There are 7 choices, 24 votes for DreamingSpirit's debate

Why is it that when a pregnant woman is murdered, the killer is charged with two homicides, instead of one; but a woman who wants to get rid of her unborn child is innocent?

  • Simple

    In the case of the deaths of Lacy Peterson, and her unborn child, Scott Peterson was convicted of both. He was a malicious killer, and many stated he deserves to die. However, many women in the world, especially in America, are killing off millions of unborn children, in the name of freedom. That has to be the most absurd idea I've ever heard. I recall, when learning about the Civil War Era, that slave masters considered the African Americans, their property. Now we have women who believe that whatever grows inside them is thier own property. Sensing a common theme here? I find it funny, how those who believe in abortion, call those who do not, close-minded and ignornant, even hateful; yet they are too close minded to listen to those who think differently, and are ignornant of what we believe, and are hateful of us because we disagree.

    29%  Voted for by Among the shadows, concrete sky, DreamingSpirit, praise-reborn, looking4realtruth. (7 total)
    View 25 comments
  • :

  • Rights over body

    A mother has the right over her body and everything inside, in amost any ethical stance. Someone else DOES NOT have the right to harm another person, thus when they kill a mother AND her potential life, their action is more abominable.

    20%  Voted for by tibit, ExpensiveThinker, Miji, kissing death, candyecane2002.
    View 6 comments
  • :

  • Choice

    Because a Pregnant woman is doing what she thinks would be best for everyone and is only killing one person, and it's not even a person, it's a fetus, it won't miss it's life, it had nothing in the first place. A murderer takes two lifes, of two innocent people definetly NOT thinking about what would be best for everyone else. Abortions only hurt the woman that got the abortion, no one else. Plus that would be REALLy dumb to be like "OMG YOU KILLED THE FETUS THAT BELONGED TO YOU AND IT WAS A REALLY TOUGH DECISION LETS PUT YOU IN JAIL NOW!" I think you should be able to get rid of what is yours and only yours if you want to.

    16%  Voted for by chemicalromantic, Miji, kissing death, candyecane2002.
    View 2 comments
  • :

  • because homicide laws are sensationalist

    An unborn child is a collection of tissues within the mother, like an organ. Life begins at birth, when an individual is separated from the mother. The only reason there's a homicide charge is because society believes that pregnant women are extra vulnerable, and therefore any crime against her is extra sensationalistic. By charging double homicide, killers are subjected to twice the punishment because they are preying on the weak.

    With the earth's population exploding, and so many children starving throughout the world, hopefully they will change the laws to reduce penalties for those who kill pregnant women if they have too many kids already. (and the fathers too.)

    12%  Voted for by david, Miji, petethemeat.
    View 4 comments
  • :

  • Double Homicide vs Women's Rights

    The charge should be lessened from 'double homicide' to 'destruction of private property' until abortions are made illegal. The hypocrisy here is obvious. The potential for a person is not property, but the uncombined means for genetic potential is, though they come in a group package. Additionally, who's to say that the baby aborted or murdered wouldn't have found a cure for cancer? Conversely though, it may've been the antichrist.

    I guess we must give every life the chance to prove it's own worth. I guess it's also only a matter of time before male masterbation is made illegal except for in laboratory circumstances so that all sperm may be used for the potential of life through artificial insemination, and every female must conceive every nine months, to give every possible life the opportunity to exist. These exaggerations are examples of how far ideals can warp a society's development.

    Laws reflect the average of the current moral views of the members of it's society, and there will always be disagreement. The laws will evolve as the public opinion does. My own view is that the unconditional support of all life is futile, as life feeds on life to survive, as part of the basic food chain of energy conversion. Who's to say that plants aren't killing the life in light via photosynthesis? One must learn to accept death as neither positive nor negative, but as a necessary balance to life. This negates the initial basis of the arguement regarding murder, as it is but a forced change, like choosing which color to paint your house, which is affecting what others perceive, which in an idealistic society, will also be outlawed. Eventually, it will be realized that as we are creatures only capable of withholding or enacting change, so we must act in accordance with our nature, and 'Do what thou wilt' shall be the whole of the law. Every individual who hears these words must now make a decision as to which they value more, their security in their right to exist, or their personal liberties which may infringe upon the securities of others.

    8%  Voted for by Door on the Left, Miji.
    View 1 comment
  • :

  • I'm for abortion, but hear me out
    I honestly am all for abortion.

    The world is overpopulated, people are starving, poverty is out of control, and there aren't enough resources to go around. If the millions of abortions that have already happened weren't performed, we'd be sleeping in feces. And besides, the main cause for pregnancies that end in abortion is RAPE. Are you saying rape is no big deal? Put yourself in the shoes of my friend, Lilly. Her own father (her father for God's sake!) raped her and got her pregnant. Her son was born mentally challenged and died two days after birth and her daughter is blind. Do you really think a 12 year old should be taking care of twins with disabilities?
    8%  Voted for by Kommandant, candyecane2002.
    View 12 comments
  • :

  • My 2 Cents...

    I find it odd that people worry so much about the unborn and yet do so little for the 500,000 already born children in foster care. Yes I know that millions of abortions have already been performed. But we don't seem to be able to take care of the children we already have. Its easier to give up a Saturday to protest at a clinic than it is to raise just one child. Right now their are couples waiting for yrs to adopt a healthy, white, infant. Maybe I'll change my mind about abortion when theres a 2 yr waiting list to adopt a 10 yr old, minority, disabled child.

    Voted for by Boudica.
    Add a comment
  • :

    •  

    None of the choices fit your opinion?  Add one →