Why is it considered murder to kill an unborn child, but abortion is not considered murder (legally speaking)?

So it is murder to kill an unborn child for obvious reasons,,,it is still alive. It is not murder to have an abortion because this would cause many uprisings. People who are raped may seek an abortion because they dont want the child and the memories or scars of this would ruin them. I do not agree on abortion whatsoever. I think it should be considered murder as well…but my guess is that people feel it is their right to chose the fate of their child.

IMHO (with no legal background) because the choice was not hers. I have no problem with people having the option to abort; however, I could never do it. If I were pregnant, attacked and lost my baby (even during a time I could have legally had an abortion), it would feel like murder to me.

One of those views is a particular moral perspective and the other is the law of the land. There is no reason to assume that they will necessarily agree.

One is a choice made by another. The other is a choice made usually by an abusive spouse or significant other.

@prolificus not all states in the US consider it murder when a pregnant woman is killed and her unborn child dies or is injured in a way to kill the unborn child.

I second what @bkcunningham said.

it is in Wisconsin

I think it might have something to do with how far along in the pregnancy someone is. It is legal to have an abortion in the first two trimesters whereas once you are past that point, there exists a distinct possibility that a fetus could survive outside the womb.

I think there it may also be a consideration that if someone kills an obviously pregnant woman, then s/he is making the choice to kill someone who is carrying a child which is a different sort of crime than just killing a non-pregnant person. I don’t know if killing a woman who is not obviously pregnant carries the same sentence.

Edit to add: I’m not necessarily in favor of charging someone with two murders for killing a pregnant woman.

Because when they so call murder the baby the body is still inside the mother while they’re doing all that crass stuff to it’s brain. Since it’s still inside the mother its not considered murder. I’m half asleep so I hope that makes sense.

There is a difference between law- which is based on politics- and morality.

From what I can find, relatively few states consider killing a fetus to be murder, and none consider all fetal killings to be murder. Other states treat it as an entirely separate crime (feticide) or manslaughter. Those states that do allow murder charges tend to be heavily right-leaning and/or Bible Belt states. Such legislation is usually viewed as a foot in the door to block all legal abortion. It doesn’t really reflect any actual moral status.

“He who expect law to make sense have head up azz.” – Confucious

@crisw

“Those states that do allow murder charges tend to be heavily right-leaning and/or Bible Belt states.”

Scott Peterson was convicted of double homicide for the murder of Laci. If so, I guess CA could be considered an exception to that tendency.

I’m pro-life, but I believe the reason is because the mother is the only one who gets that “choice”, so the mother of the child is the only one allowed to kill it.

The answer is in your question. The word “unborn”.

@Brian1946

According to this site, which is from an anti-abortion group, CA is not one of the 25 states they consider to have “full coverage” of “unborn victims.” They consider CA to be a “partial coverage” state and say “California: California Penal Code § 187(a) says, “Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.” The words “or a fetus” were added by the legislature in 1970. The California Supreme Court later interpreted “fetus” to apply “beyond the embryonic stage of seven to eight weeks.” (People v. Davis, 1994) In addition, Penal Code § 190.2(3) makes a defendant eligible for capital punishment if convicted of more than one murder, and the California Supreme Court ruled that fetal homicide is included under this provision as well (People v. Dennis, 1998). ”

@SeaTurtle I think you missed the question…. she asked why the mother could opt to kill it, yet if someone else beat her etc. and it resulted in the baby dying they could be charged with murder.

Sorry @BBSDTfamily I seen that as a separate sub-question. My bad.

(In which part of the world would the attacker be charged with murder? However this is a good question if it was worded better, I know and can feel the answer but cannot articulate it with a logical reasoning)

Mainly the fact that the person chooses to lose her baby in one of the two situations described, i imagine.

Abortion tends to be tolerated at some level by civil society because it replaced an older, more barbaric tradition: infanticide.

