Should women who get abortions be charged with murder?

Question

Should women who get abortions be charged with murder?

Answer 1

No.  It's an un-born child......they are not alive; have not been born.  

I'm not dead yet, should I be called un-dead.

Answer 2

yes of-course

Answer 3

Yes. Are they not killing a child? To me the moment the sperm meets the egg the child is a living and separate entity from the mother.

Whoever said the charging women with murder for abortion will lead to charging people with murder for using condoms, etc is being ridiculous. How are those is any way killing something that is living? They are preventing the child from becoming alive in the first place.

Answer 4

no, not at all

Answer 5

Sure, they charged this one with murder for doing the same thing just not as quick.

http://www.click2houston.com/news/828906...

Edit: Is it the unborn childs fault someone got raped? If you cant take care of it then give it up for adoption. Oh wait I have a better idea lets just kill it. Problem solved.

Edit: So being out of the womb is what is considered living? Oh that must be indigestion you have that causes that movement that so many people mistake for a baby kicking.

Answer 6

Yes.

Answer 7

Only if you want to prosecute the guy who got her pregnant as well. ( whether he agrees with the decision or not. )

Answer 8

Are you kidding? Women who kill their living children (Andrea Yates) and husbands (Mary Winkler) don't go to jail for murder.

Answer 9

The best person to answer this question is the late, great comedian "George Carlin":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrXvDXVhq...

Answer 10

Nope women nor men should be charged with murder when women get abortions. Many women have life threatening pregnancies but die as abortion is illegal in their countries. Should the voters and the politicians in these countries who let women die rather than get an abortion be charged with murder?

"Nicaragua's Abortion Ban Putting Women's Lives at Risk-Human Rights Watch Reports": http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles...

Answer 11

If you honestly believe that an abortion is murder, than the doctor who performed it would be charged with murder, and the woman would be charged with hiring someone to murder.

Answer 12

no

Answer 13

so you are asking if abortion is unjust? i think that justice is relative. In some places of the world, abortion IS legal. It also depends on the situation. For example, the doctors know that both mother and baby will die if the baby will be born but if the baby is aborted, the mother's life will be saved. That is an example on how justice can be relative depending on the situation. Oh,and by the way, life begins the moment the egg is fertilized, it is called procreation.

Answer 14

Keeping my personal views out of this, no, women should not be charged.  

If charges start being laid to a woman who has an abortion, where will it end?

Will it go on eventually to include charges against women who use IUD's, morning after pill, condoms, spermicides?

Where will it end, particularly if the religious start making the rules?

Realistically, what would happen if women were charged?

They'd lose their families, the existing children who need them.  Tax payers would pay more money.  Women would be forced to have kids they may not be able to take care of and where are the men in all of this?

Answer 15

I remember a woman in Salt Lake City was charged with manslaughter after she got a later term abortion because the child was breached and she didn't want to have a scar on her from a C-section

Havn't heard anything since the initial arrest and that was a couple of years ago so its very likely that she wasn't taken to trial, but i don't know what happened

Killing a baby because you don't want a scar, Do you think thats a good reason?

Answer 16

I answer these questions this way every time:

I'll get into the morality issue of the act itself more in the next few paragraphs, but I'd like to start off with the VERY basic reason why it has to remain legal in any humane society. Because women will get them whether or not it is legal. Roe V Wade did NOT create abortion in the United States; it had been going on forever. Before Roe V Wade, however, women terminated their pregnancies by throwing themselves down staircases or sticking foreign objects up their v****a-- including the legendary coathangers we all joke about today, as well as broom handles and sometimes knives.

Writes retired doctor Waldo L Fielding in his article for the New York times:

"Almost any implement you can imagine had been and was used to start an abortion — darning needles, crochet hooks, cut-glass salt shakers, soda bottles, sometimes intact, sometimes with the top broken off."

Obviously, these methods are EXTREMELY dangerous and many of those who used them died, but women preferred them to their unwanted pregnancies.

