There is little evidence for the currency of this….

However, I still don’t think you can, by definition, punish a fetus, as punishment indicates the commission of an offense. A fetus is incapable of committing an offense and to use the term is purposefully inflammatory and inaccurate. While the abortion of the pregnancy is certainly detrimental to the fetus, it is not a punishment, as there is just no offense to punish. I really dislike the idea that women who abort a pregnancy are doing so with the mindset of “well this fetus has committed the offense of existing, so I’m going to punish it by aborting the pregnancy” as that is such a distortion of reality.

And if the only consideration is the life of the fetus, or if the continuation of the fetus is more important than the rights of the woman carrying the fetus, how far should that extend? Should pregnant women be legally prevented from participating in activities that may carry a risk of miscarriage - like horseback riding and taking hot baths. Should pregnant women be forbidden to leave the house (god forbid she was in a car wreck and lost the pregnancy) and be confined for the duration of the pregnancy for the protection of the fetus? Where is the line drawn?

And before anyone says I’m taking this too far, it was very common to confine high-born European women during the 15th and 16th century for the last trimester of pregnancy to “protect” the fetus. There is a precedence for such a concept.

What you’re essentially saying is that women don’t have the right to have sex unless they have money. If that seems like a far stretch, think of this not-so-uncommon scenario; poor (as in, not enough money) woman can’t afford to have children, and doesn’t want them anyway. However, she uses birth control responsibly when making love to her husband, and they’ve never had a ‘mistake’. One day she discovers that despite the BC, she’s pregnant. They can’t afford to keep the child, and they don’t want to be parents. The can’t afford the cost of pregnancy care, because they don’t have health insurance, and they can’t afford for her to take leave from work to recover from the birth and attend pregnancy appointments, since sick leave and maternity leave aren’t compulsory and aren’t provided.

See what I’m getting at? Or maybe you don’t. The point is, it’s cruel to blame women for their irresponsibility, when many are basically forced by a completely unsympathetic system into abortion. Lack of affordable health care, inability to get hold of adequate contraception and morning after pills (a big problem in some less populated areas if you only have a local ‘christian’ hospital who won’t prescribe these things) - these are all major problems that stop women going through pregnancy and adopting out, apart from all the other practical concerns. It’s not a matter of selfishness for many - most - women. It’s a matter of dealing with circumstances in the only responsible way possible. And you want to take that away from them? What you’re saying is that women don’t have the right to have sex unless they’re prepared to be a mother. That’s entirely ideological, and completely unreasonable for all the many MANY women and couples who have made very good, very responsible, very carefully thought-out decisions that they do not want to be parents, whether now or in the future.

And can you really “punish” a fetus?

I don’t see how a person can be pro-life and really believe that aborting a pregnancy is the equivalent of murder, but be able to make an exception for rape. Does knowing the reason why a woman is making that choice really make it less of a murder in your eyes?

I’m (obviously) pro-choice, and to me this means being pro-choice, PERIOD, regardless of why the woman is choosing to abort. I can understand the “don’t like it but think it should remain legal” stance, but I just don’t get the “think it’s murder and should be treated like murder, unless the woman was raped.”

I’m pro-choice because I believe that it’s a medical procedure and that lawmakers should not have the right to legislate medical care. The performance of the procedure, or the prescription of the medication, should be a decision made by the patient and her doctor, no one else. I couldn’t care less about the possibly morality of the procedure. I don’t think lawmakers should govern morality, nor that any person has the right to force their moral beliefs on another person. If you feel it’s an immoral procedure, then don’t have one. That’s your right to choose.