However, how feticide is treated varies rather drastically by jurisdiction. Anti-choice politicians in the USA have tended to elevate feticide to a form of criminal homicide for the sake of political pandering. Given their generally anti-life policies (with rare exceptions), I have a hard time imagining their concern for fetuses lasts very long after the third trimester. In more civilized parts of the United States, you tend to see a bit more nuance in how such behavior is handled by the justice system.

Because they have not thought the issue all the way through, or there are two factions at work in the legislature, or both. A person who is honest with himself will see that there is no practical difference between the two.

Because it’s call ‘Choice’.

If someone takes the choice of carrying the fetus to term away from the woman against her wishes, it is killing a potential life.

As well as the fact that if someone pushes the woman down a set of stairs or shoots her in the stomach, they are also putting the woman’s life in danger. Something that is greatly minimised when going though an elected medical procedure.

If the woman decides to terminate the pregnancy herself, that’s her choice.

It’s about choice and intent, and medical safety.

Choice plays a huge part in a number of our laws, this isn’t that different.

I can give you any or all of my possessions, but if you take them without permission it’s theft.

I can have elective surgery, but if you cut me without permission it’s assault (at least)...

Two people can elect to have sex, but if one chooses not to it’s rape.

The only thing we can’t legally relinquish is our own life, so maybe that’s the law that is inconsistent with the rest of our society.

The legal part relates to the question ‘what do we consider to be a human being’ (when exactly does human life begin)?

If you break into my house and steal my TV, that’s burglary.

If I put my TV out by the dumpster with a big “Free!” sign on it, and you take it, that is not any kind of theft.

It’s all about the consent of the owners of the TV, or the parent of the potential child. If you punch me in the pregnant belly and kill the child I wanted, that is taking it without my consent. Make sense?

I think it varies by state, and might vary by gestational age of the fetus. For me I would draw the line at 6 months if I made the law.

One argument for abortion is it is not a question of whether the fetus is a life, but that no person is required by law to sustain another life. The government cannot force you to donate blood or a kidney to someone, so a woman should not be required by law to sustain a fetus. It puts strain on her kidneys, depletes her body of iron, puts pressure on her bladder, carries other health risks, so she gets to choose, to control her own body. With this argument we can say the fetus is a life by law, and a woman can still have the right to abort.

Viability though, matters to me, that is why I said 6 months above. In actuality the early part of the 6th month is probably still kind of early, but why do I care about that regarding a murderer? In the US a woman cannot abort a 8 month fetus, because if birthed it will survive, most likely without any need for extreme medical help. That baby to me is it’s own independent life.

Murder is done with malice. Abortion is not.

@JLeslie Isn’t it considered criminal to neglect your kids? Boom. Precedent.

@Seelix

So if there’s no malice involved when I shoot you, then it’s ok for me to do so? Hmmm! What’s wrong with this picture?

@Nullo: The difference is the kids are not inside your body. It’s different when you have to use your own body to maintain someone else’s life. Boom. Logic and reason.

@KatawaGrey before baby formulas and such, mothers sustained newborns with their own bodies. Milk, warmth, cleansing et al. Even now, mothers/fathers “maintain” someone’s life with their own bodies when they care for their young. Not an argument, just a thought I had when I read the responses.

@bkcunningham: And when there is the technology to take a zygote and have it go through a full pregnancy outside of a womb, I will be against abortion just as I am against forcing a woman to breastfeed. Technology is something to be considered. Also, carrying a baby to term can damage a woman, just as donating blood or organs can damage someone whereas breastfeeding cannot, as far as I know. Thank you for sharing your thought and making me add to my own argument. :)

I wasn’t trying to convice you of anything @KatawaGrey. You seem very intelligent from what I’ve read of your posts. BTW, I’m against forcing women to breastfeed. I didn’t know that happened, but if it does, I’m against it too. I didn’t know carrying a baby to term can damage a woman either. But what do I know. You learn something new everyday. I guess there are millions of damaged women in the world. In more ways than one huh? lol

