Why is it that if a person murders a pregnant woman he/she is charged for two first degree murders (assuming that the unborn child dies as well) but if a woman were to get an abortion, she is not charged with murder?

I can understand that a woman has a right to her own body and everything but...

... *sigh*... one of life's long mysteries...

I think the individual is only charged with two murders if the pregnancy is beyond a certain point, after an abortion is permitted.

I see. It still doesn't make sense to me. No matter the circumstance, there is still life in the womb.

That's the never-ending debate. That's why you have pro-life and pro-choice people.

That's the never-ending debate. That's why you have pro-life and pro-choice people.

Lol I think you can tell which one I am

Legally this one is actually easier than one knows.

1. by strict law, murder and killing of any kind was controlled under state law. Thus each state in the US made and had their own laws for execution, for murder, for man slaughter and for the killing of the fetus abortion.

2. This is a very strong states rights issue ( one of the reasons for the civil war) but as things and time goes on, the Federal government gets more powerful and stronger, and though the supreme court starts limited the power and laws of the states.

3. So they change rulings on how people can be executed, and though several cases limited the states right to pass laws on abortion. States still have some rights, such as which trimester and some restrictions on medical procedures used, and if state funds will be used to pay for it.

4. But the Federal government has never tried to limit the laws on murder and still allow each state to decide their own laws.


So this is a issue of states right and the right of the people to vote and pass their own laws governing them. For those like myself that believe in state rights, we believe it is not the federal governments right to restrict states in passing their own laws. To those that want strong federal government rule of society, they want the government to control the states.

So actually the reaso they have this is not pro life or not it is actually who is pro state right or not. This has to do with a lot more than just this one issue, but everything from seat belt laws ( forced on states by the feds) to gun rights and more

Wow! Thanks Fr_Chick! So basically it was depedning on the state at first but now the government is controlling all states with one abortion/murder law? Sorry, I was never good with government stuff.

State or government, it still doesn't seem moraly right to me.

Hello beautiful:

Murder is still a state law. When Roe v Wade was decided, the feds took away the states right to charge someone with murder if they killed their baby by aborting it. But, if the baby was killed another way, the perp can be charged with murder.

Yea, it doesn't make sense to me either. A fetus IS, or ISN'T a being that can be murdered.

I do, however, believe in a woman's right to control her own body. Perplexing, isn't it?

I'm a guy who has a side on EVERYTHING. I don't on this one.

excon

Thank you Exon for your input. Much appreciated here!

I believe that from the day the baby is conceived, that is a human being. A lot of people don't consider the fetus an actual human to so many months. I think it is like between 1 and 2 months. I don't know. The baby has a heartbeat by 6 weeks... isn't that something? And yet some people don't even consider that a human! ER! The nerve...

I believe that from the day the baby is concieved, that is a human being. A lot of people don't consider the fetus an actual human to so many months. I... The baby has a heartbeat by 6 weeks...isn't that something?! And yet some people don't even consider that a human! ER! The nerve.....

I know I shouldn't jump into this but I'm going to.

The BELIEF that life begins at conception is more a relgious belief then scientific fact. You are entitled to believe that if you wish, but you do not have the right to impose that belief on others.

That a fetus has a heartbeat is absolutely no proof of life. The heart is a muscle that can continue beating even after (or before) all other signs of life exist. At 6 weeks the fetus cannot survive if removed from the womb.

It is the belief of when life begins that is the core of the debate over whether abortion is murder or not.

But I do agree it's a slippery slope to charge someone who kills a pregnant woman with 2 counts of murder. I believe that such a charge would have to be made during the third trimester. But even if not, I believe the justification here comes under the purview of felony murder. For example, if someone robs a bank then runs someone down while escaping, they could be charge with felony murder rather than vehicular manslaughter. In an abortion there is a voluntary termination of the pregnancy, whereas murdering the mother is involuntary. So the logic is that the termination of the fetus occurred as part of the commission of a different crime and can, therefore, be classified as murder.

