http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/23/us/23texas.htmlI think that this case presents the ethical issue of abortions in a very real-life scenario: why is it okay for a fetus to be "murdered" if the women chose for it be, but not okay for a fetus to be murdered if someone killed the mother (and, therefore, obviously the fetus)? In Texas, abortions are legal, but if a pregnant women is murdered during any stage of her pregnancy the person is charged with both the fetus' and the mothers' murders. I think this is kind of a double standard- it's difficult becuase I want to say that Terence Lawrence should definetely be charged with two murders, but why then is it ok for a women to get an abortion just becuase she chose to? I'm not saying that abortion should be illegal, but it does make me question why I believe that, becuase the bottom line is that although a fetus is not living yet, it has the potential to live, and how is it not considered murder if you purposefully prevent a life from living? This article made me look at the issue from a different angle and caused me to realise the hypocrisy of the issue- the Texas court said that the abortion precedent was based on the premise that a women wants the procedure, but in not-so-nice-of-words that's basically saying that if a women chooses to kill the fetus then it's okay becuase she wanted to, but since she didn't ask for someone to murder her and therefore the child then it's not okay. Okay... so basically the point here is that as long as you ask for it it's okay? It just seems very ironic to me.
No comments:
Post a Comment