@bkcunningham: I was more speaking of how a pregnancy changes a woman’s body permanently but, yes, pregnancy can damage women. For example, very small women sometimes have a lot of trouble giving birth simply because the baby cannot fit through the birth canal. Also, a very young female may be able to get pregnant, but it can be damaging to both mother and child if she gets pregnant when she is not an adult. I really didn’t mean t be snippy, You identified a hole in my argument and I tried to patch it. It’s is very hard to convey tone online, but I am grateful to you for pointing out an error in my judgement. :)

@KatawaGrey I always enjoy your perspective. If I’m not mistaken, you are somewhat younger than me. Seeing how younger people think keeps me feeling young. Thanks.

@Nullo If you give them up for adoption it isn’t, but you’re still not doing shit for them. Boom, logic.

One thing never seen: a backlog of choads saying abortion should be replaced with adoption lining up to adopt would-be abortions.

@bolwerk in all fairness, logic and truth; (edited to say one of ) the only way(s) any of this “backlog of choads” as you say, would know that someone considering abortion was willing to give the baby up for adoption would be if she put the baby up for adoption. When you adopted, you must have realized how difficult the entire process is, let alone trying to adopt a newborn or even a toddler. Right? Bring up a discussion of a group talking to a pregnant woman about her options of adopting or keeping her baby when she is considering an abortion and see what happend on this forum.

Actually, there likely is a backlog of people looking for healthy white babies: a small subset of the population looking for a smaller subset of babies available. This can be evidenced by the tens of thousands of dollars surrogacy fetches for a willing woman. I somehow doubt there’s a backlog of people looking for the 1M or so fetuses that are aborted yearly (many, no doubt for health reasons or the mother’s poverty).

Still, I’d love to see what percentage of choads demanding adoption replace abortion are actually on the present backlog. (I wouldn’t be surprised if more of them get abortions themselves, or try to force their SOs into them….)

I guess the only people looking for the, according to you, “1M or so fetuses that are aborted yearly,” would be the stem cell researchers, gene cell researchers, fertility researchers and others doing lab work. Right?

@bkcunningham Wasn’t sure exactly what you were saying about bringin up discussing adoption options to a pregnant woman. Did you mean the collective is likely to jump all over it saying the pregnant woman sould not have to listen to that if she has decided to abort, or that many jellies would not give up their baby for adoption? Just curious what you meant, not looking to sidetrack the main discussion, talking about the related politics on a legal mandate of sorts.

@bkcunningham FYI: stem cells are embryos before cell differentiation, from discarded IVF, not surgical abortions. Early abortions done with medication are not collected and saved.

@JLeslie that’s okay. I was referring to another discussion thread on here recently about an organization in New York who counseled pregnant women/girls. The majority of the people discussing that thread (which doesn’t surprise me on a liberal site) said the group was wrong for counseling the pregant women and discussing options. The group seemed to have been demonized in my opinion. Anyway, you can look and see if you can find it if you want. That is what I meant.

@bkcunningham

“The majority of the people discussing that thread (which doesn’t surprise me on a liberal site) said the group was wrong for counseling the pregant women and discussing options”

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t this “counseling” include only the anti-abortion side? Not material that was neutral about or in favor of abortion? The problem with these so-called “pregnancy crisis centers” is that they are deceptive fronts for anti-abortion groups.

@crisw yeah I think you are correct. The group in question didn’t offer abortion counseling. They are antiabortion. The abortion clinic was across the street. If someone wanted an abortion they could have gone across the street if I remember correctly. Do you think the abortion clinic across the street offers (edited and added word counseling) counseling on alternatives other than abortions?

@bkcunningham

The point is the deception. The “crisis centers” do not advertise or make clear in any way that they do not do abortions. Many women go to them expecting and wanting a referral for an abortion. They will never get one.

