If a woman becomes pregnant, advocates for widely accessible (and now free – thanks Obamacare!) abortion make the case that it is the woman’s decision as to whether or not to keep the baby.  If she decides to keep it, the father must accept this and pay up.  If she decides to terminate the child’s life, the father has no say in the situation.  The woman has the unilateral and complete decision-making power.  The man doesn’t even need to be informed of her choice, but he is bound to live by it.

And, to drive that point home, the courts are going to prosecute any man who initiates an abortion with murder.  
If the woman were to decide to get an abortion, abortion laws would support her decision, based on the argument that an unborn baby is not actually a human being and is not entitled to any of the rights thereof, first and foremost the right to life.  But if the man initiates an abortion, then that very same child is indeed a child, a human being who has been murdered.  
Is it just me, or is this logically inconsistent?  Either she is a human being or it isn’t.  If she is, than neither the woman or the man may elect to kill her.  If the unborn child isn’t actually a human being, then neither the woman or the man can be held liable for murder.  
If I snuck up on a woman and clipped off a lock of her hair, should I be charged for murder?  Isn’t that an inconsequential collection of cells?  I certainly might be charged with assault or something else, but not murder.  
But as it stands, it is merely the individual woman’s prerogative that determines if there is an unborn baby inside of her or a mass of cells that are not a human being.  That strikes me as dangerous logic.  

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s