How big are the hypocrites that say a mother killing a fetus is NOT murder, but someone else doing it IS?

Question

Either a life is being taken, or it is not. Regardless of WHO is taking it.

- Bobby Lee Cutts Jr. could get the death penalty if convicted of killing Jessie Marie Davis and her unborn fetus -

As for the term of the child, can you say "Partial birth Abortion"?

A partial birth aborted fetus can also survive outside of the womb.

Aur (below) What does my anatomy have to do with killing somebody? Save the drama for...

azred_tx (below) The law??? So what? The law once stated that I was considered 1/5th human due to the color of my skin. And???

Ergo abortion rights supporters do not believe in human rights. Thanks for clearing that up.

I defend those who are defenseless against the taking of their lives, their futures. Even mom doesn't have the right to rob a child of their very life.

coragryph (below) You make extremely valid points (as always) with one exception, the third party involved is not giving their consent. Someone else is consenting to have that thrid party executed. Also, a kidney is not a being, it is an object, as you of course well know.

======
GREAT DEBATE ALL
======

Answer 1

Bobby Cutts killed the mother and her unborn child just days before she was due to deliver. Abortion is not legal after a certain point in a pregnancy. As of right now, abortion is legal, so the two things are NOT the same. Get off your moral high horse.

Answer 2

Although I agree that killing a fetus against the will of the mother should be considered murder, I don't see what all the hype is about partial birth abortion.
I doubt that you will find anyone that will perform a partial birth abortion as a method of birth control.
It is a procedure that is usually restricted to emergency cases only, and is a very rare procedure, than people actually try to make it out to be.

This is not hypocritical at all. Just think about it. If a woman is going to have an abortion, she usually doesn't run around and tell her family that she is having a baby. She'll only do that if she plans to carry the preganancy to term.
When this occurs, you have an entire family expecting a new brother/sister, grandchild, cousin, etc.
When the mother is killed, you are not only removing the life of the mother from their lives, but also the life of the expected arrival, resulting in the impact, on them, of two murders.

This logic is taking into consideration that the murdered person isn't the only victim. There are many people surrounding the victim, that are victimized as a result of a person taking the life of another, that is not present in cases of abortion.

For the record, I am against abortion but promote contraceptives so abortion isn't needed.
I am also against abortion ban, because of the society consequences it has shown to have.

Hyocrites are the people who say they are against abortion, but at the same time, do not support birth control in the form of contraceptives.

All these pro-lifers, that truly want to reduce/end abortion, should put their message on a condom package, and hand them out.

Answer 3

Yes and no -- but, that's not the legal issue.

Just like suicide and murder are different -- even though both result in the ending of a person's life.

And there is a huge legal difference between something happening with a person's consent and something happening against their will.

For example, taking your kidney out with your consent is perfectly valid -- doing it without your consent is a very different matter.

Also, in this particular case, the unborn was close enough to term that the mother would not have been allowed to abort it -- at best, she could have it delivered early by c-section and placed in an incubator -- which is not killing it.

So, your example is misplaced for your argument -- because neither the mother nor Cutts had the legal right to kill the unborn in this particular case.

And you are incorrect -- in almost every case of a "partial birth abortion" (which is an incorrect term as no actual birth is occurring) -- the unborn CANNOT survive independently.

Choose a better example for your argument -- but that still leaves you arguing an unrelated aspect of the law -- and the issue is always going to be based on whether the action is done with consent or not.

Answer 4

Who? What about WHEN? Even a mother cannot go in for an abortion late in her third trimester. Cutts killed the mother of his baby in late June. She was due to deliver in early July. Did you *skip* the science classes that showed you what babies look like three weeks before delivery? They look like infants that can survive fairly easily outside the womb, because that's what they are, which is why he's accused of murdering a child and not a "fetus."

Someone who murders a woman in her first trimester is unlikely to have a second murder tacked onto his charges. And partial-birth abortions *are* illegal, Sherlock (see link).

Also? What Cassandra said :-)

Answer 5

It isn't a matter of hypocrisy; it is a matter of law.

Right now the law says that a woman may choose the option of aborting her fetus; if someone else does it the law considers that to be murder.

edit:
Then by all means, ignore the law. I'll be certain to come visit you on Tuesdays and Saturdays to see how that works out for you.

Answer 6

I think the people who are radical proponents of abortion are the ones against the prosecution of people other than the mother or doctors who kill fetuses. They believe that if people recognize a fetus as being capable of being murdered they will view it as a full human life.

I myself am conservative but pro choice. It has always been an issue that I have struggled with. I usually find myself arguing against whoever is doing the talking.

Answer 7

A life is being taken - we've just decided that a mother has a right to take that life, as we've decided that someone whose home is invaded has a right to kill the invaders if they wish to, as we've decided that bush has the right to take the lives of all those iraqis, as we've decided state govts have the right to take the lives of convicted capital criminals. so, these life takings are not murders.

i think all but the most strident pro-choicers acknowledge a life is being taken. it's just that most people in this country and in the whole developed world AGREE that women ought to be able to control their fertility by many means, including abortion.

humans have always practiced abortion and always will.
your job is to make this a better society - tax payer funded universal health care, social security credits for moms, direct payments to support moms so they don't have to dump their babies in day care (worse than abortion), work schedules that uplift family life - so that more people want to bring their babies into it.

Answer 8

I never said it was. Just because a DA charged him with a double homicide does not mean I agree with it.

No one has the right to end the fetus' life in this circumstance. She was too far along in her pregnancy to terminate, and, of course, no one else kill it either.

Also, a legal medical procedure is different from a hanus crime such as murder. You'd be pissed if they did not charge him with two counts, so why are you whining?

Answer 9

You make a good point. People like Aur are reminders that men are the only sexists in the world today. Deciding that a person's opinion is irrelevant just because they have different sex organs is incredibly bigoted. Children have fathers too.

Answer 10

I always like your Q's and A's, Chi, but you're a tad off the mark on this one.

All I can say is "what Coragryph said".
It's detailed perfectly.

Always love ya' though, cupcake!

.
,

.