An abortion if nothing else represents lost potential, so there had better be a major reason to do it. Sometimes there is, and there is a hard decision to be made. That decision belongs primarily to those closest to it with working brains, usually the parents. That’s what “pro-choice” means.

This Laotian case is a potential FORCED abortion. It’s against the principles of both pro-life and pro-choice. Just who would you expect to support it?

Looking at it from another angle, this woman is six months along, and Carter’s Canadian case was eight months. I wouldn’t support the abortion of either baby outside of extreme circumstances, because it’s obvious that there is a complete baby there. Either one could be born prematurely at its moment of crisis and survive.

Understand that sometimes being pro-choice means choosing not to abort, and that’s true here. That’s not inconsistency, it’s consideration of the situation at hand.

The UK woman’s pregnancy is most likely the result of prison rape, as the article goes on to say. If because of that or anything else she had decided to abort, and been able to, we’d all hope she would have had it done immediately before the developing embryo/zygote/blastocyst was able to feel pain and therefore suffer. She’s well beyond that point now. That makes this situation even worse.

So if she WANTS the child – wait. CHOICE, see?

But why would you wait till she had birthed the kid?

I have no sympathy for people who smuggle drugs in countries with the death penalty.

What would YOU do? Let the mother go free without consequences or wait til she has the kid and THEN shoot her?

Personally, gut reaction, I’d wait til she had the kid *if* someone wants to raise it, someone other than the state. Then by all means shoot her in the face.