So an Abortion limiting bill passed in my state, Texas

[Mr Khan]

thranx said:

the2real4mafol said:

Isn't this a very rare case? This women was extremely lucky to be born so early and survive. And i'm still pro-choice just because it's up to the women if she wants to keep her baby or not. I imagine most wouldn't abort but it should still be up to them. 

Finally, how can a state like Texas be against abortion but for the death penalty? How does that make any sense? 

It makes perfect sense. The death penalty is used after someone has been convicted of a serious crime, and more than likely also taken someone elses life. So the person had a chance to live, and a chance to live by the law of the land. They had choices they could make that could lead to the death penalty, or choices they could make that would lead to them living a happy life. They bear the responsibilty for their actions.

On the other hand a child still in the womb of it mother has not had the chance to make the wrong choices that may lead to a bad life. Rather it has had it decisons made ofr it. So it doesn't bear responisibilty for what it has not done. Instead a mother, may at will cease its life for now reason at all.

Now what confuses me is how people can say that women should be able to kill their babies because it is their bodies, but than think that the baby has no say in its treatment of its body. Where is the logic in that? Shouldn't the baby also be able to decide what happens with its body, and if its not shouldn't those decisions be made by someone who has the babies best interest at heart? I always have trouble understanding that logic, and reasoning.

Largely because women of childbearing age are sentient. Babies are not sentient. Sentience trumps non-sentience.