08-23-2015, 01:14 PM
Someone who chooses to take the life of a pregnant woman is choosing to murder one person and the life or potential person she has developing inside of her. So, lawmakers have deemed that to be double murder. Not everyone agrees with that view/law, just like there's a lot of disagreement in regards to abortion views/laws.
Some people view all abortion and even morning-after pills as murder. They don't look at it scientifically, they look at emotionally and/or morally and/or according to religious indoctrination. They believe that a woman has a moral or religious responsibility to host and nurture cells and tissue until they develop into fetuses, which develop nervous systems and heartbeats, and late into pregnancy develop some capacity to feel pain, and eventually possibly develop rudimentary consciousness before being birthed. Or, they don't think about those things at all and look at the fetuses physical form and assign it the same attributes/rights as a born baby, by association. I understand all those views.
Other people, myself included, think the woman has the right to choose whether she wants to assume the responsibility of continued pregnancy/hosting and birthing; and abortion laws shouldn't be based on other people's morals, religion, or desire to punish women for unwanted pregnancies.
However, I'm okay with cutting off that right to choose at the point where the fetus is likely viable without the woman's body hosting it and providing nutrients, and I have no objection to changing the cut-off to the earliest point at which a fetus might be able to feel pain. Images of the physical form of the fetus can evoke emotion in me, but don't affect my thinking.
A lot of people (and some state lawmakers) believe that it's always the woman's right to terminate hosting the fetus, with no cut-off restrictions, since the fetus is not an autonomous person at that point. I understand that view too.
The law in this country and many other countries allows abortion, usually with some restrictions or cut-offs (which vary by country and by U.S. state).
The law in this country and in some states (with varying criteria) allows killing autonomous persons as a form of penalty (though it's unquestionably 'homicide'; which the law currently considers 'justifiable').
As always, people have varying views when it comes to matters of life and death and different laws can be contradictory in regards to those matters. But, views and laws can and do change -- so activists/lobbyists/politicians/citizens on both sides and somewhere in between continue to fight for what they think is right.
Some people view all abortion and even morning-after pills as murder. They don't look at it scientifically, they look at emotionally and/or morally and/or according to religious indoctrination. They believe that a woman has a moral or religious responsibility to host and nurture cells and tissue until they develop into fetuses, which develop nervous systems and heartbeats, and late into pregnancy develop some capacity to feel pain, and eventually possibly develop rudimentary consciousness before being birthed. Or, they don't think about those things at all and look at the fetuses physical form and assign it the same attributes/rights as a born baby, by association. I understand all those views.
Other people, myself included, think the woman has the right to choose whether she wants to assume the responsibility of continued pregnancy/hosting and birthing; and abortion laws shouldn't be based on other people's morals, religion, or desire to punish women for unwanted pregnancies.
However, I'm okay with cutting off that right to choose at the point where the fetus is likely viable without the woman's body hosting it and providing nutrients, and I have no objection to changing the cut-off to the earliest point at which a fetus might be able to feel pain. Images of the physical form of the fetus can evoke emotion in me, but don't affect my thinking.
A lot of people (and some state lawmakers) believe that it's always the woman's right to terminate hosting the fetus, with no cut-off restrictions, since the fetus is not an autonomous person at that point. I understand that view too.
The law in this country and many other countries allows abortion, usually with some restrictions or cut-offs (which vary by country and by U.S. state).
The law in this country and in some states (with varying criteria) allows killing autonomous persons as a form of penalty (though it's unquestionably 'homicide'; which the law currently considers 'justifiable').
As always, people have varying views when it comes to matters of life and death and different laws can be contradictory in regards to those matters. But, views and laws can and do change -- so activists/lobbyists/politicians/citizens on both sides and somewhere in between continue to fight for what they think is right.