Good answer, Scott.

As far as the murder/abortion debate--I actually looked this up not too long back.

No one has been charged with murder of a fetus along with the murder of the mother UNLESS the fetus was viable outside of the mother's body. In most cases, this is after the 13 week mark most states use as the limit for an abortion to happen in the first place.

So essentially--NO ONE is being charged with murder if it happens in the first 13 weeks. After that, the ONLY abortions that happen are those for medical reasons, as it is illegal without a court order at that point.

A sperm and an egg are living things. They are life. When they join, that is life.

I don't want to argue over this because I know what your thoughts are with this ScottGem.

I don't know where you got that idea that life after conception is considered more religious.

Sorry BB, but I don't know where you get the idea that its not. I think you need to do some more research on this issue. When life begins has always been a controversial issue and is at the core of the abortion issue. Anti-abortionists maintain that life begins at conception and generally cite biblical passages to support that. Many of those who support abortion rights believe that life begins only when the fetus can survive outside the womb.

Of course life starts "STARTS" at conception, since without conception there is no life. The issue is just that not really when it starts, but when the child can live outside of the womb. So there was no real debate on this until the idea of killing the child was developed. So there was a magic time picked to justify the killing. We seem similar justifications, the Germans did not see Jews as worthy of living, so it was OK to kill them, white extremists did not see blacks worthy of being considred human, so they killed them and made slaves out of them.
So pro choice ( which is a joke since they really do'n't want a choice) just see the baby as a life worth saving. It is just a age, I often wonder when it will be 6 months after birth, to allow to cull out defects and so on.

Many of those who support abortion rights believe that life begins only when the fetus can survive outside the womb.

Im sorry Scott but that point of view is sickening. If that pro choice belief were ture, then what the heck is growing inside a woman than? Is that not life?

*Sigh* ScottGem, you always have a long explanation for supporting both sides of a conflict. I want to know what your belief is. When do you think life starts? And what do you think about my thread. I want to hear your beliefs. Please!

Of course life starts "STARTS" at conception, since without conception there is no life. The issue is just that not really when it starts, but when the child can live outside of the womb. So there was no real debate on this untill the idea of killing the child was developed. So there was a magic time period picked to justify the killing. We seem simular justifications, the Germans did not see Jews as worthy of living, so it was ok to kill them, white extremists did not see blacks worthy of being considred human, so they killed them and made slaves out of them.
So pro choice ( which is a joke since they really do'n't want a choice) just see the baby as a life worth saving. It is just a age, I often wonder when it will be 6 months after birth, to allow to cull out defects and so on.

What do you mean with your last sentence?

This is an excellent excerpt from a science text about human life, and all points of view regarding when it begins. It's long, and kind of laden with scientific terms at points, but it's very interesting. It discusses not only present lines of thinking, but also those in the past (such as the Romans).

Developmental Biology 8e Online: When Does Human Life Begin? (http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?id=162)

So pro choice ( which is a joke since they really do'n't want a choice) just

That just goes to show that you haven't a clue what pro choice is about. You are so adamantly anti-abortion thatyou don'teven try to understand any other point of view.

I am pro-choice. I am not pro-abortion and would not counsel anyone to take that option. But I don't feel that I have the right to impose my feelings on others. That each woman has the right to make their own decision. So yes, pro-choice is very much about choice.

What is a joke is the misnomer pro-life. Self-proclaimed pro-lifers care little if anything about life. They are mostly religious zealots who would see a return to the days of kitchen table abortions. They care only that the fetus survives, not the type of life it might have or the life of the mother.


Many of those who support abortion rights believe that life begins only when the fetus can survive outside the womb.

Im sorry Scott but that point of view is sickening. If that pro choice belief were ture, then what the heck is growing inside a woman than? Is that not life?

*Sigh* ScottGem, you always have a long explanation for supporting both sides of a conflict. I want to know what your belief is. When do you think life starts? And what do you think about my thread. I want to hear your beliefs. Please!

