Finally, this barbaric practice can end!!!!

Kill the mother, and the fetus dies.

And you're held liable for two murders. Go figure.

but that is for a short period of time as well. kill the doctor and the patient dies as well. a baby, or fetus, is not always going to be a baby. it is a temporary state for a living thing to go through.

And you're held liable for two murders. Go figure.

that is my sticking point as well. i do not think it should be one way for one instance and another way for another instance just because of who is doing it.

So then none of the other criteria you mentioned is applicable? Having thoughts, having a favorite color or movie, the ability to make moral judgments? The only question is do they breathe and have a heart beat? THAT determines life?

All of that and more is part of being alive. Of course, the determining factor of all of that is whether or not you are breathing and have a heartbeat. So that is the most important factor. But a LIFE is comprised of everything else, also. Some lives are more complete than others. At the point of infancy, though, the sustained heartbeat and breathing are basically it.

And you're held liable for two murders. Go figure.

In most states, only if the fetus was viable. And my point stands. A viable fetus can sustain its heartbeat and breathe on its own. Therefore, it is a life and can be murdered.

i am truly interested in this law, because i was under the impression it was a federal statute that if a pregnant woman is killed, no matter what the gestation age is, the person is liable for double murder. the same goes for if the woman is beaten, and does not die, but loses the pregnancy, the culprit can be charged with murder. If you can point me to actual law i would be greatly appreciative.

Ah, I was mistaken in the question you were asking. I apologize.

Ok, what makes me think i have a right to decide? Because I am a registered voter, and if enough of my ilk get together and vote a specific way, or vote people into office that we agree with the decisions they will make, then we have the ability to change the law. That is just pure democracy. I am not a dictator, and cannot make decisions or laws by myself, but i can talk to a lot of people, try to have them see my point of view, and then as a group we can vote into power the people we believe will make the right decisions in our stead. That is all anyone can do. Laws are laws, and sadly, to me, abortion is legal. But i hope to continue to work towards changing that some day.

I agree with a lot of what you say, but for me there is another aspect to the question. That is, the majority does not always rule in this country. To me one of the greatest things about our system is that it protects individual rights even if they go against the majority. For example, there are many school districts in this country where you would probably have 95% of the people vote for school prayer, yet this is still not allowed because we protect the individual's right to be free from forced religion.

That is what decisions like Roe v. Wade are all about. A court decision like that will not change just because a majority of the citizens are against abortion (which they are not, as we know, but just speaking hypothetically). Roe v. Wade exists because the Constitution protects a person's right to privacy and individual reproductive choice.

Abortion is unique because there are two entities, the woman and the fetus, involved in one constitutional issue. By definition, the rights of one have the potential to adversely affect the rights of the other. So choices have to be made. Priorities have to be decided. To this point courts have determined that the priority goes to the rights of the grown up, living person, and not the cluster of cells that will likely eventually develop into a human being. I hate abortion, and hope no one I know ever has to do it. But I can't imagine making the decision that the "rights" of that cluster of cells should be given priority over the grown up, living human being. I recognize that there are differences of opinion on that, but that's how I see it.

Everyone in office is there because of our voting rights. some are appointed, but they are appointed by individuals that we all put into office. If we vote for the right people, all of our needs will be taken care of. it actually does not come down to individual rights as much as you might believe. if we voted in specific people, and those people appointed others into office that go along the same ideals and lines, then their decisions are based on the majority's views. its trickles down. or up....depending on the way you look at it.

From what I've found, I think it varies. Most violent crime is considered to be under a state's jurisdiction.

Fetal Homicide: A Question of When Do We Become Human

Thank you. From that article, "Although many states now have fetal homicide laws, there are a wide variety of differences about when a fetus is considered living. In Missouri and 17 other states, the laws recognize a fetus as living at the time of conception. "

So if the law in these states along recognize it being a living being why isn't abortion outlawed in those states?

i understand this is a right to life site, but they have quoted the most updated list of laws for the states that cover a baby's death, in utero, as murder.

State Unborn Victim Laws

looks like 35 states have laws on the books pertaining to this.

So if the law in these states along recognize it being a living being why isn't abortion outlawed in those states?

It's a living being in terms of crime. I would imagine that if a woman was on her way to have an abortion and was killed, the state would only recognize her death, and not her fetus's. This is highly simplified, but think of it in terms of spanking your child. It's legal for you, as a parent, to spank your child. If a stranger tried to turn your child over his knee and spank his rear, it would be considered assault. It's a matter of who is doing it. A woman getting an abortion is doing it because she wishes to. If, on the other hand, someone beats her and kills the fetus that she wanted, the loss of her fetus is against her will.

So if a pregnant woman is killed on the freeway by a drunk driver, the drunk driver is held accountable for two deaths. If she was on the freeway driving to an abortion clinic . . . it seems he should only be held accountable for one, because she intended to kill the other in the first place.

so now life is no longer counted by viability, but if it is wanted or not?

So if a pregnant woman is killed on the freeway by a drunk driver, the drunk driver is held accountable for two deaths. If she was on the freeway driving to an abortion clinic . . . it seems he should only be held accountable for one, because she intended to kill the other in the first place.

I know you believe that your hypothetical example is clearly logical, but I don't see it that way at all. Just because the Constitution supports a woman's right to privacy and reproductive choice in the context of an early abortion, this does not mean that we should therefore allow a drunk driver to escape the consequences of destroying a fetus. This is not in any way inconsistent, even though you continuously repeat this same example, as if it proves that a fetus is a baby, and abortion is murder. Your example simply does not prove these things. The interests at stake are completely different in the two sets of circumstances.