Legal Questions for pro-choicers?

Question

If abortion should be allowed (even where the fetus is capable of surviving outside the womb) because "these babies won't be wanted anyway," and "pro-lifers aren't willing to take care of them personally or pay for them," then what other groups of human beings are you willing to apply this logic to? The mentally ill? The disabled? Terminal patients? The elderly? Prisoners? The homeless? the poor?

Can I say "let me kill my Grandpa unless YOU take him in, because no one wants him?"

Finally, how would you vote on a bill (introduced in Congress in the past few years) mandating that a baby that survives an abortion is entitled to medical care? (Did you know that Barak Obama voted "no" on a similar bill?)

http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/Articles/Obama%20More%20Pro%20Choice%20Than%20NARAL.html

Yes or no, why or why not?

Please try to stay focused and answer the tough questions.

Don't assume you know my views - look at my other questions today.

PS I have no idea how on Earth I'll pick "best answers" for these . . .

Answer 1

I am a anti-abortionist, and not sure of your views, but I think there is a really good chance that will happen. It already does in some 'progressive' countries. Your argument is not a fallacious slippery slope argument because abortion and human rights violation are one in the same.

Answer 2

I believe each human has a right to make an individual decision regarding their own body, logical.

How do you come to the idea that favoring a woman's right to reach such a decision implies advocating the elimination of living humans?

The groups you mentioned were some of the first victims of the Nazi's. The ideology did not start with, nor did it end with, that era. Advocates of selective population elimination have not, historically, been women's rights advocates. However, pairing the two together serves multiple purposes, for many interests.

[In order to understand what a "no" vote on a bill means, one would need to know the bill. You reference Mr. Obama's vote "on a similar bill" and imply what?]


Edit: My Late-Term Abortion
President Bush's attempt to ban partial-birth abortions threatens all late-term procedures. But in my case, everyone said it was the right thing to do — even my Catholic father and Republican father-in-law.

By Gretchen Voss | January 25, 2004

"At the heart of the debate is a term that legislators concocted. They created a nonexistent procedure -- partial-birth abortion -- and then banned it."

"I don't remember much from those three days. Walking around with a belly full of broken dreams, it felt like what I would imagine drowning feels like -- flailing and suffocating and desperate. Semiconscious. Surrounded by our family, I found myself tortured by our decision, asking over and over, are we doing the right thing? That was the hardest part. Even though I finally understood that pregnancy wasn't a Gerber commercial, that bringing forth life was intimately wrapped up in death -- what with miscarriage and stillbirth -- this was actually a choice. Everyone said, of course it's the right thing to do -- even my Catholic father and my Republican father-in-law, neither of whom was ever "pro-choice." Because suddenly, for them, it wasn't about religious doctrine or political platforms. It was personal -- their son, their daughter, their grandchild. It was flesh and blood, as opposed to abstract ideology, and that changed everything."
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2004/01/25/my_late_term_abortion/

Answer 3

In my opinion, your point is a moot one. I can only speak for the abortions performed in Canada, which is where I from. I am not pro-abortion, I am pro-choice. Over 110,000 abortions are performed in Canada every year. Approximately 90% of abortions are performed in the first trimester, with just 2 to 3% performed after 16 weeks.

I don't understand how these fetuses are'nt viable. I think that a woman has a right to choose, and I firmly believe that it should stay that way.

Answer 4

You're looking for logical consistency in the pro choice argument? Ha! You might as well be looking for a vegetable tray in Rosie O'Donnell's dressing room!

Here's one for you... Why is it that when the baby is coming down the birth canal, head starting to show, and the doctor puts a spike in it and kills it (partial birth abortion), that's OK, but if a woman waits another 30 seconds until the baby is fully removed from the womb and tosses it into a dumpster inside a plastic bag, it's murder? Why not kill the kid when its 2 years old, and simply claim you were performing a retroactive abortion in the 11th trimester?

Or - why is it illegal to commit suicide, ingest drugs, or sell your own organs for profit if we're to believe we have full rights over our own bodies?

.

Answer 5

There is something your question doesn't take into account--the fetus can't survive outside the womb yet, but the others can. If you prohibited abortion, you're telling the woman "I don't care what circumstances this happened under, what condition the fetus is in, anything--you're going to be forced to pay by carrying it for 9 months, despite medical bills, health conditions, anything." The others can either care for themselves or others care for them, and if no individuals can do it, the state can.

Answer 6

A good question. I always worry that people getting used to abortion being OK is going to extend itself to people believing that euthenasia is OK (and it's not). Given time, this can become a reality and when it does our respect for life as a society will diminish.

Answer 7

You're equating legal abortion with Nazi-like eugenics. Sorry, but that doesn't work with me.