I'm sorry BB, but while you may find it sickening many, many others don't, including me. A fetus is a potential life, but its is not a life until it can survive outside the womb.

If you're going to debate when "life" starts, and call it conception, arguing that an arbitrary cut off point was made---why is it "arbitrarily" at conception? Why not the component parts, of sperm and egg?

Then men couldn't masturbate without being "killers", and every month a woman isn't already pregnant, she's murdering!

Oh, and hey---birth control! My god! You're killing every time you pop that pill! And every time you stop those little swimmers with a condom!

Ooooh... can you charge a miscarried fetus with suicide then? I mean, it DID abort itself! And have insurers deny benefits because suicide is illegal, so that all medical fees incurred with a miscarriage aren't covered?

The anti-quality-of-life people (anti-abortionists) are as "arbitrary" as the pro-choice movement. To me, a clump of cells becomes a "person" when they are able to be separate from their mother.

AND--I'm trying to conceive. I'd give an awful lot to have a baby. But--I wouldn't give up the right for another woman to choose, I wouldn't build my happiness on the ruins of someone else's life--someone forced to give birth because someone ELSE decided for them.

Choice is choice. Regardless WHAT you choose, at that point, you live with it for the rest of your life. Until you actually stand in the shoes of a woman facing an unwanted pregnancy, you have NO idea what you're talking about.

And the whole idea that every woman who chooses abortion is a slut who didn't use birth control is so fallacious it's not even funny. Every woman I know that got an abortion did so because of serious life issues--abuse, rape, and medical problems are actually good reasons NOT to be forced to carry a child to term. And for those people who push adoption in the case of rape because it's "not the baby's fault!"--why don't you just pile trauma on top of trauma for a woman who didn't even CHOOSE to have sex?

Even with consent to have sex--birth control FAILS. You wouldn't deny someone who went skiing and broke a leg medical treatment. They knew the risks! They should be forced to live with a broken leg the rest of their life! Why deny a woman who took reasonable precautions the right to medical treatment? Consenting to sex is NOT consenting to pregnancy, no more than consenting to going swimming is consenting to live in the water the rest of your life.

For those that claim that it's used as birth control--well, yes. With every activity there is in the world, there is someone who abuses it. Perhaps we should have no more priests, because SOME priests use it as a way to indulge their pedophilia? Or no more alcohol, because SOME people drink and drive and kill people!

Why take the choice from ALL because of the actions of the FEW?

What it comes down to--if you feel that more unwanted children should be brought into the world--adopt a 12 year old who has been sexually abused. Adopt a 7 year old who was born addicted to crack. Take 3 kids out of the foster system. Three UNWANTED, TROUBLED children, not toddlers and infants.

Or.. if we're taking the choice away from women--why not take the choice from everyone? Sterilize every 10th person. The world is overcrowded anyway! If you can't choose NOT to have kids, then you shouldn't be able to choose to HAVE kids!

What's that you say? You can't take away a person's RIGHT to have children? But... why can you take away their OTHER reproductive rights then? If you can censor ONE aspect of reproductive rights, you can censor them ALL. I vote we start with anyone who already has more than 3 kids, or is currently on welfare!

Why is it that if a person murders a pregnant woman he/she is charged for two first degree murders (assuming that the unborn child dies as well) but if a woman were to get an abortion, she is not charged with murder?

I can understand that a woman has a right to her own body and everything but...

...*sigh*...one of life's long mysteries...

This is a very good question.

The question of what defines life or what constitutes being human is false.

2 centuries ago certain races where not considered a whole human. We knew then and know now that was wrong. We know that a fetus is a living human being.

We know that "they can't survive outside the womb" philosophy is wrong.
Why are parents and hospitals and professionals trying to keep < 1 kg neonates alive, or on the opposite end why are those same people putting dying people on ventilators?
Why don't we as a society let these people just die? We don't because we know that they have a chance at LIFE even if the quality or the odds of surving are not great.




