Pro-choicers, let me get this straight: You would rather abort a child than have it grow up unwanted, right?

Question

OK, Someone asked a question about abortion:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Av9MbN2wbKa_Dq67bZmG9DTsy6IX?qid=20070522064354AAxFYGj&show=7#profile-info-748e52896f7538a3cba8d811c3112b59aa

And many in the pro-choice crowd responded that it would be better to simply abort an unborn child than to allow it to grow up being abused, or unwanted, or neglected, etc.

But my question is: Why stop at unborn children?

Honestly, I cannot see what the difference is. If a 3 year old is being abused by his father, or a mother neglects her infant, why not "abort" them, too? Why should it make a difference whether or not it is inside the mother or not? Its DNA doesn't change when it is born, and science says that DNA is what makes one an individual, so why use that ending point?

Instead of the point of viability (20-27 weeks), lets make it the age of reason (7 years).



---I am NOT condoning violence, I am simply trying to understand the thought process behind this logic.

Answer 1

The death of a child is never ok.
under any circumstances.
To the people who think pro-lifer's are hypocrites because they say it is ok to abort in a rape victim, you need to understand that they do not believe it's ok, they are only trying to compromise with a group of baby killer's in the hope's of saving the 1.2 million babies aborted every year that are NOT rape, NOT incest,And NOT medically nessessary.

To those who say Pro-lifer's don't care about the hardships a baby will bring on the mother because we do not want to pay for state sponsored welfare...get real...We are the group that gives 6 TIMES the amount of charity as any other group ON TOP OF OUR TAXES!!!...we feel charities would be ran more efficiently if they could actually lose funding for allowing themselves to be abused by it's recipients.
about 10-15 years ago I had a friend who wanted to adopt a baby, she spent year's on the waiting list ,4 waiting list's actually before a baby came available for her to adopt.
There are no such things as unwanted babies when you can be on 4 different waiting list's at the same time and still wait 4 1/2 years!
As for the argument that it will lead to abused and neglected children...are you implying that those who seek abortions are child abuser's? that they are so hungry to hurt a child that they kill it before it can take it's first breath...that argument is stupid...you decribe those you are defending like they are crazed animals...if that is the case then animals should not have the right of choice.
Talk about the child paying for the "Sins" of the parent(s)!
How is that any kind of justice?

Answer 2

It's a difference in degree, that's all.

Why stop with your example? Why not apply it to ALL the "unwanted" people? (The reason these people allegedly have such horrible lives is because they are not wanted in our society. But of course that's the baby's fault, people seem to say.) Let's clear out all the prisons, retirement homes, mental institutions, homeless shelters, AIDS hospices, etc. And don't you dare tell me not to, unless YOU will take care of these people yourself! How many old folks have YOU adopted and taken into your home, huh?

That's the usual argument, just expanded to cover more of the "unwanted." I guess the difference is that each of us could conceivably fall into the groups I mentioned one of these days, but none of us will ever be fetuses again. And it's also been relatively easy (until the age of ultrasound, etc. - again, the science the liberals like to ignore) to define the unborn as NOT HUMAN and therefore disposable. This was done with blacks, too, and Jews in Nazi Germany. There's a reason the concentration camp inmates were given numbers - to dehumanize them. It's easier to kill someone, born or unborn, if they don't have a name.

Oddly enough, this same argument of "what kind of life would the person have" - so fondly advanced by some "women's rights groups" - also figured in the ancient (Asian) Indian practice of suttee, where a widow was burned to death on the husband's funeral pyre. Maybe in the case of both suttee and abortion, the solution to the "awful life" ahead of each of its subjects would be to treat that person better, not destroy it. Just a thought.

If you remember my answer to your question from yesterday, you will recall that I think the idea of personal autonomy - a women controlling her own body - has merit. This other argument for abortion, though, which clearly acknowledges that the fetus is human by discussing the prospective quality of its life - is profoundly grotesque.

Your question is very well-taken, and logical. I'll have to have a look at how other people tried to answer. As i read them, I will look very carefully for arguments that apply to abortion but NOT to your plan. I don't expect to find a meaningful distinction.

PS Look up Peter Singer, a princton professor who has already started down the path you asked about. He basically has extended the "abortion" rationale to the first 28 days of a child's life, in certain cases.

Also, while Barack Obama was in the illinois legislature, he voted against a law requiring that babies who survived an abortion be given medical treatment:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18647

The horrific future you worry about is already coming to pass.

Answer 3

Excellent point.

For the previous answers there are several issues to consider:
"Government has no place in the decision"
If we are a government by the people and for the people, it should be a reflection of society. The question is are we to be a society that condones the taking of an innocent life?

"The child cannot survive outside of the womb"
Well the simple fact is that once a fully developed child is born, it still cannot survive without significant aid from the mother or some other individual. When is the last time you saw a newborn pop out of the womb and go fix some mac & cheese because he or she was hungry? The point is, who are you to draw the line? That's the essence of this question.

