suppose you walked into your house and heard muffled screams. On investigating, you found a guy raping your mother, sister, wife, or daughter. Clearly nothing you can say is going to change anything. By the time you called the police, the guy would have finished and left. But there's a poker by the fireplace.. Now you could beat the guy to a bloody pulp and, though he might live, he might be injured for life. But he's likely to sue for damages... an he might win. On the other hand, one stroke could kill him. It would stop the assault on your loved one(s) And, though there would probably be an investigation, it would probably be justifiable homicide. Violence? Yep. Anger? Absolutely. Death. Uh huh. Murder? Probably not. Would he ever be inclined to do it again? Beats the penal system all to pieces, doesn't it?
Why, if a patient dies on the operating table, isn't the doctor, the operating room staff, and the hospital charged with murder? Is the patient any less dead than if he had been stabbed to death, or shot, or hit by a drunken motorist?
Murder used to be punished by death. We don't kill people on "Death Row" any more. Now murders, serial rapists, and the like, get life sentences without possibility of parole... for five or six years. Maybe the "double homicide" thing was designed to extend that life sentence to eight years.
I don't believe abortion was ever supposed to become a "6 months after pill." But I think it is so abused. I don't think it's a moral consideration on the part of the parent or parents as much as one of convenience. But, if they were capable of making intelligent decisions, they wouldn't have had an unwanted pregnancy. Yet, we have people on welfare breeding like rabbits. And we have a moronic government who is willing to pay for the breeding program. Perhaps the incompetent parents need to be aborted.
I don't know if there is an answer. I think it has to be a matter for ones own conscience. But for people to try legislate values, morals, based on their own biases smacks of the minority trying to dictate to the majority. If the majority feel they are directly affected, then laws will be enacted to prevent it. But the laws should be instigated by the population, not by legislators who are intent upon imposing their wills upon the electorate.
Morals can't be dictated. Sexual harassment is a prime example. It was supposed to keep bosses from soliciting favors from their employees in order for the employees to keep their jobs. But judges, attorneys, and juries have decided that they have the right to impose their own ideas of morals. So if somebody sees you do something they for some obscure subjective reason find offensive, even if they're not involved, you can be charged with sexual harassment. That's an insane abuse of a law. If you see something you don't like, that's your problem. If it doesn't directly affect the safety of the population in general, then it's none of their darn business.
2007-07-24 13:09:34 · answer #3 · answered by gugliamo00 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because in the attack against the pregnant woman, she did not consent to terminate the pregnancy.
Just like forcibly performing an abortion without the woman's consent is illegal. Whether it counts as murder, or involuntary abortion, is based on viability. But if someone does it without the woman's consent, it is illegal.
Look at it this way -- the killing of an unborn is always illegal.
HOWEVER, there is a specific exception when the killing of the unborn results from a woman terminating her own pregnancy.
Just like killing an adult is always illegal. But there is an exception in the case of self-defense.
The exception is a legally carved-out special case. If the exception does not apply, then the general rule applies.
2007-07-24 11:54:57 · answer #4 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Because to the liberals that think abortion is ok, its the woman's choice to keep or kill the baby, and it is legal as long as it is done before the pregnancy gets to the 2nd trimester. It should be murder, but then abortion would be illegal. it also would not give women who were raped or drugged the option to "correct" an already bad situation if they were forced to carry an infant concieved in that manor.
2007-07-24 11:59:00 · answer #5 · answered by ALFimzadi 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Up to a certain gestational age, a fetus is not considered a person.
Now, I know I'm going to get blasted because I said that. That is NOT my opinion. That is according to law. That is why when a fetus reaches a set amount of weeks during the pregnancy, abortion will not be done unless a fetus has died in utero, has significant birth defects that would not be survivable or the mother's life is in peril.
A fetus is considered viable at 24 weeks.
EMT
2007-07-24 12:16:00 · answer #6 · answered by emt_me911 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Let's talk about the case of Lacy Peterson. Lacy never wanted to abort her baby Connor. In fact, she was so proud of him and made all the necessary preparations for his arrival. When Lacy was murdered before Connor was born, the death of Connor was not abortion but murder. Abortion is usually the choice of the baby's mother. Murder is a heinous act committed by a third person. In Lacy's case, that third person was her own husband, Scott Peterson. I hope I made sense to you.
2007-07-24 12:03:22 · answer #7 · answered by Belen 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Actually, the murder is only charged with two counts after the baby is viable. If she was only one monh or two months they would not be charged with the baby's murder.
2007-07-24 12:03:56 · answer #8 · answered by Lori B 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Abortion is not performed by murdering a woman who is in her final trimester. The woman obviously wanted to have the child.
2007-07-24 11:52:35 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Because it's ok for mom to kill baby while pregnant because technically it's still her body. Not saying I agree with abortion, but that's what it is.
2007-07-24 11:53:38 · answer #10 · answered by wyllow 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