Defending the Truth

Why is abortion legal, but a man who kills a pregnant woman can be charged with two murders?
Quick scenario:

1. A man kills a pregnant woman.
charge: 2 murders

2. A man kills a pregnant woman on her way to the abortion clinic.
charge: 2 murders

3. A man kills a recently pregnant woman on her way home from the clinic.
charge: 1 murder

The same number of lives were taken in the same day, so why the extra charge? Does the intent of the mother define the validity of the fetus's life?

Because murder comes from an external source. A pregnant woman is making an internal choice.

I just started this one to stir the pot a little, and find out what others think about it. I don't really know how I feel about this, and I don't know if it's really possible for me to ever come up with a definite black and white answer.
I like hevusa's response, anyone else got any ideas on it?

I think this one is fairly simple. If a man kills a pregnant woman, he should be charged with 2 murders because he took 2 lives that were not his to take, regardless of where the woman is on her way to. He could not have possibly known what her intentions were. If he kills her after the procedure he took one life, so it's one charge of murder. Abortion IS legal. And it should stay that way.

I personally am morally opposed to abortion except for very rare cases. But this is America, it's not my place to chose what you can or can not do with your body. Plain and simple, the fetus hasn't come to term, then it's still a part of the mother. If the mother decides to remove the organism from her body, thus causing it's death, more power to her. Frankly I am a lot more concerned with religious right wing kooks than I am with women seeking abortions. Any one who is gonna try to tell me what I can and can not do is in for a rude awakening.

Thats just my opinion...

To some abortion will always be murder. I believe that Lacy's law is a good law, and should be enforced. Currently abortion is legal, but I hope that it will not continue to be that way.

I believe that life begins at conception, and as a society we are duty bound to protect those who cannot protect themselves. I have seen far too many fetuses that were spontaneously aborted (miscarriages). Some as little as 4 or 5 weeks old. Its weird how human they look, far from the mass of tissue so many claim......

dmk

Just a thought......Rarley in the debate of abortion does anyone speak of the great decay in personal responsibilty and accountability. No matter what the intent of the pro-choice agenda (and i do beleive that both sides of this debate have good intentions) the ramifications on the youth of our country is undeniable. It used to be that individuals knew the consequences of thier actions and knew that they would have to deal with them. To be a free people, does not and has never meant to be free of the consequences of ones chosen actions. If you have sex there is a chance of pregnancy, everybody knows this. If you really don't want to have a baby but must have sex, man+condom+woman+birth control=a very good chance nobody's getting pregnant. Honestly think about that for a minute, what do you think the statistics would show if we could actually measure the number of abortions attributed to only those who were on birth control and whose partner wore a condom. My guess, the number of abortions in this category would be very small. Why spend time debatng the morality of such an issue? Can anyone really make an argument against the obligation of each citizen to be responsible for thier own actions? Another bothersome aspect of abortion in my eyes is the lack of a choice on the part of the man. How long can we expect men to accept that a womans choice will determine the course of a mans life. For example, a man does have the choice to not be involved in his childs life but does not have the choice to aviod financial responsibilty. A woman can abort a baby because she can not afford to support the child, even if the man involved believes he could support the child. If the man believes he cannot support a child he has absolutley no choice. He can choose to be a part of the childs' life or not but that's it. His wages are garnished by the court if he chooses not to finacially support his child. We already have a problem with young men who make babies and let the women shoulder the burden, but has anyone stopped to think that this attitude could stem partially from the fact that these men have no choice and therefore feel they should bere no resonsability

sorry for spelling and typing errors, but i think you'll get my point