Originally Posted by B L Zeebub

Is an involantary abortion (miscarriage) involantary manslaughter?

Originally Posted by Rebellion

You are incorrect, per google the phrase mostly unique comes up with over 3 million hits making the use of the phrase not so unique. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

Originally Posted by shadowman

It will always be her body even after the child is born. For someone called commonsense I think your argument doesn't make any sense. Maybe I have misinterpreted your meaning if you could please hlep me understand what you are saying.

Originally Posted by Mack

Do you expect consistency in our flawed judicial system? The crux of the matter is that it should not be up to the government to decide when a fetus becomes a human. The government has no right to interfere in that matter. This leaves it up to the mother, and so in an ideal world it would be up the mother whether to determine if the fetus was a human or not and therefore whether or not a double murder was commited. Unfortunately the mother is dead, so we assume the mother would consider the fetus a child and don't really care if we aren't giving the murderer the benefit of the doubt.

Originally Posted by shadowman

As said by Billy Bob in another thread a 1 month old baby is not independant and needs to look to another person for survival.

Originally Posted by commonsense

If a fetus were taken out of the womb early enough, it would certainly die, even with incubators. Therefore, until the fetus can survive on its own, it will be a 'part' of the mother and not actually a living functional being capable of survival.

While the fetus is 'alive' it is not a form of life in any twist of the words. (You can keep a dead man alive indefinitely using machines, but he's still dead).

Originally Posted by shadowman

A baby after it's been born is till not a living function being capable of surviving. Also if something is alive it must be life, life is something that is alive. You can keep a person alive on machines, if you are keeping them alive in no way are they dead, you are talking nonsense.

Originally Posted by Sharon Tate

But not the mother, which is the point. Until that baby is born, it relies on the mother to keep it alive. After that, it is independant, whether it needs aid to live and keep it nourished or not.
That is why it is completley different to kill a fetus than a born child.

Originally Posted by Sharon Tate

You can keep a brain dead person alive by machines.

Originally Posted by shadowman

I don't get your argument, the baby is still not independant regardless. So your excuse for killing life is because it relies on you to keep it alive, that doesn't seem fair. Children rely on their parents all the time.