Pro Life or Pro Choice Help me to understand

this is gonna make me sound inhumane and cold, but this is for analogy purpose only. if you want to amputate your limb then its your choice, you can just go to a doctor, amputate your limb and that's it. if someone accidentally severed your limb then that person will be punished. same thing. it's the mother's choice to keep or not to keep the baby. but when somebody else makes a choice (accidentally or intentionally) for her then that would be illegal.

I am pro choice. I am really trying to come up with a good reason why there would be a difference and I actually thought the same way as the first person to respond to your question. If someone could prove that she was on her way to get an abortion, then, he should only be charged with her murder. I have to respectfully say that, it is no one else's business what a woman does with her own body. Just like it is no one else's business what you do with your body. How would you feel if you have to take a very personal stance on something about your body and all you kept hearing was how wrong you were and that you have no right to take that stance about your body? That is infuriating. No one has a right to say boo about your body and what you chose to do with it. And, you don't have the right to say what is right or wrong about what others do with their own bodies. And, please don't think that I am in any way attacking your question. This is just a topic that I am passionate about, as any woman should be.

A most excellent point, if I may say so. It demonstrates both the hypocrisies involved in the law and the incoherence of any 'rights' based ethical system. When we say 'right' in ethical matters we use the word a linguistic short cut. Thus if I say I have the 'right' to live I mean only that it is evil for someone to kill me. Now, reword the issue about abortion without 'rights.' The unborn is human, this is undeniably so and it being human makes the its life valuable. Killing humans is evil. Of course, it is good that women have a choice but not at the expense of taking human life. All the best urban

Well, the woman will answer that in heaven or hell, who knows. We cannot put judgment to her here on earth because court procedures may not prove her intention. We may say, how about the man? Well, he has to prove his side to lessen the consequence of that accident. Still, in the eyes of humanity, that man has to answer for that accident. Sometimes, situations are weird, we are sometimes awestruck by its consequences coupled by good intentions. Well, I myself, I don't have to understand. I just have to pray over things that I cannot control. As they say, living life is enjoying the smell of the roses and accepting all its thorns.

it would probably depend what state the scenario you described happened in...some states do not recognize an unborn child as life, others do not consider it homicide until the unborn baby is within survival stage outside of the womb (usually past 5 months)...a woman getting an abortion in most cases would be under 3 months pregant... At any rate, the man who caused the accident did kill one person...did he do it one purpose? Or was it an accident? This is a case that would probably find itself in supreme court...don't be too disheartened that you've been trying to get answers for many years, it would take at least that many years of bouncing between courts and decisions for the supreme court to hear the case and reach a decision... Either way, I believe the woman should not have been going to kill her unborn child and in a way what has happened is tragic karmatic (is that a word?) justice...she is experiencing first hand what it is like to have your life ended by someone else. I don't think people who have had abortions really deserve to die over it, because we're not the ones who should be judging, but I don't believe abortion is acceptable in any circumstance. Good luck in finding your answer!

This is absolutely a double standard. I believe that abortion is murder. I know it is murder in God's eyes. Our society, thanks to the judicial branch that seems to think they can make laws and basically ruin out country, has allowed women to legally murder their children as long as they do it before they child is born. However, thankfully, other laws still recognize the full humanity and sanctity of the life of that little child. I think the Peterson case charged him with double murder if I remember correctly. I can't really explain this other than to say that it is wrong for women to have abortions, and that we need to fight alot harder than we are doing right now to stop this. I have heard abortion called the American Holocaust, and we need get it changed, soon.

I'm not sure where you heard that, but in the US, the double homicide is not a factor until well after the legal limit for a voluntary abortion. There are very few cases of aggravated assault or murder wherein the fetus was obviously or considered to be the primary target and/or motive wherein it may become a factor before the viability of the fetus as with the army boy who killed his g/f because she was pregnant and he didn't want to deal with it and the Patterson case. The difference being simple. Viability. In the first 8-12 weeks, the fetus is not only entirely unaware, but non-viable. If it were to be expelled naturally, there is no biological possibility for it to survive. However, after about the 23-26 week, there is a growing chance of it's survivability. I think the youngest premie ever to survive entirely was 23 weeks old, but it was a bit of an anomaly as it didn't have lungs and was kept on a respirator and given growth hormones to speed the process.

If you are asking a legal question rather than a moral question there are hundreds of possible answers and this would depend on what country the trial was held in. There is no single answer to this question! If you were asking a moral question there would also be hundreds of possible answers, depending on whom you were asking. My advise would be to relax and think about something else!

One has nothing to do with the other. The fact that the fetus was still in her womb makes it a homicide. Just because she was on her to have an abortion doesn't mean anything. She could have changed her mind; she could have made a u-turn or pulled to the side of the road. She could have met someone in the clinic that could have changed her mind. Maybe it was destiny. I don't know... Was the man drunk? Did he run a red light? Was he speeding?

Ok...I will try to think about that, but the answer will be also in theory, as you mentioned. It's not a discussion for me whether a woman can choose abortion or not, for me it's clear, she chooses what she wants about her own "body". But the problem comes when it's like in your case...and the solution might be the following: in the trial that will take place after the event, someone who knows and has proofs that the woman intended to perform abortion should testify and the guilt would not be "double". This may be a quite awkward solution, but it should work in a court...the difficult part would be to find that someone who knows the truth, and not only to find but to determine the person to testify such a thing. I guess this is a matter of sincerity, and if such a case would happen in reality, the person who knows about the abortion should feel guilty if not saying that loud.

I think that a woman has the right to abort a child cause it is there body and the child is a part of them. I do think that if someone kills a pregnant woman they should be charged with both deaths because that was not there choice to make.

Or even iller a woman wants an abortion and already has a baby. The doctor tells her why not just kill the baby in your lap instead of the one in your belly! Is abortion murder? Yes it is. I still have to defend the right to choose though. What about the woman who gets pregnant by rape? Though I know someone personally who kept that child! I AM AGAINST THE ACT OF ABORTION!

From a completely practical point there are way too many people on the planet now. We do not have the environmental resources to keep this level of population growth without serious consequences. in 2001 the us had a net gain of 1 person every 17 seconds http://www.govspot.com/ask/population.htm in 2007 the net gain is 1 for every 11 seconds (big long url it won't let me paste from US government) It is three times that in the world as a whole. In the time it takes me to type this and you to get and read it, the population will have had a net gain of several hundred. If people don't want to use birth control we should be using abortion to curve the population growth. There are only two ways to fix the population problem, prevent so many babies or kill older people younger and faster. Take your pick, but you have to do one or the other and we need to start doing it sooner rather than later. There are also lots of other practical reasons to stop a pregnancy. I don't buy into the sanctity of human life simply because it is human. We should stop pregnancies where the kid isn't a and won't every be a healthy self sufficient human being. We also need to be eliminating inferior genetic conditions where possible, if not through sterilization of the living, then of terminating of new carriers. The one reason you will hear a lot of for not using abortion is the belief that god told them to go forth and multiply. What none of those people want to hear is god didn't tell them to go forth and over populate. 3500 years ago when that was mostly likely written the life span of a person was 40 years for kids that made it to 3, not 98% of all births living to the age of 80. We can hold the population steady right now if every woman would commit to having only 1 child in her mid twenties and calling quits. We can reduce the population if they would all wait until their middle thirties. We could reduce it by half over a hundred years if they would wait until they were in their early 40's. The greatest problems in the world right now are caused by a lack of resources, imagine what it will be in 100 years when we 24 billion people instead of almost 7 billion