pro-life, pro-choice

The argument the the pro-life folks present is that a fetus is a person with a soul and shouldn't ever be killed/murdered, like any human shouldn't ever be. The argument the pro-choice folks present is that a person who is not prepared to deliver or care for a new life should be able to choose not to, with the idea of "lesser of two evils". They are two arguments regarding abortion that do not address the same issues. But anyway . . .

I've just been reminded that, even though the problem is as complex as is stated above, it gets more complex. This article discusses the idea that, if a fetus is to be given human standing, how many responsibilities that we have regarding humans should be transferred to fetuses? We strive to provide the best health care for young children, for instance. If we don't provide this care, we can be officially declared to be neglecting the child. And we don't want to give our children things that are bad for them (like whiskey) for the same reason. So, if we were to transfer this argument to fetuses, and a pregnant person chose to drink whiskey or smoke, etc., do they get cited for neglect as harshly as a parent of a child would?

addition, 2/1: the comment on this entry had me going to Dr Forbush's blog, where the author made mention that illegal abortions would be highly likely in a society where abortions were illegal. This is a good example of how we SHOULD NOT FORGET HISTORY. History shows that, before Roe vs. Wade, the proliferation of illegal abortions DID cause death to the pregnant women in some cases. Good add.

addition, 2/2: I'm naive. I didn't know, in my previous post on abortion, that people ARE voicing opinions that they want more strictness on pregnant women, and when bad things happen, they get prosecuted. This blog pointed it out for me. There's always stuff to be better understood . . .