If abortion is a woman's choice . . .?

Question

is it okay to kill my 3 month old baby because they are a burden to me, and my body? According to the logic of some pro-abortion people out here, that should not be a problem.

Susie - it's not Apples and Oranges. A Fetus cannot survive on it's own, and neither can a 3 month old child.

I would raise the child if I were able to. If not, isn't adoption a valid alternative than be raised as "unloved and abused by mother who doesn't want it"

Stiggo - have you ever raised a baby? To say that it is no longer a burden on your body is a bunch of bologna. I am sorry, but sleeping off and on for maybe 4 hours a night can be considered a burden. That child is dependant up you (your body) 100%. So, if someone else can do these things once the baby is 3 months, why can't they from the day that they are born. Why kill the baby?

Men who murder pregnant women can be charged with 2 separate murders. Why does it matter where the child is?!?

Stiggo - granted, the woman has no other option during her pregnancy. I agree with you on that. There is still no excuse for murdering it. You are telling me that once the baby is born, there are other means for that child to survive, so why not have it, and put it up for adoption? Is it pure greed?!?

You are a walking contradiction - your daughter was born three months early, and at only 1.5 lbs . . . how did she survive the remaining months? I am failry sure that there was some medical equipment involved . . . so to say that the fetus is not a seperate living organism until born, and is able to survive on it's own condtradicts your own experience (unless I am way off, and she was just fine).

I apologize if this is too personal, but upon birth, was your daughter viable? Did you consider her a living being at that point?

Answer 1

That doesn't sound like the logic of anyone I've ever seen. After all, once born, it is no longer 100% reliant on your body for its survival, now is it? It is no longer a "burden" (A word I also don't see used by pro-choice people) on your body, even if you are making milk for it and taking care of it. Someone else can do those things.

I've noticed that the arguments against choice don't stand up well to basic logic. This one, although new to me, is no different.

P.S. To Pfo: Of course it is different if a woman goes on a murder spree, since then she is causing harm to something outside of her body, and thus affecting other human beings. Is that really the best you can come up with?

P.P.S. If you read my profile, you'd know I have a daughter. In fact, she was born 3 months early, weighing a pound and a half. She's seven now. Yes, it was very demanding raising her. But the point is, you don't have to do it. Once born, it becomes your choice whether to care for the child. If you don't choose to, someone else can. Prior to viability, there is no choice, the fetus is dependent on you and you alone.

P.P.P.S. Until the baby is born, or at least viable, it isn't a baby, it is just something that is part of the mother. It could not exist in any way on it's own, with all the help in the world. So, at that point, if the mother decides to do something, she is doing it to herself, and not to a seperate being. Thus, you cannot call it murder, no matter how much you want to.

Answer 2

Are you talking about a child who can survive outside of the womb or are you talking a 3 month fetus which is not at all viable outside of the womb......apples and oranges my friend.

I always find it interesting how prolifers use inflammatory comments to support their argument.
Here is my question to you:
A woman forgoes an abortion because the right to lifers convince her she's wrong...then when the baby is 3 months old she realizes she is not financially or emotionally able to care for the child..are you going to raise it? or would you rather it be raised unloved and abused by mother who doesn't want it?

Answer 3

No -- because while they may be a financial burden, they are not a "physical" burden -- in the sense that the baby, once born, is no longer physically taking out of your body

Hence, if you withdraw your consent from the baby to physically take out of your body, they have other options for survival -- feeding from a bottle, to start.

That is different than the issue of abortion -- where the woman is choosing whether she wants to continue allowing the unborn to take directly from her body -- just like whether she was deciding whether to give a blood transfusion.

And the govt cannot force her to give a blood transfusion out of her body to the 3-month old -- for the same reasons.

Answer 4

How can you ask such a sick question?!
Is it OK to send young men and woman to a war based on false pretenses so they get killed at 18? I just don't get pro-life people who support the war. A life is a life, war shouldn't be OK if you are pro-life.
I doubt there are "pro-abortion" people out there, only people like you choose to misunderstand their point - pro-choice is NOT pro-abortion. Please listen and try to understand other people's thoughts before passing judgment, most women who make that choice have very painful reasons to do that and don't do it lightly.

Answer 5

um, strawman. a three month old infant is BORN and ABLE TO BE CARED FOR BY ANYONE! the infant is a person. a fetus is NOT born, CANNOT be cared for by anyone but the woman and is not a person. therefore your argument is null and you're ignorant of what pro-CHOICE is.

Answer 6

Yes, the 'it's a woman's body, woman's choice argument' is completely devoid of logic because loosely interpreted it gives a woman free reign to do anything with her body and not be responsible for the outcome. She could go on a mass murdering rampage and it's still OK because 'it's her body, it's her choice'.

They ought to be more clear, but then 'it's a woman's choice to murder the baby in her body' doesn't sound very nice, and for good reason.

Answer 7

Knock yourself out, let me know which prison that they put you in and I'll send you cookies.

It isn't the same argument and you know it.