On the other hand, if you go to Planned Parenthood and want to keep your baby, you will get resources on how to do so. If you aren’t sure, you’ll be provided with all alternatives- see, for example, PP’s page on pregnancy options.

is so glad she doesn’t live in the US and have to put up this asinine argument all the time

Does the abortion clinic across the street advertise or make it clear that they do not offer counseling for other options @crisw ? No. Abortion is an option for women. One option. I just don’t see anything wrong with allowing someone to explore other options. Even if that decision and choice is abortion or adoption or getting financial assistance through these crisis centers to try and keep the baby. That is an individual decision for someone to make after looking at all the options in my opinion. Planned Parenthood counsiling is another option. I can’t remember Planned Parenthood being part of this particular story we were discussing. But you are correct, that is another option for counseling. One of many others.

I know I’m not changing any minds here, but let’s run through how someone would actually make the decision

> Find out they’re pregnant
> Look for an expert to discuss options with
> Make a decision
> Act on that decision

Not presenting all available options at step 2 is a lot different than not presenting all options after the decision is made.

If I call a roofer and ask him to look at my roof and the only option he’s willing to discuss is to replace my whole roof, regardless of the situation, he’s put his needs before mine and I need to find a new roofer. He’s considered dishonest.

If I call the same roofer and say I’ve decided to get a whole new roof, then ask for a quote, I’ve made my decision and need a professional to help me.

You don’t go to the abortion clinic for advice, you go because a decision is made and you need a medical procedure done safely and hopefully respectfully. It may have been a hard decision, it may have been an easy decision, but if you’re not asking for advice, they shouldn’t offer it.

That’s a completely different role from a counselor who’s providing no service other than information. If that information is limited to the options they personally approve of, their service is worthless.

@funkdaddy that is exactly my point. If someone wants an abortion, the clinic is there in broad daylight for them to see and use. If you have made up your mind to have an abortion, there it is available. The crisis counseling clinic for pregnancy doesn’t just say replace the whole roof. They offer options. Good example.

If I wanted an abortion, I would go to my GP and tell her my situation. She would send my request to the hospital and I would get a notice to come in and it would be done. End of story. Why the HELL does it have to be any more complicated than that people. My body. My choice. No bait and switch tactics by morons.

@bkcunningham: stem cell researchers are not interested in fetuses. They’re interested in embryos. I’m pretty sure the 1M or so abortions in the U.S. every year actually involve fairly developed fetuses.

@bolwerk I already explained that above.

@cazzie yeah, it is annoying here in the states that this discussion of abortion, options, and notification goes on for years and years and year. Abortions are done in hospitals here too, but most people here focus on “abortion clinics.”

@bkcunningham If someone walks into planned parenthood for an abortion, then why should they not schedule the appointment for her? She is coming there to pay for a service they offer. I actually am willing to compromise and have Planned Parenthood give a simple brochure with the options, and having the person sign off that they read it, if it will stop the constant quest by the pro-lifers to erode abortion rights (which I know it won’t) but it cannot have pictures of a one month old baby on it, implying a baby that looks like that is being aborted, or a woman with a big smile and her newborn in her arms, just informative for what the options are. And, if we go with that requirement for Planned Parenthood it should be the law/rule for all organizations that have a store front for pregnant women, that same pamphlet.

@JLeslie a bit off topic but we’re past that here now anyway… but goes to the whole… crazy… has to be counselled first thing…...

I found out my fiancé was cheating on me with some floozy. I went to my doctor and wanted a full screening.. he said, fine, but I can’t screen you for AIDS. When I asked why, he said that I had to have counselling first! WTF! (that wasn’t here in Norway, btw there was none of that here, and it’s automatic when you are pregnant.. they do the works here then..)

@cazzie Not sure how it is now in the States. Back in 80’s you had to get counseling before an HIV test, and get the results in person with the counselor. This is when HIV was pretty much a death sentence not many years off. Planned Parenthood might still require such a thing, worried a patient might do something rash. A persons regular doctor probably would not be so formal about things, but I do think a patient still hs to sign a waver for the test to be done, because some people have fear it will negatively impact them to have a diagnosis of HIV, or even that someone thought they needed the test on their formal records. We can still get anonymous HIV testing done in the US. My most recent HIV test was done to apply for life insurance, and I don’t remember if the documents had a specific thing about HIV, I think it did. It came back negative, so I have no idea if when it comes back positive, if they require it be told by a doctor, or someone else in person.

