I just thought of something. How come if you kill a pregnant woman with a growing fetus inside of her, the killer gets prosecuted for TWO murders, but if a woman aborts a fetus, it's suddenly not murder?
Probably because she intended to have it.
That's a really dumb reason.
I just thought of something. How come if you kill a pregnant woman with a growing fetus inside of her, the killer gets prosecuted for TWO murders, but if a woman aborts a fetus, it's suddenly not murder?
If a fetus dies because of what a women chooses to do to herself, it's the same as someone else deciding to kill the fetus.
Then how can abortion laws and and murder laws in regards to killing the fetus be any different by your own logic? If it's "the same" then they should either both be prosecuted for murdering the fetus, or neither of them prosecuted for killing it.
It's not the same, that was a typo.
Those laws are still horribly inconsistent is the point.
Federal and state law put in a lot of nuances for what counts and doesn't count as murder. The people who want simple black and white legal definitions for things don't have the burden of needing to run anything.
Would YOU consider it double homicide if someone killed a pregnant woman?
Not morally, but I have no sympathy for someone who killed a pregnant women getting two murder charges. Legally, I think it makes sense to make hurting pregnant women more punishable.
Legally that makes even less sense than morally, for the reasons we've already mentioned. Morally, why is it worse when someone kills a woman carrying a fetus, yet there's nothing wrong when the woman with the fetus kills it?
Just don't have an answer.
Ok, I got bored enough to read through half of this pointless thread so I may as well answer.Yikes. You don't even know how good of a parent you or the father will be, even if you are married and plan your child. Also, are you saying it's better if people who were subjected to abuse as kids were not ever born? Your child could be abused by a family member without your consent, your kid could be born with a defect, your child could be run over by a car. Everyone has crappy things happen in life.
This really has nothing to do with the abortion discussion, I just couldn't handle seeing that post stand without the other side being mentioned.
I'm not arguing abortion because it's pointless, a waste of energy that would be better spend arguing that (for instance) the government should subsidize birth control and education. I just wanted to explain my post since apparently it seems unreasonable (???).
^ This is my thinking, on the authority aspect. I'll put my two cents in here anyways.
Even if someone is against abortion, having abortion available is a necessity, whether it is used or not. Women have a right to privacy, and women have a right to have a safe, sterile environment. I think the availability of abortion is not, and should never be, debatable. Only the belief in using those availabilities.
But who gets to define what life is? By permitting abortions, we have decided that it is not life, or at least not viable life. By outlawing them you are deciding it is and therefore constitutes murder. Do we just poll everyone? No. It comes down to someone arbitrarily deciding. That doesn't make it any more right than someone arbitrarily deciding whose life (which is not viable without support) matters most. (Terrie Shivo's husband didn't believe she was actually "living", while her parents did. It was ultimately decided by a judge, according to that judges information and personal beliefs.) In some cultures, handicapped people and the extremely sick or elderly didn't have lives that were considered worthy of supporting. I'm just saying that the reasoning of permitting one and outlawing another doesn't make any sense. It's not as easy as saying you don't want to impose your beliefs on others. No matter what happens, someone's beliefs will be imposed on the rest of the population and those beliefs do have societal consequences.