ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Politics and Social Issues»
  • North America Political & Social Issues

United States Laws on Murder And Abortion

Updated on April 12, 2017

Murder, Manslaughter, and Abortion - Where Is the Disconnect?

In a homicide, murder, or manslaughter trial, if a pregnant woman at any stage of pregnancy is the victim, criminals are charged with two counts of homicide, murder, or manslaughter. If a life is determined as life for one legal precedent, way older than Roe vs. Wade, you cannot redefine that precedent for another. How the lawyers and judges from Roe vs. Wade failed to make and/or consider the pre-existing precedent of Murder, and conclude that a Mother choosing to abort her baby (especially when it is not a threat to her own life) was NOT considered the taking of a life in accordance with the legal precedence established long before that case was ever brought to trial, is mind blowing.

If the outcome of consensual sex is a child, and a mother willingly participates in that activity, then she knowingly accepts the responsibility of that decision. In the case of saving a Mother's life, if the pregnancy is in fact placing her life at risk, that is an argument the predominantly all Americans support as just cause for abortion. In the case for rape, a significant amount of Americans believe in and see that cause to definitely be valid, as the victim had no control of the action resulting in pregnancy. You can have a responsible young woman who is looking to wait until she's ready to raise a child, who is raped and cannot be held accountable for a decision that wasn't within her power to influence.

However, if a woman intentionally chooses to have sex, then she also chooses the consequences of that choice. If a man brings a gun to a store, robs it without violence and without using the gun, but then accidentally kills someone with the firearm as he's leaving due to accidental discharge, then he is legally perceived to have chosen to accept the consequences of bringing a gun to commit a crime, and will be found guilty for the manslaughter that he just committed. Our choices have consequences, and if you toss choice out the window of resulting consequence, how are you preparing young men and women to be law abiding citizens? So, if a woman has sex, and conception occurs, how can we justify the taking of this new life, simply because she didn't intend for it to happen?

The scarier argument, if you feel the taking of the life is justified if the Mother chooses to end it, what happens if someone murders her or accidentally kills her, and her baby, on her way to get an abortion or to a preliminary appointment at an abortion center? Are we now to allow those standing trial for the death of the Mother to get away with killing the baby, just because there may be evidence that she was considering an abortion? The argument could be made that she had no intent on keeping the child, and that a man should not be tried for killing something that wasn't defined as "human life" in accordances to the abortion laws, and possibly even not wanted by the Mother. How would we know what the Mother's true and final intentions for her baby would have been after both lives were taken by another human being? Is it right to assume that she wished to keep it, or not? Are the killer's rights less important than the baby's? If the child isn't recognized as a human being by our country because it hasn't reach a specific age of maturity or level of development within the Mother's womb, how can we charge someone with murder in that case?

Roe Vs Wade - 1973-2016?

Did 2016 start the reversal or amendment to the Roe vs. Wade decision?
Did 2016 start the reversal or amendment to the Roe vs. Wade decision?

Was the Roe v. Wade decision even Constitutional?

Abortion Pills Aren't Contraceptives

Drugs that abort babies after conception aren't contraceptives. Contraceptives, by their very definition, prevent pregnancies. They don't end them after conception. Most conservatives are well on-board with the use of actual contraceptions. Yes, even formerly pesky Catholics have crossed the threshold into supporting traditional contraceptives which prevent pregnancy and prevent the transmittal of Sexually Transmitted Diseases. Once a life is formed through conception however, then any drug which terminates that life is by definition an abortion. So, how do drug companies and abortion service providers get away with labeling these abortion medications as contraceptives?

The only reason that abortion medications even became legal to research and manufacture in the United states has been accomplished by redefining previously all-inclusive or exclusive terminology, such as, "human life", "abortion", "contraceptives", etc., to allow for the legalization of actions and products which were formerly illegal, and to approve the spending of tax-payer dollars to pay for these products and services. This allowed companies such as Planned Parenthood to grow exponentially large, to obtain government funding for abortion, for pharmaceutical companies design, test, and sell drugs such as the morning after pill and to make money. The abortion industry has become a giant money machine since 1973. It is now a multi-billion dollar industry.


