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.
If it's still in the womb, it does not have personhood. So one murder. You don't get a dependent tax deduction while you are pregnant, you have to wait until it is born.
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.
Money isn't a living being though so I don't think your example works. The reason why this question is so interesting is because the fetus is considered something different depending on who does the killing. If it is a third party killer, the fetus is a human being. If the mother is the killer, the fetus is a lump of flesh. Probably not since slavery has there been a similar situation with regard to killing.
For the record, I am pro-choice, though I find abortion to be disgusting. This particular obvious inconsistency in the law just really annoys me.
As I thought, it depends on the state as I have seen this come up more than once and the abortion advocates get all hot and bothered realizing that a human fetus (unborn young) is considered a "person". This negates their whole argument about human rights. Anyone that ends the life of a human is a murderer in my book.
There has been people convicted of double homicide when the killing of a pregnant woman. It depends on when the state recognizes the unborn fetus a actual person mostly in the last few months of gestation most states it will be a double homicide. Federal law does recognize unborn as a victim. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn...f_Violence_Act
Abortion isn't a factor in this because a homicide is use of force to kill. Abortion is a mothers choice I don't feel the 2 have anything to do with one another even though Anti Abortion groups would like it to be.
As CatTX said, the IRS does not consider a fetus as a person. It is not deductible on income taxes until it is born. This should therefore represent the federal position. The states should not be able to supersede.
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.
I could give two $hits about what the Supreme Court thinks. This country has all but been ruined by lawyers, they should be shunned to the edges of society.
Now, try to actually argue the point I was making...
The thing that people always forget is that if abortion is legal, that simply means a woman has a choice of whether or not to get an abortion. It does NOT mean that random people are going to be forced into having an abortion. If a woman is pregnant, you can probably assume she made a choice to have that baby. If someone murders that woman, then he is taking her choice away from her along with taking her life and yes, he should be charged with a double homicide.
If a woman is forced to have an abortion, then the person forcing her should also be charged with a homicide, a double homicide if the woman dies in the forced abortion. If the woman chooses to have an abortion on her own, it's her choice, and there shouldn't be any more discussion about it.
The laws making abortion legal are not about abortion per se. They're about a woman's right to do as she pleases with her body and to protect any choice she makes. Making abortion legal is making a woman's choice legal. So if a woman decided to have an abortion, she can't be forced to have a baby any more than a woman who wants to keep her baby can be forced to have an abortion. The same law covers both instances. Pro-lifers tend to confuse that issue and make it what it's not. It's an issue about choice, not an issue about abortion.
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.