Answer 4

Good points! Problem is with some of those pro-choice people is that they automatically assume that the child would be born into an abused, unwanted, or neglected life when that is rarely the case. Some people just cannot accept the responsibility for their decisions. I am fairly sure some will try to bring up rape, for that, it is not the child's fault that the father raped the mother, so put the baby up for adoption. But for them, why stop at 7? What about people who have fallen on hard times, low self-respect, or ignored? There are plenty of people who fit those categories.

Answer 5

When a mother is unable to sustain a pregnancy on her own (typically for health issues with the child or mother), it triggers a spontaneous abortion--better known as a "miscarriage"--and is probably one of the most devastating things that can happen to a woman... With the exception of the loss of an older child she has grown to nurture and cherish even beyond what she felt while still a dreamy mother-to-be.

My point of reasoning that life begins at conception is based on the simple fact that if a healthy pregnancy is permitted to continue without artificial / violent interference, a real live, living, breathing, functioning human baby would be the result.

Seeking made this arguement up there:
"Legalized abortion is only available when the fetus (unborn child) is not developed enough to breath on its own and is not "self sufficient" (meaning there would be no possible way for it to survive if not in the mothers womb)."

One of my close friends had a very difficult pregnancy late last year and gave birth to her baby at only 22 weeks. Thanks to modern medicine and technology (and a lot of prayer), he is now a thriving, happy, and healthy 7-month-old who is on track with his peers for all levels of development, WITHOUT adjusting his birthdate.

How can you justify the murder of an innocent baby simply because he/she is still just a month shy of "viability?!" My friend's baby was saved by all kinds of medical techniques and equipment, but by your logic should the doctors have simply written him off as "non-viable" because he wasn't full-term?

I'll admit I don't want to bring children into homes where they are not wanted, but there are LOADS of parents who want to adopt a baby (before they are abused, neglected, or permanently warped)! We experienced infertility issues prior to having our 2nd child and were struggling with the decision of adopting--from China because our adoption laws here in the US are so backward. Better laws giving more rights to the adoptive parent would certainly help improve the adoption rate for US-born babies.

Anyway, if abortion were NOT available as an option for making an uncomfortable situation just "go away," perhaps people--men AND women--would be a bit more responsible when having sex. (Yes, there are failures in birth control, but abstinence never fails.) The possibility of bringing a child into this world might even discourage sex as purely a recreational activity. That may sound too old-fashioned, but look around at all the problems that result from promiscuity--infidelity and divorce, disease, HIV, oh, and those pesky unwanted pregnancies...

We ALL have to learn to live with the consequences of our actions!

Answer 6

I prefer 'pro death,' and yes, I'd rather see pregnancies aborted than children growing up 'unwanted.' Even 'wanted' kids with incompetent or unprepared parents don't exactly have the best lives.

Why indeed. Why not "Post Natal Abortion?" If a child is unwanted by his own parents, and no one else is willing to care for it, what do you do? Leave it to die on the street? Give it to the state to raise as a souless stormtrooper? Or mercifully end it's brief, bleak existance?

Of course the 'no one else willing to care for it' is probably the big question - prospective adoptive parents go wanting all the time.

Answer 7

Super Politics-
I love when people describe abject poverty. Let me assure you, I have been to many different countries: India, China, Cameroon.

I can tell you that we do not have abject poverty in this country. Our poor would live like kings in other parts of this world.

We have HUD, Welfare and a multitude of other public assistance programs designed to fed, clothe, and shelter our citizens who cannot do for themselves. So you can't argue that babies born to mothers who cannot afford to take care of them do not have ample government assistance programs at their fingertips.

I'm all for choice! Choosing to have sex or to abstain. When you make any choice you must be able to face the consequences of your actions.

Infidel makes an excellent point. If that is the logic... sparing them from a life of unwantedness and neglect why stop with the unborn? Why not the elderly in nursing homes who's family members don't visit? Or the mentally incompetent surely you'd agree they suffer abuse and unwantedness.

As an unplanned pregnancy I can tell you I am sure glad my parents didn't spare me from the trials I'd face in my life.

All of us who are able to respond to this question should be grateful we are were allowed the chance at life. Unlike the millions of those who were supposedly 'saved' through abortion.


By the way the word 'fetus" is latin for little person. Look it up!
It also means: fetus (1) -a -um (1) [pregnant; fruitful , fertile; teeming with, full of]. (2) [that has brought forth, newly delivered].


http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/

http://www.feministsforlife.org/

Answer 8

Precisely, well said and well defended.

Check out this story for a little bit more on the subject of euthanization and when it should be done or not done.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/palmbeach/sfl-522catwoman,0,5765209.story?track=rss

I wrote a paper once that we should be allowed to euthanize anyone that requests it, who are we to stand in the way of their choice, after all, it is THEIR body, right?

Answer 9

I learned about condoms at the age of about 11, 36 years ago. They give them out free. Does aperson with a right to choose have the right to use a condom??? Just ponder that for a moment...

Answer 10

A thought out argument. Nicely done. By the way, I think only Catholics know age seven to be the age of reason.

The only exception to this is what about rape victims? I can understand in any other circumstances bringing a baby to term and giving her/him up for adoption but to understand that every day for 9 + months you would have a constant reminder of what had happened to you and I think rape is the most traumatic crime all mentally and emotionally. I'm not condoning abortion but I don't know what I would do if this situation occured to me.