When life begins is not just a religious stance but also a SCIENTIFIC stance. Here are some examples:


"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."

[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]


"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote). ... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual." (Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology, 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p.3.)



"the term conception refers to the union of the male and female pronuclear elements of procreation from which a new living being develops. It is synonymous with the terms fecundation, impregnation and fertilization ... The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life." (J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Freidman. Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Publishers, pages 17 and 23.)


"Although human life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed. ... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."

(O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology and Teratology, 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29).

Sorry, Inthebox, but the people those quotes are from may "know" those things, but what all that really means is that they BELIEVE them. In many of those quotes, it refers to conception or fertilization as the STARTING POINT of life, but that doesn't mean it's a viable life. In fact it is possible for a fetilized egg to not attach itself to the uterine wall and therefore not develop. The mother might never even know that she miscarried.
I could find, if I looked quotes that support the opposite position. So what I said initially still holds; that when life begins remains a controversial issue. And to impose one groups beliefs on another is wrong.

There is no universally agreed upon "start" of life. If anyone read the link I posted, it goes into this at the end, and explains all the points of view. Here's a summary:


The metabolic view: There is no one point when life begins. The sperm cell and egg cell are as alive as any other organism.

The genetic view: A new individual is created at fertilization. This is when the genes from the two parents combine to form an individual with unique properties.

The embryological view: In humans, identical twinning can occur as late as day 12 PC. Such twinning produces two individuals with different lives. Even conjoined ("Siamese") twins can have different personalities. Thus, a single individuality is not fixed earlier than day 12. (In religious terms, the two individuals have different souls). Some medical texts consider the stages before this time as "pre-embryonic." This view is expressed by scientists such as Renfree (1982) and Grobstein (1988) and has been endorsed theologically by Ford (1988), Shannon and Wolter (1990), and McCormick (1991), among others. (Such a view would allow contraception, "morning-after" pills, and contragestational agents, but not abortion after two weeks.)

The neurological view: Our society has defined death as the loss of the cerebral EEG (electroencephalogram) pattern. Conversely, some scientists have thought that the acquisition of the human EEG (at about 27 weeks) should be defined as when a human life begins. This view has been put forth most concretely by Morowitz and Trefil (1992). (This view and the ones following would allow mid-trimester abortions).

The ecological/technological view: This view sees human life as beginning when it can exist separately from its maternal biological environment. The natural limit of viability occurs when the lungs mature, but technological advances can now enable a premature infant to survive at about 25 weeks gestation. (This is the view currently operating in many states. Once a fetus can be potentially independent, it cannot be aborted.)

The immunological view: This view sees human life as beginning when the organism recognizes the distinction between self and non-self. In humans, this occurs around the time of birth.

The integrated physiological view: This view sees human life as beginning when an individual has become independent of the mother and has its own functioning circulatory system, alimentary system, and respiratory system. This is the traditional birthday when the baby is born into the world and the umbilical cord is cut.


inthebox seems to agree with the genetic view. Scott seems to agree with the ecological/technological view. There is no one point of view. That's why we're not all in agreement! :)

Sorry, Inthebox, but the people those quotes are from may "know" those things, but what all that really means is that they BELIEVE them. In many of those quotes, it refers to conception or fertilization as the STARTING POINT of life, but that doesn't mean its a viable life. In fact it is possible for a fetilized egg to not attach itself to the uterine wall and therefore not develop. The mother might never even know that she miscarried.
I could find, if I looked quotes that support the opposite position. So what I said initially still holds; that when life begins remains a controversial issue. And to impose one groups beliefs on another is wrong.


Well why don't you find the opposite quotes?

Oh and the science proves it - ever see one of those fancyy 3d ultrasounds of the fetus?

Why don't you look that up and tell me if a fetus with a beating heart and movement is not human or not life?

I'm not imposing my views.


Just stating them and pointing out the facts and the actual science.


People can look up the reality and make their own decision.


