Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As with abortion, I assume it depends on when the fetus is viable.
Can't babies still be killed when they are viable as long as they are still in the womb?
Killing the mother is murder, killing the baby is destruction of property, up until the moment the mother is no longer allowed to abort it. It some cases that even includes during labor, in jurisdictions where partial birth abortion is legal.
If abortion is legal than there is no logical way that killing a pregnant woman can be considered two murders. But we live in an illogical world where feminists want to have it both ways.
I see what you are saying; however, the woman chooses to have an abortion. In the case of murdering the mother and her unborn child, that is not in the same category of abortions being legal.
Can't babies still be killed when they are viable as long as they are still in the womb?
Killing the mother is murder, killing the baby is destruction of property, up until the moment the mother is no longer allowed to abort it. It some cases that even includes during labor, in jurisdictions where partial birth abortion is legal.
I dont know the law but abortion is generally allowed to around the 24 week mark. I would think that is what the law would go by in such cases.
I saw a true crime show last night where a husband killed his pregnant wife. He was tried and convicted of killing one person. His sentence was 2nd degree murder for some reason and he got life in prison. But it seems he should have been convicted of killing two people since the child that she was carrying was a person. Right? Although an unborn person. It only seems right. However that seems to crash in the face of the supreme court decision on abortion which states that a fetus isn't a person until it is born(I think). It wasn't even considered in court whether or not it was two people that were murdered.
I think the most rational solution would be to evaluate the state abortion laws. To my knowledge, most states prohibit it after a certain amount of time, except is extreme circumstances. So, let's say abortions are illegal after 3 months. If that's how long the pregnancy has gone on for, then it should be a double homicide. If it's been two weeks (which I think every state would allow an abortion after only 2 weeks) then it would be most consistent with the law to only consider it one murder. Though you could add an additional charge of aborting a pregnancy against the will of the mother.
If abortion is legal than there is no logical way that killing a pregnant woman can be considered two murders. But we live in an illogical world where feminists want to have it both ways.
You are ignoring the issue of consent. If a woman is murdered and her fetus dies, she did not consent to the act that lead to both deaths and depending on the jurisdiction the killer could be charged with two counts of murder.
If I take some of my own money, place it in a fireplace and burn it, no crime took place. If you take the same money from me without my consent and burn it, you would be charged with a crime.
It is completely logical if you actually think about it absent a political agenda.
Correct. Logically either an unborn human is a person or it isn't a person, and killing that human (except in self-defense) is either murder or it isn't murder.
Well, in the case of abortion, it's often a woman balancing her own body's needs versus a potential person who currently is in a parasitic relationship. A more extreme comparison would be, if I fail to run into the street and push a child away from the path of an oncoming truck, have I committed murder by omission? A woman who ceases providing for a fetus is not necessarily the same as a person shooting her.
Having said that, I don't think murder is applicable, but I do think that an attack on a fetus by a third party is some sort of crime. I'm imagining a crazy jealous person assaulting a pregnant woman in an attempt to forcibly abort the pregnancy, or something. That should not be equivalent to slugging a dude's abs in a bar.
As with abortion, I assume it depends on when the fetus is viable.
Nope, it's either a person or it isn't. It either has DNA or it doesn't. If it's a person at 9 months, then it's a person at 8.5 months, and a person at 8 hours. It's not subjective, it's either a person or it isn't.
Nope, it's either a person or it isn't. It either has DNA or it doesn't. If it's a person at 9 months, then it's a person at 8.5 months, and a person at 8 hours. It's not subjective, it's either a person or it isn't.
That is not how the supreme court views abortion. There is a gestational cutoff dependent on the point at which the fetus is viable outside the womb then abortion becomes illegal. Why would it be different when considering the murder of the host. If you murder a pregnant woman 12 weeks along the fetus would not survive anyway, if you murder her at 24 weeks the fetus could survive outside the womb, if it dies you essentially have murdered two.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
