Can someone explain this to me, please? A woman decides to have an abortion. She is given the choice to do so, a safe place to have the procedure, and is coddled by those who say "Poor thing, what an awful thing to do, why did she have to make that choice?" And so on.
In Washington state, Charles Young was convicted of solicitation of first degree murder and solicitation of first degree manslaughter. The murder charge was for the eight-month along fetus, the manslaughter for the unfortunate girlfriend. Fortunately, the 'hit' was a sting operation, so mother and child lived happily ever after.
But here's my problem. A woman aborts, no charge at all. A man tries to kill the fetus, and he has a murder charge hanging over his head. That's just not right. I'm not talking about the act of destroying the fetus, and obviously I'm not excusing the beating that the mother would take in that case. My problem is that the same crime is treated differently based on who commits the crime.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
What??? We actually sort of agree on something?!?! I've always wondered how we (society at large - not just you and me) can say abortion is not murder (or manslaughter or whatever illegal) but people are charged in the death of an unborn baby if a pregnant woman is killed. Is it all based on whether the baby is wanted or not wanted? Maybe there is just some line in the middle of pregnancy says, ok, now it's murder if the baby dies. Where exactly is that line?
P.S. I'm one of those middle-of-the-road people about abortion: It's fine if other women want to do it but it's not something I would ever do. And I hate the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life".
P.P.S When I read your title and the first paragraph, I was hoping you'd comment on the latest "Fathers' Right to Choose" movement that has been happening off and on. Oh, well. Maybe another time...
Post a Comment