Abortion, If you cant beat em, join them...?

Question

So why do states consider killing the fetus a second Capital Murder charge in cases when a pregnant woman is killed? The fetus cannot be seen as viable and a human in one instance and non-viable and human in another, right? Your thoughts?

Tool, I am not the one who posts abortion topics all the time, this is my first one about the subject

Answer 1

Will somebody please take 15 minutes out of their busy lives and actually read Roe v Wade rather than listening to the demagoguery coming from both sides of the aisle .
Roe v Wade basically says that even with the most advanced medical technology a fetus less than 13 weeks old [ first trimester ]
cannot survive outside of it's mothers womb and since it can't ,it cannot be considered a legal human being and since it's not a legal human being it has no civil rights that need protection. The Court then decided that the civil rights that needed protection are those of the mother who should have the right to determine what she can and cannot do with her own body.
Back to your question
As the fetus grows and increases it's ability to survive outside of the womb ,the States interest in it's welfare grows also until you get to the point you mentioned .
If that fetus was under 13 weeks old a second murder charge would never be filed .

Answer 2

Do they? What are the exact specifics of it? Is there a required time frame for the fetus? Say does it have to be over 3 months to count etc?

My guess would be, if they murdered one person...why not get them as much prison time as we can.

But I guess...it's a crime against the mother? I don't know. It's different when the mother decides to have an abortion, because that's her right. But if the choice is taken from her, via murdering her, it deserves to be punished.

Answer 3

Just about everything having to do with the abortion topic is a double standard right down to the core issue. EG If you are legally dead when brainwaves and heartbeat stop then conversely you should be legally alive when they start. This however is not very convenient for the abortion procrastinators. Personally I don't care just... pointing out the double standard.

Answer 4

Because of the fact that is one of the few cases when an unborn baby can be protected. Hopefully it will be possible in all cases soon. It is a sick thing that a so-called "society" cares more about saving the whales and forests than about protecting babies.

Answer 5

hey there, lucid...good question! what if the woman was on her way to a clinic to have an abortion...would the defense be able to use that as a 'mitigating factor' at trial?
here's something that i find a little 'unsettling'...when people like 'tool' go into the voting booth, their vote counts as much as yours...that answer chilled me-is 'the eugenics movement' making a comeback?

Answer 6

I feel the same way. If the mother of the fetus dosent want it,they shouldent be looked down on for it by any one ,right.

Answer 7

That's a very interesting point. I'm pro-choice, and what you say is absolutely right. So, I think that killing a pregnant woman should be no worse than killing anyone else.

Answer 8

"An abortion is a sacrifice to the god of Self."

There are better ways...

http://www.lutheransforlife.org

Find a Loving Family for Your Baby

http://www.goldencradle.org/birthfamily.htm

Answer 9

Yea, I think its more a convenience thing and people are for trying to get someone behind bars for as many crimes as possible.

Answer 10

It is the same reason that many prolifers agree with the death penalty. It may be that there is no such thing as a moral absolute.