If abortion isn't murder then why does a criminal get charged with 2 murders for killing a pregnant woman. I understand that he took away her right to choose to abort the child but, isn't dead, dead? If the criminal just hurt the mother but killed the unborn child shouldn't he just be charged with assault? Why do the courts view an unborn child has a life criminally yet give a mother the right to terminate a pregnancy? Would it be the same has if she wanted to kill her 3 year old? It is HER child.
I understand the slippery slope we are treading on but hasn't precedent already been established? A mother can be institutionalized to protect an unborn child from her drinking yet, the mother can abort it?
2007-12-18 05:02:04 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yes, I am talking about in the US
2007-12-18 05:14:05 · update #1
Andrew, the amount of jail time should be the same has a criminal who killed the child.
2007-12-18 06:03:06 · update #2
Its a good demonsration of the double standard hypocrisy of the pro choice people. I have wondered the same question for years.
A Liberal friend of mine could only explain it by putting hate on the law enforcement community and court systems. But I think he was perplexed and hadnt ever thought of that before.
2007-12-18 05:11:42 · answer #1 · answered by Shoot-em-All 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
There's no confusion. It's all about intent, cause and effect. The mother didn't intend for the child to be killed within the womb, it is therefore not a legal abortion. The killer is then guilty of at least voluntary manslaughter. If the mother AND the child are killed, similarly, there was no intent by the mother to voluntarily terminate her child's life.
In the case of abortion, it's a legal procedure to terminate a pregnancy. While repugnant and fundamentally immoral, it is not illegal and is codified as a legal procedure. Therefore, the mother cannont be charged with a crime.
In the case of the mother killing her 3 year old, that is malice with intent. The child at that point is a totally viable human being.
2007-12-18 13:09:37 · answer #2 · answered by Mike 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You are confusing social policy with the legal right to choose abortion. These laws don't all come from the same place.
The criminal who kills a pregnant woman is rightfully charged with 2 murders, since, as you pointed out, she did not choose abortion. This legislation serves a legitimate purpose of deterring men from murdering women to avoid paying child support.
The court has not defined life as beginning at conception. Obviously, the 3 year old would be defined as living, by any standard.
Institutionalizing alcoholic or drug addicted pregnant women is social legislation. It is preventative, in that the social costs for a baby born addicted affect all of us.
2007-12-18 13:19:08 · answer #3 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the statute that allows a criminal to be charged with two murders for killing a pregnant woman was only passed in April of 2004, under the direction of the uber-conservatives, after the high-profile Laci Peterson case.
again, Robert, you fail to answer the question:
if abortion is murder, how much jail time should a woman who gets one serve?
edit: so you're on the record with the belief that women who get abortions should be imprisoned? does that apply to women who get one in order to survive?
2007-12-18 13:37:57 · answer #4 · answered by Andrew 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We all want the best for our offspring the choice is never given to a child to make the hard responsible decisions. It comes to the adult and in a society where all we see and act upon is sexual there must be room for error we are but human and we all make mistakes. Things happen and as a free thinking adult the most responsible decisions need to remain open.
2007-12-18 13:23:50 · answer #5 · answered by Pablo 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Abortion is murder, that's the truth. Abortion is a legal form of murder where a mother can choose to kill her baby. That's it. Yeah, it's a choice, people can be pro-choice all they want, their choice is murder.
2007-12-18 13:18:10 · answer #6 · answered by Pfo 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In all seriousness, I think it's due to the legal system having some dogma about the issue. I'd say it's right to be confused since the laws don't translate well in this circumstance. As far as why that is, I think it's due to the changing views on the subject during the times in which the laws were enacted.
2007-12-18 13:06:11 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
I don't think here in the UK that is the case. If the babies are unborn then it is treated as one murder of the pregnant woman. Are you from the States?
2007-12-18 13:13:21 · answer #8 · answered by Elizabeth L 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
A 14 yr old can get an abortion w/o parental notification in my state. But in order to give them a aspirin, their parents must give verbal consent. Pro- abortion groups have completely screwed up our laws.
2007-12-18 13:08:45 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Someone said if i give it life then i have the right to take it's life away and i think that is totally wrong you do not form that baby in you womb god does, and he is the only one with the power to give or take away life
2007-12-18 13:17:59 · answer #10 · answered by Whitley 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