Pro Life or Pro Choice Help me to understand

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.

This post contains content of a mature nature. You must be Signed in or Registered to have the option to view this content.

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.

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.

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 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.

WAs that an actual incident or is it just a theoretical question?

If it was a real case. I'm sure those circumstances are rare.

If the woman did not survive how did they know where she was headed.

If that type of accident were to happen and nobody knew where she was headed then they would have to assume that she intended to keep the child unless someone knew otherwise.

Also, the cause of the accident would also be a factor in determining the fate of the driver.
I believe that in most car crashes the person would more likely be conviced of manslaugther than murder.

Is manslaughter considered a homicide?

I'm sure you realize that in most criminal cases there is no "perfect answer" or "perfect punishment".

If this scenario is your way of asking why a woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy but someone else caused the death of the unborn fetus would be charged with the death of it. I do not know the answer. But I do know this.

There are a lot of things in life that do not have clear answers.

I do belive in pro-choice.

I also believe that if a person caused the death of a woman and the baby inside of her, he should be charged with both.

If the death was accidental, even if it was due to carelessness, I think that many things would have to be taken in to consideration.

That is one of those things that can become very complex.

For example, drunk driving that causes death.
That is extremely complicated.
I would never want to be a person who had to deal with that type of situation.

Whether it's the victims, the families of the victims, the person who cause the accident, their families or the judges who decide the cases.

That is just something I would never want to wish on anybody. Some answers just simply aren't clear.

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!

It's a very good question. I don't think it can be answered with flawless logic, but I'll try anyway. I think the discrepency comes with a problem with semantics. Those who want to criminalize abortion frame the issue as a right to life. Those who want to legalize abortion frame the issue as a woman's right to choose (what to do with her own body). The second part seems easier - The man who hit the woman's car took away two lives. Even though one life would have been terminated later, the fact is, at that moment, the driver took away two lives. We can't look into the future and say "because it will be so," I've heard Abraham Lincoln would have died in office anyway because of a disease he was suffering from. If Booths stood trial, I don't think he could have used the argument, "Lincoln would have died shortly anyway."
The second part, where a woman wouldn't be charged with killing an unborn child if she has an abortion is where the framing of the issue comes in. If abortion were illegal, the first framing would come into play and I assume that the woman will be charged with killing of an unborn child. However, when we frame the abortion issue as a woman having a right to choose what to do with her own body, a different result occurs. The unborn child is not physically separated from the mother's body. Again, if we look into the future, under normal course, the baby would be born, and at that point, the mother would be charged with murder should she kill the now born child. Using this framing, what "saves" the mother in your hypothetical is the fact that the unborn child is not separated from the mother's body at time of abortion. This is also why a mother who smokes cigarettes or drinks alcohol will not be charged with child abuse even those consumption of alcohol and tobacco are harmful to the unborn child. Sorry if I became long winded, but I found it to be a very deep and profound hypothetical. Thank you for posting it.

Hello Wjimmy,

I'm afraid that I cannot help you to rationalize the scenario presented. I don't believe that anyone can.

In the same way that I don't believe it can be rationalized why only one of the two responsible individuals is legally empowered to make the decision to abort, or not. Granted, the woman has to carry the growing child for nine (+) months, yet the man is just as responsible for the pregnancy as the woman is, and has no legal voice over the birth of the child. Yet, he is responsible for 18-22 years of supporting the child, if the pregnancy results in a birth -- whether he wants the responsibility, or not.

As I pointed out in a reply to another respondent to this discussion, the fact that abortion is legal is undeniably illogical. Abortion, as a legal action represents a true absence of a cohesive principle relating to what we do with our bodies, and the results of those actions. In other words, abortion is a legal act of anarchy.

I'm in as much of a quandary as you are regarding our society's perceived rules governing pregnancy and infant births/deaths.

The only specific point to your question is that: not all states legislate that an act, which results in the death of an unborn child, is punishable separately from any harm caused to the pregnant mother. Some states will charge the driver with the manslaughter of just the mother, others will charge the driver with the manslaughter of the mother and the child. Again, a huge inconsistency. Yet, our government is a collection of 50 individual states, which each have state's rights.

Excellent question, Wjimmy!