Another part of the article really sticks out for me:

"The worst case I saw, and one I hope no one else will ever have to face, was that of a nurse who was admitted with what looked like a partly delivered umbilical cord. Yet as soon as we examined her, we realized that what we thought was the cord was in fact part of her intestine, which had been hooked and torn by whatever implement had been used in the abortion. It took six hours of surgery to remove the infected uterus and ovaries and repair the part of the bowel that was still functional."

Basically, anyone who truly values human life should fight for abortion to remain legal.

Onto the "morality" issue-- I often hear the argument, "Well, she should have kept her legs closed!"

To me, that argument is utterly absurd, because it's using pregnancy as a PUNISHMENT for a woman's sexual behaviors. This concept of "taking responsibility"? I personally don't find any of the options available to women with unwanted pregnancies "responsible." There's abortion, adoption, and keeping the child. First of all, giving birth doesn't do wonders for the overpopulation crisis; second of all, putting a child up for adoption is a really tough decision to make, since not all children are going to get adopted. Keeping the child might seem all warm and rosy, but if a woman doesn't have the financial resources, maturity, or desire to take care for the child, it's not doing anyone any favors.

The argument that we should focus ENTIRELY on birth control-- and that doing so will mean there is no more need for abortion-- is at best naïve (though there should be more of a focus on birth control!).

When used FLAWLESSLY, the condom is 98% effective, which means 2 out of every 100 women will get pregnant, and with TYPICAL use (meaning the way MOST PEOPLE use it) it's only 85% effective, which means 15 out of every 100 women will get pregnant. And with abstinence-only education in so many schools, well, you can imagine how rarely a condom is used PERFECTLY.

There are 500 students in the class of 2009 at my school-- 250 young women.

Now, obviously they're not ALL having s*x. But even in our Educated Upper-Middle-Class City™, there is a girl at my school who is pregnant and keeping it. And other girls at my school have probably had pregnancy scares, needed the Morning After Pill, maybe even had abortions (The Morning After Pill, by the way, can only be purchased over-the-counter at pharmacies by persons of 18 years of age or older; other than that, Planned Parenthood or the doctor's office are the only options, and if you're not on health insurance and don't have a Planned Parenthood center nearby, you're out of luck).

Obviously the best solution is to use a backup method along with a condom-- but that doesn't eliminate the risk entirely and condoms can still break. Spermicides can cause allergic reactions; birth control pills shouldn't be mixed with certain meds; many teens rely on their parents to schedule doctor appointments, minimizing their likelihood of getting fitted for cervical caps.

If I were having s*x, and had an unplanned pregnancy, would I get an abortion? h**l yes I would! I'm a kid, and a kid is the LAST thing I need. Do I think that's the best solution for everyone? No. But that option should always be available.

Some people believe that abortion should only be available in cases of rape; but do you realize how long it would take to go to trial to determine that? By that point, the woman would already have given birth!

Some people argue that abortion should only be available "if the mother's life is in danger." But pregnancy will ALWAYS have a long-term impact on a woman's health, and besides, didn't you read my first post? Her life IS at stake if she doesn't want the pregnancy, 'cause she'll get an abortion one way or the other!

Answer 17

No.

Though I personally feel abortions performed after the 12th week should be illegal.

Answer 18

i dont beleive in abortion at all but i dont think they should be charged with murder. its a very touchy subject. i would not want to ever get an abortion, i love children, but i can understand why many women abort, i dont agree with them but understand why.

Answer 19

No. Since most women having abortions were impregnated by losers, they should continue to have the right to have abortions and they should continue to exercise that right. Every abortion is one less mugging or car jacking. It is one less bed at the local jail.

Answer 20

Oh dear, should you be charged with assault if you look at someone?

What if the woman was raped?? Huh why does no-one ever think of that? How do you have a child that has come from something that horrible?? How do you look at it? How do you care, when there was no care for 'you.' It's not as simple as one two three; I can tell you don't give a **** so I wont even bother.

What would you know anyway, you have no idea and I hope you never do!