Quote:
|
Originally Posted by yesman065
If it isn't a human until birth then why is someone who kills a pregnant woman charged with two counts of homicide?
|
A lot of people feel this was a deliberate step towards more comprehensive anti-abortion legislation. Many disagree with the law or view it as hypocritical at the very least.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rkzenrage
I guess all of you feel it is ok for women to smoke, do heroin, meth, drink, whatever while pregnant, right... it's not a kid yet and it's "just her body"?
|
I do not feel it is "okay"--however, it is legal (well, insomuch as only drinking and smoking are legal in the first place), and I feel it should stay that way, because you have to draw the line somewhere, and our society has drawn the line at viability. There are only three ways to look at this scenario:
1.) It is not a person before viability (roughly the third trimester). Thus abortion is legal, and the father has no rights to a clump of cells that is not his, or anyone's, child yet.
2.) It is a person before viability, and abortion should be illegal. Thus the whole question of the father's opinion on the matter is moot.
3.) It is a person before viability, but you cannot legislate morality. Thus abortion should be legal, but shunned on a personal level--i.e., the mother
should consider the wishes of the father, because it is the
right and moral thing to do, but it is both impractical and inappropriate to code that into law.