Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SecretMethod70
Since abortion is legal, it is clear that future POTENTIAL is not a valid factor in determining the status of something. In other words, it doesn't matter that what is carried in the mother's womb has the POTENTIAL to be a human, from the perspective of abortion it is not PRESENTLY a human and therefore is property of the mother and not its own life. This is necessary for abortion to be legal, otherwise the thing inside the mother would have rights of its own - including the right to life.
|
Yours is the most logical discussion of the issue I've seen. I've always felt the issue resembled legalized permission to kill a person who was in a coma, but who was extremely likely to make a full recovery in 9 months or less.
And, although a "woman's right to choose" is firmly ensconced in our laws, a fetus's right to choose life is apparently not.
Man, I can't seem to respond to only one post here.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hannukah harry
if i remember correctly, there was talk back before and up until he was charged that they might charge him with a double murder as a manner of trying to wedge the anti-abortion door open a little further. the idea being that every little bit that they can do to add laws or get court decisions pertaining to an unborn entity having the same rights are human could be used to erode roe v. wade.
|
There was also talk of NOT charging him with a double murder for the exact same reason. Hence the total lack of women's groups such as NOW crusading on the issue.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct
The death of the fetus when killing a pregnant woman is like strapping her down to a hospital bed, sedating her, and performing an abortion against her will. An abortion is a choice by the woman. I think we can all agree that those two situations are different.
|
Yes. The hospital scenario would be assault and battery, under current law, since it didn't result in the end of a human life.