Why is killing a new born infant not treated as an abortion?

Question

It is possible to transplant embryos and fetus from one person to another.

An infant is dependant on the body of its mother at least for the first 3 months, unless it is put to foster care. Similarly embryos and fetus can also be put to foster care.

In this condition, why is abortion a "choice" and a "right" of a woman over *HER* body?

Is it okay if the fetus or embryo can be removed from the mother-to-be who wants an abortion and given away for those who wish to bring it to this world?

Serious and rational answers please.

-----millions of females who are aborted in asia each year----
(1) Abortion is legal because fetus is not regarded as a being, then how can there be a question of gender?
(2) At least in India, it is a serious crime to reveal the gender of a fetus and this law is strictly enforced. In India, it is a real criminal act punishable with prison terms and such if anybody helps to abort a fetus based on its gender.
You can read “Doctor in India Jailed for Telling Sex of a Fetus” in NYTimes here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/30/international/asia/30abort.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Answer 1

A really hard topic to talk about is abortion. I do not think that it is wrong to transport a fetus. I do not know everything about it but i think abortion is wrong, but transporting a fetus is just like adopting and it is way better than killing a child.

Answer 2

a transplanted fetus or embryo is still not an organism capable of living outside of a womb. If such transplants are or become both safe and economically viable, and a host-mother is available and willing, then it should be encouraged - just as adoption can/should be.

But any medical procedure, any phyical issue, can have complications and risks, and no one-size-fits-all rule can be inflicted. When in doubt, the woman who is at the center of the issue is clearly the person to have the final say.

Secret transplants create a range of rights issues which I have not considered as of yet, so I am hesitant to form a quick opinion on, but it is an interesting notion. I tend to frown upon dishonesty, but I can also see the argument for.

ADDED:
insects have genders, too, so your added point fails, unless you plan to make "murder" of insects illegal.

Answer 3

I'd predict that transplanting embryos would be much like transplanting organs in that the recipient has a high liklihood of rejecting or having an immulogical response against a transplanted fetus.

Yes, we could remove fetuses and raise them in test tubes rather than performing adoptions. But honestly, do you have any idea how many abortions occur? In 2006, between England and Whales, just over 200 000 abortions were performed. In Canada 2004, 100 763 abortions were recorded. I'm not going to waste your time with more stats - but we agree that we're dealing with a lot of aborted fetuses.

Say we decided to raise these fetuses, stuck them in jars for 9 months...Where would they all go? You argue that infants are dependent on mothers for the first three months. I doubt that there are 100 763 mothers just waiting for babies. So these infants get to live in a foster home until someone comes to take them. Remember, some of these fetuses were aborted because of mental or phyical disabilities that were detected before birth. So we have all these special needs kids as well...I doubt there's a huge market of mothers seeking out mentally or physically handicapped fetuses. Um...so how do you propose paying for the care of all these infants? Are you honestly willing to pay additional tax to support this? For legal reasons, who becomes the 'guardian' of these infants - or are they just property of the state?

We already have enough children stuck in foster homes because no one wants them...or they want to save the cute little asian/african babies and give them an opportunity in the 'land of opportunities'.

Also, there's the surrogate mother thing. You can give some lady some seman and have her carry your baby. Or you can go to a sperm shop, pick up some seman and get yourself fertilized. So the idea of storing 'would-be' aborted fetuses is just redundant...

You've asked a lot of questions...

The "why is abortion a choice and right of a woman over her body" is a pointless argument. There's no answer. I'm not going to refute it because I have no more grounds than you do. Read the infamous pro abortion analogy of the violinist with the kidney failure. It's a stupid argument, but it shows how circular any argument to this would be.

I don't see a problem if a woman offers her would-be aborted fetus to someone who wants it...but there are more people aborting fetuses than those willing to bring children into the world.

I personally don't agree with abortion, but I can't oppose it because I don't know the situtation of every person who has had an abortion. Saying, "only those who have been raped, or have a mentally disabled kid can have an abortion" is not going to work...you need a universal law saying yes, or no. I certaintly don't agree with abortions after 12 weeks, but most abortions occur before then. You can't teach responsibilitiy because even the most responsible can slip up. I believe it is the woman's choice because ultimately she'll have to be accountable for her decision.

