The abortion thread got me thinking about this.....

 

Let's say a pregnant woman is driving down the road, and gets hit by a drunk driver. Her and the baby die. The drunk driver will be charged with 2 counts of vehicular manslaughter (for the record, I agree with the charge). That said, if said same woman, wanted to abort the child, that is kosher. WHY? Isn't that hypocritical of our legal process?

It is extremely hypocritical. A human being is a human being regardless of who does the killing.

Agreed.

Isaiah 44:2

Thus says the LORD who made you And formed you from the womb

The logic goes back to Roe v. Wade where the opinion reads that the "right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."

The abortion thread got me thinking about this.....

 

Let's say a pregnant woman is driving down the road, and gets hit by a drunk driver. Her and the baby die. The drunk driver will be charged with 2 counts of vehicular manslaughter (for the record, I agree with the charge). That said, if said same woman, wanted to abort the child, that is kosher. WHY? Isn't that hypocritical of our legal process?

 

 

Let's say she was on her way to the abortion clinic to kill the baby, and gets hit by a drunk driver and the baby dies.

In my opinion it is totally hypocritical. Murder is murder, period. Human life should be protected regardless of the stage, this includes pre-born, infants, children, toddlers, teens, middle age and seniors. The right to life should be protected. Pro-abortion and advocates want to argue that it is a woman's right to choose but what about the rights of the unborn baby she is carrying? Are they out the window?

In my opinion it is totally hypocritical. Murder is murder, period. Human life should be protected regardless of the stage, this includes pre-born, infants, children, toddlers, teens, middle age and seniors. The right to life should be protected. Pro-abortion and advocates want to argue that it is a woman's right to choose but what about the rights of the unborn baby she is carrying? Are they out the window?

As the law stands now - Yes.

Let's say she was on her way to the abortion clinic to kill the baby, and gets hit by a drunk driver and the baby dies.

Since no woman would ever own up that she was headed to an abortion clinic then this is probably a moot point.

Let's say she was on her way to the abortion clinic to kill the baby, and gets hit by a drunk driver and the baby dies.

 

Then she has to pay for the drunk's next binge out on the town. He just saved her a bunch of money.

As the law stands now - Yes.

 

Just because it is law does not make it right. In fact, that is exactly why I choose to vote for candidates that will most likely appoint conservative pro-life people to the courts. In that way Roe v Wade may have at least a chance of being over turned.

In my opinion it is totally hypocritical. Murder is murder, period. Human life should be protected regardless of the stage, this includes pre-born, infants, children, toddlers, teens, middle age and seniors. The right to life should be protected. Pro-abortion and advocates want to argue that it is a woman's right to choose but what about the rights of the unborn baby she is carrying? Are they out the window?

 

Just to play the Devil's Advocate, I assume then that you are opposed to the death penalty?

This is interesting. Is there any threshold for how far along in the pregnancy a woman is before the additional count of murder is added? Is life in this instance determined by the intention of the mother? Has this standard been challenged – has a defense argued that it should not count as an additional murder charge because the child is not legally alive?

This is interesting. Is there any threshold for how far along in the pregnancy a woman is before the additional count of murder is added? Is life in this instance determined by the intention of the mother? Has this standard been challenged – has a defense argued that it should not count as an additional murder charge because the child is not legally alive?

 

Kentucky and 17 other states recognize fetal homicide for the death of any fetus in utero, from conception forward. Other states have fetal homicide laws that define various stages of pregnancy as being homicide.

 

In 2004, President Bush signed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which recognizes as a homicide the killing of any fetus in utero from conception forward. It is being challenged as we speak.

 

Ketnucky's version actually has a first, second, third, and fourth degree element to it. They mirror the language from the murder statutes in many respect, substituting "unborn child." First degree fetal homicide is a capital offense; howver, a statute specifically excludes the death penalty as punishment. The statute obviously also excludes abortions as punishable by law.

 

Habib, this might be an interesting separate thread topic.

Just to play the Devil's Advocate, I assume then that you are opposed to the death penalty?

 

I find it interesting that everyone seems to think that people who are against abortion should automatically be against the death penalty. I am for the death penalty for heinous crimes. It is biblical. These people chose to commit the horrific crimes they did and if the devalue life so much that they think they can take it from someone else they deserve the same. I am against prolonged appeals that cost the tax payers money, once the verdict has been issued the punishment should come about as quickly as possible. On the other hand . . . the innocent baby in the womb hasn't even been given a chance for life. The comparison is apples and oranges in my opinion.