🚀 go-pugleaf

Edward William Clayton wrote in message ...

>I see the difference.  But it's not up to me to decide for someone else
>how significant that difference is to them if they're the one that's been
>impregnated.

Nor I, thankfully.

>Incidentally you left out "accidentally impregnated," which
>is a very significant category here.  I'd guess very few women who get
>pregnant on purpose later "change their minds," unless the baby will be
>seriously deformed or carrying it would be a health/life risk to them.


Personally, I don't believe in "accidentally impregnated" as an excuse.  If
you knowingly choose to engage in an activity which you know may have
undesirable consequences, you're responsible for whatever results.  It's
somewhat like drinking and driving - if you choose to drive an automobile
while drunk, and have an accident, you're still responsible for the results
of the accident because you *chose* to get behind the wheel, regardless of
how carefully you were driving.  This is the difference in cases of rape -
the initial choice was taken away.

Guess you could say that I'm "pro choice" - I just believe that the choice
is made when you decide to indulge in the activity rather than later trying
to make the consequences of your choice go away.

>What I've never been able to figure out is if the "Christian" Coalition
>manages to get abortion outlawed and a woman has one anyway we should
>execute the doctor for murder or just the woman.  If the woman's husband
>drives her to the clinic, is he an accessory?  If she tells a friend she's
>thinking about an abortion, is the friend part of a conspiracy?


Case by case basis, like pretty much everything else in judicial law ...
which does not necessarily have any relationship to moral law.