[Trump_the_Evil_Left]

I’ve always seen this as one of the ridiculous aspects of the whole abortion “debate” — how can the human and moral status of the fetus/baby depend solely upon whether the woman “wants” it or not? You want to kill it? Ok, it’s not a human child. You want to give birth but someone else kills it? Ok, that’s MURDER.

Leftists want to have it both ways, but this is incoherent, i.e., illogical.

[coloradan]

That must be what the “right to choose” means - it’s the woman’s right to decide the unborn’s fate, so long as it remains within her. Viewed in this context, the decision to charge the man with two counts of murder makes perfect sense: she chose life, bestowing her unborn child with rights which he violated, killing the child (and also her).

[MHGinTN]

You expect leftist to be coherent? Their dead souls are at the heart ‘double minded’,

[zeugma]

I’ve always seen this as one of the ridiculous aspects of the whole abortion “debate” — how can the human and moral status of the fetus/baby depend solely upon whether the woman “wants” it or not? You want to kill it? Ok, it’s not a human child. You want to give birth but someone else kills it? Ok, that’s MURDER.

Indeed. Laws like this expose the weakest arguments on the pro-abortion side. When I first saw one of these laws passed, along with support from those who I would have thought would be it's natural opponents, I often wondered if they didn't see how weak it made their case in other circumstances.