Perhaps some one can answer a question I have been pondering for years. How is it that 1. A parent 'kills '

Question

A young child, that parent / person is charged with murder?
2. If a 'criminal kills a pregnant woman, the killer is charged with 'double' or two murders.
3. A mother causes the death of an unborn child, she is NOT charged with anything criminal.
Please, can anyone supply an intelligent answer to my question? I am highly confused, within my own mind, about this murder, double murder, and yet abortion is o.k. 'double standard' thing.
I seldom get into this category, so if this is a question that has asked before, please forgive my entering into this category, uninformed.
Thanks, I'M HERE

Answer 1

I am truly sorry about the state of legal affairs here in America.
Legal decisions are based on political bias more than they are on logic and fact.
The pro-abortion group has argued that a "fetus" is not an individual and that a "fetus" cannot live outside of the mother's bodily life support system. It is therefor a type of parasite.
HOW FOOLISH AND IGNORANT! (Or a deliberately self-centered, selfish, specious argument.)
Soon after a sperm and egg join, the DNA patterns supplied by both the mother and the father combine and become a NEW individual and unique pattern. From that moment onward, the developing human being IS an individual AND it is HUMAN!
That is irrefutable FACT!
The pro-abortion group argues that killing an infant, developing, human person is okay because it cannot live if it is removed from the life support system of the mother.
I ask, if an astronaut were ejected from his space ship, or if a submariner were ejected from the sub at 600 feet below sea level without special survival equipment, would THEY live? Would deliberately ejecting them without just cause be considered MURDER?
Thank you for asking this question. It deserves thoughtful answers.

Answer 2

What you are exploring is a complicated issue, but you knew that already when you asked this question.

The fundamental difference between murder and abortion is subjective - meaning, that it is something which is defined by each person, as opposed to a uniform standard that can be pointed to and all can agree on. Abortion in the U.S. is legal, and it is so because a fetus is considered part of a woman's body - if you'd have a wart removed, that's altering your body; if you have an abortion, that's altering your body. In the eyes of the law, the two are the same.

Whatever your ethical or religious views are, the law really doesn't care - it does not exist to make what you consider "right" into what is legal...and a variety of "do-gooder" politicians have found that out when they try to do just that.

So back to your question: It's not a double-standard, because where abortion is concerned it is a conscious decision by the mother to terminate the pregnancy. That, legally speaking, is not murder. If someone kills the fetus without the mother's consent, THAT would be murder. Again, it comes down to choice.

Answer 3

The abortion supporters deny that a fetus is a "human being" ! They reject the common sense of the birth cycle of a " human being", which is 9 months . Once the process of insemination is complete , and when the egg is fertilized and splits , starting the process of the development of a "human being embryo" that requires a 9 month cycle to complete the "human being" growth and birth process ; then the pro-abortionist , according to them ; say that up to a certain amount of weeks the fetus is not human ! Common and Moral sense will tell anyone with an iota of a brain that a life that is in process , then is stopped from progressing to the full term of the birth cycle , and therefore preventing the birth by the un-natural act of abortion of the completed "human being" before the 9 months of the development period is up is murder ! Basically what pro-abortionist are saying is that in their eyes , there is no starting point for a "human beings" life to begin , unless they determine it ! So , what the abortionist are saying is that anything that has a life cycle , and has started the birth to maturity process ; in doesn`t matter ,it is not alive ! As an example if one plants a seed in the ground for a plant to grow , a few weeks later one may rip that budding plant out of the ground , as the bud is not a plant yet and it does not exist according to the abortionist therory, then where do all the other plants that were allowed to grow through to full term until their full maturity date , where did these plants come from ? It is as a "bud" that is planted and growing that the abortionist say they don`t exist as a life in process , then why do we have any plants at all if as buds , they don`t exist , then what they will grow to be if they are allowed too if their beginning doesn`t exist ? Same applys to the "human being" , if an embryo isn`t a "human being" in process , then where in Gods` name do the abortionist think they came from in they had no beginning ??

Answer 4

If the Mother does something to the baby while in her womb, I believe she can be charged with murder, now if a medical doctor says that the
mother's life is in danger, or in a matter of rape and incest, then that baby can be aborted. Abortion is legal, so the courts are between a rock
and a hard place!

Answer 5

basically while the beer Volcano gets Stael and the strippers all have STDs as long as even some strippers have not got STDs there is wish! do not supply up Asif! there is allot left to stay for, forget approximately love merely attempt to get some random sexy and be delighted with that, a clever guy named Denis Leary as quickly as reported, "happiness is offered in small doses, its a chocolate chip cookie, a drag from a cigarette, and a three 2nd orgasm, that's it!" ok i'm not being entire severe right here, I do have self assurance in deeper happiness, yet at circumstances like that, merely ditch the tousled guy or woman, kick the dirt of your boots and fee forward to the whore domicile or what ever grants temporary excitement for a whilst, rattling the implications! ok i'm unsure what i'm speaking approximately yet i think of there's a element right here someplace, i think of what i'm attempt to assert is do not placed all your chips on one persons forget approximately the succubus and stay unfastened for a whilst

Answer 6

on your third question a mother can be charged with causing the death of her child in womb if she does something to it at an age in development that the fetus is now viable..i believe the standard judgement of that is 26 weeks
for example a woman drank so much alcohol (in her 8th month) that it killed her baby in womb and that woman was charged with murder

Answer 7

Because according to the law, a woman controls her own uterus. Decisions she makes about it are a right of privacy guaranteed by the constitution. If there is a fetus in her uterus she has a right to terminate it.

You are not allowed to terminate a fetus that is in someone else's uterus, because you do not a a right to control someone else's uterus.

Once the child is born and no longer in the uterus, a woman can no longer determine its fate.

I hope that simple explanation makes it clearer to you.

Answer 8

Apparently you don't have any rights until you come out of the womb.