Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am pro-choice, but I understand where people who are pro-choice come from. One of the biggest counters I can think of for pro-choice people is asking their opponent...
If a criminal murders a pregnant woman, often times they are charged with double murder, so if you deny that an unborn baby is a person, then do you support banning courts from prosecuting these types of double murder cases?
This caught me because I am pro-choice, but when a pregnant woman is murdered, I am happy when the courts charge the criminal with two counts of murder. I think it would be hard for the opponent to answer this question because it is a lose-lose question. Hillary or Kaine will either seem like they side with the murderer of pregnant women or they will prove an unborn baby is still a human with rights.
(Just finished watching the VP debate and this came to my head)
the murderer doesn't always get charged with two murders, it varies from state to state and age of the fetus. the difference between a murder murdering is the victim has no choice or say in what is happening to her person. with abortion, one it is not murder and secondly it is the woman's choice to continue a pregnancy or not, not someone who violently takes it.
the murderer doesn't always get charged with two murders, it varies from state to state and age of the fetus. the difference between a murder murdering is the victim has no choice or say in what is happening to her person. with abortion, one it is not murder and secondly it is the woman's choice to continue a pregnancy or not, not someone who violently takes it.
choice and consent come to mind.
It should never be double murder though, atleast for Pro-choice people.
It should never be double murder though, atleast for Pro-choice people.
of course it should be double murder, take for instance scott Peterson. if I remember right his baby was viable and very close to it's due date when he killed his wife lacey.
of course it should be double murder, take for instance scott Peterson. if I remember right his baby was viable and very close to it's due date when he killed his wife lacey.
Baby's life starts only after it is born.
If that is true then it's not double murder, and if not then abortion should be illegal.
If that is true then it's not double murder, and if not then abortion should be illegal.
a baby's life does indeed start when it is born. viability is key in the case of being charged with a double murder or not. choice and consent is also key. if you can't understand the difference it's most likely because you are trying to tie together murder of a pregnant woman and all abortion. it doesn't fly. in the first place the majority of abortions happen in the first trimester. late term abortions are not done on healthy babies. when and if a woman has an abortion is none of your business, women have the right to privacy.
a baby's life does indeed start when it is born. viability is key in the case of being charged with a double murder or not. choice and consent is also key. if you can't understand the difference it's most likely because you are trying to tie together murder of a pregnant woman and all abortion. it doesn't fly. in the first place the majority of abortions happen in the first trimester. late term abortions are not done on healthy babies. when and if a woman has an abortion is none of your business, women have the right to privacy.
I support abortion rights.
I am not on board with double murder. It breaks the logic.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.