If abortion is legal, then how come countries that allow it consider killing a fetus a murder ?
If abortion is legal then we should assume that fetus is not a human. But in countries like Canada killing a pregnant woman is two murders while abortion in any time of pregnancy is not a murder, how come ?
The contest of the woman, being legal, and the medical procedure is not excuse neither a difference. So it is either both are murder or both are NOT.
Marc, perhaps you are too id**t to understand the question and put the answer "Not"
mnwomen you are a muppet, really ! Fetus is either human or not a human. If it is human then contesting to terminate the fetus life does NOT mean it is NOT murder.
If it is NOT human then killing it is NOT a murder.
No difference between the two situation, perhaps there is a difference only in your narrow and stupid imagination.
Billy, did you read something in my question implies that "Killing pregnant woman is not murder" ? It is a murder. But if abortion is allowed then killing a pregnant woman is murder to one person NOT two.
- Anonymous9 years agoFavorite Answer
Under Canadian law, a foetus is not a person until it is born. Thus abortion is not murder in the eye of the law. As for killing a pregnant women being considered two counts of murder, that legislation was never passed.
- DaverLv 79 years ago
<<If abortion is legal, then how come countries that allow it consider killing a fetus a murder ?>>
Just because something it legal doesn't mean it's right.
<<If abortion is legal then we should assume that fetus is not a human.>>
There's a reason you can't spell 'assume' without '***'.
People who assume too much end up making asses of themselves.
<<But in countries <snip> murder, how come?>>
Doesn't make sense, does it - and yet, there you are advocating people merely ASSUME the government is right!
<<The contest of the woman, being legal, and the medical procedure is not excuse neither a difference. So it is either both are murder or both are NOT. Right ?>>
<<Marc, perhaps you are too id**t to understand the question and put the answer "Not">>
Ad hominem attacks hurt your credibility.
Perhaps Marc, like me, doesn't see too much in the way of credibility when reading your question.
<<mnwomen you are <snip> is NOT murder.>>
The term "fetus" literally means "the young in the womb". The fetus IS a living human being. Life begins at conception, not birth nor some arbitrary point in between. Therefore, every abortion constitutes the murder of an unborn human being.
<<If it is NOT human then killing it is NOT a murder.>>
But the fetus IS human. Therefore, abortion IS murder.
<<No difference between <snip> and stupid imagination.>>
What's so narrow minded about acknowledging the unborn for the living human beings they are? Since you're unable to do that, wouldn't that suggest your mind is in fact more narrow than mine?
<<Billy, did you <snip> person NOT two.>>
That just goes to show how schizophrenic human institutions can be - and you want to ASSUME such an institution (the government) is right.
- 5 years ago
I guess it depends on who's doing it. If a mother doesn't want the baby it's called abortion. If the mother wants the baby and is murdered, then it's murder. We kill little things all the time.. Ants, bugs, fish.. But the bigger they get the more socially unacceptable it is. If someone came over to my house and I was stepping on dogs like I would ants, I would be arrested.Source(s): The inside of my brain
- northernhickLv 79 years ago
T is right: Your premise is flawed. And the proposed legislation in Canada was controversial for exactly the reason you put forward - it seemed inconsistent with the "born alive" rule.
Of course, we can achieve the same policy objectives without going down that road. Clearly, abortion is a choice for the mother to make; if an assault and battery causes a pregnancy to terminate, we can treat that offence as harshly as we want to without needing to characterize the foetus as a person.
...under Canadian law, you achieve legal personhood at birth, but you achieve it retroactively, meaning that if somebody assaults your mother and causes you injury in utero, you might be able to achieve a remedy for it if you survive to be born. Your mother, however, is shielded from liability against you, meaning that if your mother causes a car accident while pregnant, and you suffer significant injury and became disabled as a result, you cannot sue your mother (and therefore you can't recover from her insurer).
So it wouldn't be so earth-shattering to treat the wrongful acts of a third party differently from acts of the mother.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 3 years ago
Eating an egg is not the same thing at all. The eggs we eat are not fertilized. That fact is the same reason human women menstrate, they're expelling their unfertilized egg because without being fertilized and on its way to produce a baby, it has no reason to stay in the body. Chickens expel their eggs either way, but chickens that are purposed to make eggs for human consumption are kept away from males who are able to fertilize the eggs. That is why you very rarely find any sign of future life in your breakfast.
- 6 years ago
I so sick of this crap. Who frickin cares? Not your fetus, not your decision, end of argument. You morons feel entitled by your religion to shove your views down the rest of the world's throat.
Not everyone believes as you believe.
And hey, if you're right, I guess they'll pay for it in the afterlife. Until then, shut the hell up.
- 9 years ago
Im just going to put something out there before i answer your question, i believe women should be allowed to have an abortion depending on how long they have been pregnant. Just as your not old enough to give consent for sex under 16 your also not mature enough to decide whether or not to abort a baby(baby cannot be aborted). And maybe it is for the better when doctors tell you that your child is going to be born with severe mental disabilities and will never live a normal life.
To your question, killing a pregnant woman is like killing two people because there is a developing human being in the womb. And having an abortion is also killing a developing human being but it is intentional and the decision is made by the parent/s (not a murderer), making it more acceptable although still frowned upon by society. They are both taking a life except one is "murdering" and one is making a severe and questionable decision.
- 9 years ago
You are correct that two counts of murder have been filed for a pregnant woman's death (see articles below). These are just a few of the articles that I found doing a quick search on Yahoo. Yet, ironically, it's legal in this country for a woman to murder her own unborn child. The fact that abortion is legal in this country goes to show that the average American is a complete f*cking idiot. You will also like this article: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/planned-...
- 9 years ago
I suppose the basis of the argument is that the mother is responsible for the life and death of her foetus, or in effect it is her choice, by law, if it lives or dies. When somebody murders them both it is obviously not the mother's choice for her foetus to die, and therefore considered murder. However I'm not sure why if the mother is targeted and the foetus dies it is not considered man slaughter of the foetus.
- 5 years ago
Abortion is not right if u agree with it u should have been aborted