If you are pro-choice (for abortion rights, a.k.a. pro-abortion), then you must reach the conclusion that the murderer of a pregnant woman (and her unborn child) can only be charged with one count of homicide. To say that is not true would be the same as accepting that abortion is murder. There can be no justification otherwise.
Likewise, if the pregnant woman is hit by a car, the driver of the car could only face one count of manslaughter. If the woman were to survive in either case (but the unborn child were to die), there could be no monetary damages awarded since the unborn have no preeminent civil right to existence nor financial value.
This is the paradox that the pro-choice (pro-abortion) side cannot resolve, without selective and discriminatory application of Constitutional law (a trademark of judicial activism).
It is not my point to deny women any rights. I am just for equal application of the law. Why should an unborn child suffer for the mistakes of its parents? Who has the right to determine whether or not that child will be happy in life coming out of a situation where it is unwanted? The assumption is made that this child cannot be happy, but it that always going to be true?
These are serious questions that go beyond convenience. They go to the heart of the argument of rights vs. responsibilities. If you want a right, I would suggest that you first demonstrate that you are worthy of it by being responsible. That, of course, is another paradox.
The simple solution to solving the problem of irresponsibility is to allow abortion to be used as a form of birth control. The truth is that such a position fuels more irresponsibility, and makes that behavior an accepted societal norm.
None of us are perfect. We all make mistakes, but we are talking about an innocent life that has no say in the matter. At what point to we consider a child to have rights? All opponents of my position, answer that question, please.
JMHO,
LoF |
