[Excelsior]

(05-16-2013 04:17 PM)gandt Wrote:  

The girlfriend was 6 weeks along.

Interesting fact here, as it raises an important contradiction for pro-choice arguments.

Pro-Lifers have long held that abortion is murder. Pro-Choicers have usually responded by claiming that the unborn child can't be considered a murder victim and drawing a very clear line between the abortion of an immature fetus (24 weeks or younger) and actual murder. Some have even gone as far as to say that the fetus simply doesn't qualify as a "person" or even as a "human" in a way that a murder victim must.

Here, however, we have a woman who was only 6 weeks pregnant. The child was ultimately "aborted" against her will, but this is being considered a murder. It would appear as though many states maintain legal protection for unborn children, despite the presence of Roe v. Wade.

The only answer I can see for this paradox relates to the intent of the female, and I suspect that this is the difference that will matter going forward.

In one case, a woman chooses to abort her unborn child.

In the other, a woman is forced to abort her unborn child.

In the absence of female consent, that child has been murdered. In the presence of female consent, that child wasn't a "real" child at all, and the act cannot be considered murderous.

In short, unborn children are legally protected from everyone save for the person closest to them-their mother. Nobody can legally choose to harm or end the life of an unborn child...except its mother.

I suppose that this is the ultimate manifestation of the pro-choice idea: in expressing their choice, women are now allowed the exclusive ability to decide on the life and death of a (future) American citizen.