Somebody explain to me, how are all of these men (examples... Case 1; Case 2; Case 3; Case 4; Case 5) being prosecuted for the murders of these unborn babies, but under Roe vs. Wade and ensuing laws "In 2005 (the most recent year for which there is reliable data), approximately 1.21 million abortions took place in the U.S."(according to abort73.com) Obviously this is a double standard. I think that all murders should be treated as such, How about you?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Herein lies the issue with abortion: There is no clear consensus on when life begins, so there is no clear consensus on when abortion should be (or if it should ever be) considered murder.
There is a consensus, however, that when a person is out of the womb, they are living, and when their untimely death is put upon them by another (meditated), that IS murder.
Abortion is different. It's a tricky subject.
I generally try to stay away from politics b/c it just makes me mad. I don't really care which celebrity supports who, I only care about who I support, which I can't even tell you who I support because I don't really know anything about any of the candidates, since, like I said, I try to avoid politics at all costs!!!
Here's my thing... if you kill a pregnant woman, it is ruled a double homicide because the fetus, no matter how far developed it is, is considered a human life. but if you decide that you made a mistake and don't want the baby (i.e. use it as a form of birth control) you can legally kill it because it is not considered a human life.
double standard?
maybe a little.
Well, they all involve the death of the mother. If your stupid enough to murder 1 person, why not give em' a double whammy?
Actually, this situation was handled differently in a case described here. I agree that the cases you brought up don't make sense. My guess would be that the people deciding to prosecute for the death of the fetus disagree with Roe v. Wade, though, in other words, it might not be the same people playing both sides.
Actually J19, Your story is not quite what I was aiming for, but I think it helps my point. I am trying to point out the double standard which exists between prosecuting people for the death of an unborn child, but not prosecuting women who "choose" to kill their unborn babies. I think that in all fairness it should be set that either no one, or everyone should be prosecuted for what is the same crime under different names.
Can't really stand up for murders.
I know this is an old post, but I'd like to offer my moral understanding of abortion. The difference is in the case of a murder, it is generally assumed that the mother wanted to keep the child, and thus HER decision was infringed upon by a killer.
What happens to the fetus should be up to the carrier, as it is her body that must endure the discomfort of pregnancy. If she and her partner expressed any intent to prevent said pregnancy (ie utilized some form of reasonably reliable birth control) then she has consciously expressed her desire to not carry a fetus.
The argument that it is a potential human life does not stand, otherwise it is immoral for women to menstruate. Also every time a man ejaculates, only one of fifty to five hundred million sperm cells fertilizes the egg (on rare occasions (multiple births) very few more. The remaining millions will die, but are still potential humans. And what about clones? We have the technology to clone humans, but so far I have only heard the conservative right argue that that would be immoral. Why? Clones are potential human life, too.
Back on track here, the argument that sexual intercourse is for the production of offspring is invalid, as humans are social creatures. Sexual intercourse and the rituals we have attached to the act, serve as an intense exchange of emotional and psychological affection.
It is also invalid to argue that a woman may not abort a fetus because sex always has a risk of pregnancy.
Every time you go driving there is a risk that you might get in an accident and be severely injured. If you get in an accident and are bleeding profusely you wouldn't accept those consequences, and say, "I deserved this, because I knew it could happen when I decided to go out driving," and wait to bleed out.
And as for ending a human life: If you woke up one day to find that an organization had hooked you up to some person in a medical facility so that the patient could benefit from the use of your heart, your lungs, your everything, for nine months while he recovered from some ailment, would you sit by and accept it?
What about when the doctors told you you couldn't eat or drink certain things?
Or do certain activities?
How about when your body starts reacting to the metabolic stresses of caring for another human life that you wanted no part of?
The situation in this scenario is that should you choose to not allow this person to parasitically use your body, he will die. What would you do?
Is it immoral to allow that person to die?
Post a Comment