Pregnant women get the test routinely here also. I have no idea if they can refuse it. I assume there is some sort of informed consent to the test, even when preggers. Not sure.

@JLeslie: only in part.

Anyway, mandatory counseling for HIV results probably makes sense given the clear health implications, though I’m not sure why it shouldn’t be part of a standard test battery these days either. Mandatory counseling for abortion is just a needless waste of the woman’s time.

@bolwerk Not to argue the point, but I don’t see the difference between your statement and mine? Surgical abortions cannot be done until something like 8 weeks, way after cell differentiation begins.

This is an interesting story that relates back to the original topic- a woman in Illinois is beng tried for murder after a suicide attempt, in the midst of a depressive episode, that killed her unborn near-term baby.

“The facts of this case are heartbreaking. On December 23, 2010, Shuai, a 34-year-old pregnant woman who was suffering from a major depressive disorder, attempted to take her own life. Friends found her in time and persuaded her to get help. Six days later, Shuai underwent cesarean surgery and delivered a premature newborn girl who, tragically, died four days later.

On March 14, 2011, Shuai was arrested, jailed, and charged with murder and attempted feticide. Had Shuai, who is being represented by National Advocates for Pregnant Women and local attorneys, not been pregnant when she attempted suicide, she would not have been charged with any crime at all.”

@crisw The type of situation in your article is tricky for me. I think a pregnant woman has a responsibilty to give her developing fetus every possibility of a healthy life. I also, at all stages of life, am against prolonged unnecessary suffering, so if her actions caused her fetus to suffer, that bothers me much more than a quick termination of pregnany. Women who knowingly take drugs or drink during pregnancy harming their fetus really bothers me also, I am not sure if people can be charged with a crime for it?

This woman was depressed, and I guess out of her mind, so I would guess she has an insanity reason for what she did. Personally, I would not see fit to charge her with murder.

@crisw she wasn’t having an abortion.. she was mentally ill and harmed herself and her unborn child late in gestation. Very sad. But not the same as having an abortion.

@cazzie So, do you think she should be charged with killing her fetus?

@JLeslie: yours doesn’t address how the other guy misunderstood (or misconstrued) my point, and mine does. I wanted to assure him that I had no intention of discussing embryos, and don’t think they are counted in that statistic I mentioned.

@bolwerk I see.

@JLeslie the truth of the matter is… the younger the death occurs the less weight put in the death. It sounds harsh.. but it’s the truth, statistically. She’ll probably be found guilty of manslaughter or death by misadventure or some such lesser plea-to charge and she’ll get a suspended sentence and have to undergo counselling and be on probation to be sure she gets the help she needs.

@cazzie The younger the fetus, or the younger the pregnant woman? Who are you referring too?

The younger the child is that is killed, the smaller the penalty.. but I wrote that without reading the whole article and seeing that this is not justice, bit a political vendetta. So.. who knows what will happen to the woman.

@crisw Damn, those CPC’s are nasty deceptive sons of bitches aren’t they?

Legally, murder is defined as :
“The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse.”
If a person shoots a pregnant woman (such as the case in Jacksonville FL) and kills the unborn child but the mother lives, that person was convicted of 2nd degree murder. So by that conviction, the courts designated that an unborn person is a human being. That being said, it could be legally argued that EVERY unborn child is a human being all the way back to conception. And with that conclusion, abortion should be viewed as murder. The intent or the reasoning of the person doing the act is grounds for determining 1st, 2nd, or 3rd degree murder, but it would still be viewed as murder. But if you go with this logic, then abortion should be considered 1st degree murder since it is premeditated. This would differ from a natural miscarriage since no one took action to kill the baby.