Answer 4

i'm with you. i do no longer think of that abortion could be criminal even in week 5 of being pregnant. who're we to settle on whilst a life could end? in this unwell us of a, we are killing toddlers that would desire to stay exterior the womb. yet as a substitute we are ripping them aside and throwing the toddlers away like rubbish. isn't that marvelous that a 6 inch holiday down the delivery canal immediately makes them human and valued. Abortion is at present's Holocaust. considered one of he toddlers that has been aborted would have already got here upon the treatment for many cancers and different ailments via now. If the "mom" had given them of project.

Answer 5

GREAT QUESTION!!

When one destroys a EMBRYO ( human life ) they assume a moral decision that only God can make. God gives the highest value and sanctity to human life and does not take lightly the shedding of innocent blood.

The terms “embryo' and “fetus” [ is actually of animal origin]have become scientific terms to describe the developmental stages of human life. They were never meant to suggest that they are anything other than human life. Others use these terms to have them describe non human life.

Abortion denies a child all that you already possess. You went through the same process except you made it out alive from the womb. Should we deny them (or anyone) the same right.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in our nation's Declaration of Independence, We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. This right is related to “life.” Life was the first right mentioned. Life was basic because life is necessary in order for someone to pursue their happiness as well as any other rights. Thomas Jefferson also wrote, “The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government.” So the pursuit of liberty should not override the right to life.

From the moment of conception a fetus is a human being. Consciousness has nothing to do with the nature that makes one a person. A person can be knocked unconscious and still be a human being. When a person falls asleep he does not cease to be a human life?

When someone decides they will discard a child as only tissue they are devaluing human life. If we consider the EMBRYO to be non-human, then we have depreciated the value of human life. If we can decide death for someone unable to decide themselves, whose to say this can’t be expanded to other areas.

Without a sense of the moral worth of human life, we become like animals acting in violence. Were going back to the law of the jungle, where only the strong survive. But it is more of an expression of humanity to help those who are weak or defenseless, this is what separates humans from the animal kingdom.

If you lose respect for life you lose respect for humanity. All mankind is made in the image of God and has the potential to reflect and demonstrate his nature. All of societies breakdown, the crime, the murders, thefts are all outgrowths of not having respect for what God has given. These relate to his standards he installed in humans hearts. Our conscience has been frozen by self infatuation.

No wonder girls, and women are having babies and throwing them in dumpsters -- They look at it like -- well whats the difference -- inside me--outside me...If I had gone this morning I could have had an abortion--but a few hours later I am a murderer
visit : http://www.abortiontv.com...If you have the guts

Answer 6

killing a newborn infant is considered murder, not abortion, and is punishable by law.

when you take anthropology courses, you learn about women who have used plants, drugs, chemicals to stop her pregnancy. usually b/c she is not able to feed or care for her baby. also, women (and men) have committed infanticide for the same reasons.

since civilization began, women have been trying to control their bodies. until modern technology came around, they used whatever methods considered culturally acceptable or that were simply available.

in modern times, most women only want to have one or two children. birth control is not 100% effective or is it always accessible.

technology has not been able to transfer fetuses, but, of course, adoption is available.

there are many infants and children available for foster care and adoption. too many.

when people can start deciding what kinds of medical care men should have, then they can start deciding what kind of medical care women should have.

68,000 women die from unsafe abortions. many millions more suffer permanent injuries. safe abortions can prevent these needless deaths and injuries.

if abortion and contraception is considered a sin by the catholic church b/c they prevent life from forming - -why is it perfectly okay for a man to masturbate and lose all that life-potential sperm?

maybe you should ponder outlawing masturbation.

and stop trying to decide what to do with a woman's body. nobody needs to make a decision for her. nobody needs to have "enforced pregancy" laws.

and by the way, what do you think of the millions of females who are aborted in asia each year because of 'son preference' - - haven't seen any "concerned people" tackle that one yet.

Answer 7

This question is NOT based upon fact. The fetus or embryo CANNOT be removed from a uterus and transplanted into another.

An ova or ovum can be harvested, fertilized in a dish, IVF, and then inserted in another womans uterus but it is not a transplant.

Answer 8

If someone is for abortion, he/she should be in favour of neglecting breast-feeding, because it´s "the woman´s body, and her choice".

Answer 9

i no wot ur sayin..but the foetus is out of the womb now..so it wudnt b called abortion