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.
Right ?
2010-11-13T11:14:47Z
Marc, perhaps you are too id**t to understand the question and put the answer "Not"
2010-11-13T11:51:33Z
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.
2010-11-13T12:10:57Z
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.
Anonymous2010-11-13T12:32:34Z
Favorite 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.
<<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 ?>>
WRONG!
<<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.
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.
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.
Incidentally, however...
...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.
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.