Income Has No Place in the Discussion of Abortion

Why should the income level of any person dictate whether or not they should be able to take a life? If you argue that someone on minimum wage should be allowed to take a life because she cannot afford to raise a baby, then you are stating that a baby has a monetary value which dictates whether it can live or not. If that same woman had obtained and used extremely safe contraceptives, and had her first pregnancy after she had completed university and was earning a decent income to raise a child, would she have made the same choice?

Could it be that because they are financially unable, mentally unprepared, and emotionally too juvenile to raise a child, that they are having a mental, emotional, and stressful crisis in regards for their future, and that the abortion is presented to them as their only "get out of jail free" choice? Making such critical decisions in a crisis state of mind is not what is considered as rational decision or choice. Why do you think that we have safety checks on when we go to war, or for the launch of a nuclear device? It is so that a leader who is emotionally compromised does not make irrational decisions which will lead to the unnecessary taking of human life.

For families which are actually performing family planning, and don't wish to have any more children, then there are plenty of methods to ensure that another pregnancy doesn't occur. For one, the male can undergo relatively painless surgical procedure, known as a vasectomy, to ensure that they no longer can provide genetical material which have an extremely high success rate. The woman herself can choose to undergo multiple different procedures, such as tubal ligation, to stop her eggs from dropping into position for fertilization. However, the procedures on women post a greater threat to possible related complications and the chances of there being issues if the Mother wishes to undo the procedure in the future are greater. Having the male undergo a vasectomy is definitely preferred, as it has the highest success rate of being reversed, and has the lowest occurrence of related complications for the men who underwent the procedure. Specific traditional birth control may also be warranted, especially right after undergoing these procedures, to avoid accidental pregnancy.

Source

Minimum Wage Argument - Real or Is It a Political Ploy?

The raising minimum wage argument to lower abortion rates is a terrible justification for raising minimum wage, when the justification for taking life has nothing to do with income. If someone on minimum wage gets pregnant, there are options available for them to place that child into an adoption program. Plus, almost all adoption programs pay for all related medical expenses, prenatal vitamins, and offer mothers monetary compensation for their choosing to donate their baby to a family which cannot have one on their own. Financial compensation for adoption donations is because that Mother will feel some guilt later in life for giving up her child for adoption, just as she will feel guilt for aborting her baby. The difference between the two is that one choice does not involve the taking of a life and the other does. Plus, there was little or no push for the government to assist with absorbing costs related to a pregnancy for low-income families, and abortion was heavily pushed instead. If life were chosen as the primary goal of what our nation should have protected instead of abortion, then government services would exist today to assist low-income families have a child and either keep the child or place it into an adoption program.

The big question is why is someone on minimum wage trying to have a child, or participating in activities that would result in one? We are trying to plug holes in our society that education, reason, and our communities are supposed to guide us and them to make. Our youth should be striving to better their lives, not trap themselves into trying to raise a child with the income of an entry-level job that they should cast aside within a year or two. If they want to work in the fast food industry, then they should be pursuing in-house training for promotion to better opportunities within the company. If they want to get into a different line of work, then they should be pursuing higher education opportunities and looking for every grant or advantage to facilitate that goal that they can.

We should be a nation of strivers, not divers. Yes, some people go through hard-ships. But whatever happened to the community coming together to help those persons out of the slump they find themselves in? The Christian Church was always a source of strength in regards to these hardships, but now we see more instances of Christianity being cast out of our society and government. We see fewer people of strong religious convictions in positions of power, and positions of power pushing out people of faith. Perhaps that is one of the reasons we find ourselves in the terrible situations we're in today? A nation built upon Christian principles is suddenly falling apart in absence of those very principles. We see declining numbers, throughout large communities of our nation, of people who publicly support Christian principles. Or, perhaps we simply need to agree to come together as a nation and fix the big problems that need fixing?