How about this : a person is in a motor vehicle accident and suffers multiple traumatic injuries neccessitating mechanical ventilation to maintain life supporting oxygen levels in the blood.

They are not "viable" without a "machine " supporting them. Would you just not try to help them? Or let them die?

Slaves were not considered human or less than human. Do you think it right that the abolitionists "impose" their views?

Inthebox, I refer you to Jillian's posts and the link she gave.

Your analogies just don't hold water. As to the accident victim, if the only thing keeping them alive is a machine AND there is no hope of recovery from their injuries then yes I would let them die. As for slaves, the facts are reality were they were human.

I've reviewed the facts and the actual science and I do not believe that life begins at conception. But I don't believe I have the right to impose my view on others. But anti-abortionists want to impose their beliefs. They want to eliminate the ability of the individual to choose for themselves because they believe that abortion is murder.

From what I heard what they use to distinguish is
The mother WANTED the baby
Vs
The mother didn't want the baby

When machines are keeping people alive we have the right to "pull the plug". When someone is brain dead, we consider them dead; a fetus is brain dead until 22 weeks or so.

Just stirrin' the pot...

:)

"Right to choose" I always see that as right to kill, and it is only a right because 4 men choose to rule that way, it is not really a right, it is a law. There are many universal rights, and one of those were the right to life as described in the US Constitution

And I do understan the idea of abortion, it has been used as a form of birth control lately with no respect for the life they are creating

As for as my comment on culling, I see abortion as a slipperly slope that will lead to less respect for human life, so I don't see a reason for it to stop at this but lead to what we have already seen, partial birth abortions
( which is the worst killing I can image) . So what is next, killing a 1 year old since it is decided he is mentally challenged or a 2 year old that ends up phsycially handicaped. Once a society starts showing no respect for human life it is just a matter of time

"Right to choose" I always see that as right to kill, and it is only a right because 4 men choose to rule that way, it is not really a right, it is a law. There are many universal rights, and one of those were the right to life as described in the US Constitution



You may see it a right to kill, but that's because you believe life begins at conception. Others don't see it that way. The Declaration of Independence endowed us with the rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Clearly, an unwanted pregnancy can inhibit the Pursuit of Happiness. So, if one doesn't consider a fetus a life, then it has yet to gain those rights, while the mother has them.

I understand what you are saying and I also am uncomfortable with the use of abortion as a form of birth control. But I strongly believe a woman has control over her body and such does have the right to choose what happens to it. Until the fetus can exist outside the womb it's a part of the women's body.

We all have different beliefs...

Like anything in life, I feel it is not my right to say someone has done wrong or is doing wrong.

Then I share what I believe, I do not mean matters of rape/incest/ or medical emergencies.

These are my beliefs that I follow:

When someone says a women has a right to do with her body as she chooses...

She most certainly does. That night, that morning prior to having relations. Once she has chosen to give of her body, she has made her choice that she has a right to.

The results of her choice may then begin to grow within her body. She has already exerised her right to choose that night or evening, now, it is my opinion from there on in, she is making a choice for the child inside of her, who does not get a vote.

That is my belief for me, but I in no way would hoist my belief on someone else. If they came to me PRIOR to ask for advice, the above is what I would share and do all I could to make her realize or be very sure of whatever choice she is going to make.

For those who base their choice for religious reasons, all you can do is share when asked, or help someone prior to the act.

Ultimately, God wants them to make their own choice, and does not make an exception to His loving desire, that we Judge not yeast not be judged.

I have never and hope to never be in a situation where a choice would need to be made.
I pray for all and feel for all those who have had to make that choice.

When machines are keeping people alive we have the right to "pull the plug". When someone is brain dead, we consider them dead; a fetus is brain dead until 22 weeks or so.

Just stirrin' the pot.....

:)


The difference is that fetus - if allowed to live and be born and raised - hopefully :) - won't be a brain dead adult.


An adult who has had anoxic brain damage due to, say a cardiac arrest of 30 minutes, does not have the same neurological prognosis.