Education, learning new skills, and getting out of that entry-level job is the only thing we should be teaching America's youth to pursue. Our education system is failing our youth, and now we are using abortion to hide and to justify that short-coming? Parents are failing their children by not being involved with their children's lives, their education, and ensuring that they are ready to be responsible young adults when they enter AND graduate high school. They aren't teaching them to abstain, to place their bodies and education first, or to use contraception properly if they choose not to abstain. So, do we just punt? As long as they pay their taxes, should America take the stance of - "Who cares?" The choice that we as Americans need to make is, are we going to proceed towards a society of higher moral standards, or ones with questionable values in regards to morality? Are we going to continue to take the quick and convenient road of fixing the symptoms, or are we going to do the messy job of fixing the actual causes of our problems as a nation?

Source

Real Discussion on Life:

Some will say, well the young and the poor aren't the only ones having abortions. Yes, that is true, so let's look at some of those numbers:

  1. 27% of women having abortions are 100-199% of the poverty line.
  2. Women in their 20's account for more than half of all abortions.
  3. 61% of women who get an abortion currently have one or more children.
  4. Every year 2% off women age 15-44 have an abortion.
  5. Half of all women performing abortions have had at least one previous abortion.

In case you missed that statistic, half of all of the women every year who get an abortion, have already had one or more abortions already in their lives. So, the question is that, how many women are using abortion as a means of contraceptive? With so many pro-choice advocates pushing that aborting babies is not being performed at a high rate due to convenience of not having to deal with a child, how can this statistic be possible? Are we truly doing our nation, and the world, justice by promoting the termination of unborn fetuses amounting to approximately 1.3 million per year? From 1973 to 2008, more than 50 million legal abortions have occurred. Are we better as a nation because of these statistics?

Are we building a better tomorrow with numbers such as these? What if one of those aborted babies had a genetic trait essential for the cure of a future disease? What if one of them would have grown to do great deeds such as curing cancer, ending the AIDS epidemic, or even ushering in a new era of peace among warring nations? These existential questions may seem outlandish to a lot of these women at the time, or possibly even won't enter their head until well after the procedure. However, none of these women are offered any real 3rd party verbal counseling to discuss the ramifications of her decision if she were to choose abortion. There are waiting periods, written materials and pamphlets that are required in some states, sometimes multiple trips are required, and sometimes specific verbal messages must be communicated such as "you cannot be coerced into getting an abortion". Many activist groups consider this to be sub-par counseling at best, putting out incorrect or misleading information, and the information to be one-sided in educating them about the abortion instead of discussing alternative options should they not be able to keep the baby but don't wish to pursue abortion.

America needs to start having a real discussion about the taking of life, how that impacts us as individuals and as a society, and not political policy discussions that are part of party agenda. These women who have aborted babies do feel guilt, suffer from depression, have nightmares, and sometimes experience combinations of the three or even worse later on in life. Women of faith feel the burden upon their souls, and spend the rest of their days wondering whether or not what they did was right. Those who find faith later in life, are also burdened by this sorrow and uncertainty. All of the pain, suffering, depression, and religious desperation, no matter what anyone says, lies at the feet of the persons responsible for pushing abortion as a "freedom" and not an "evil". We need to teach our youth how to be responsible with their bodies and their futures, and stop trying to make every decision "convenient".

STD's can be permanent or life ending. Pregnancies before they are financially ready can set Americans back permanently, cause them to raise a child in sub-standard or terrible living conditions with a less than opportune standard of living. Neither one of those situations should be predicaments that young Americans find themselves in. We should be raising responsible young adults, who value their body and their education first, and then seeks out partnerships when they're mature in who they are and what they want in life. What kind of society to do want to perpetuate for our future? How are we helping our youth to produce a better future by investing our political capital in policies that we know are the result of bad parenting, bad education, poor decision making, and only help to perpetuate all of those qualities and not better ones?

Planned Parenthood's Future

Do you feel that planned parenthood should be defunded?

See results

Please Be Civil and Respect Each Other's Opinions

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No comments yet.