This makes me sick.
I hate abortion.
Abortion is murder, plain and simple.
But this? Anyone who has held a newborn, or seen the glow on a new mother’s face knows that this is absolutely ridiculous. It’s not any more or less murder than pre birth abortion is.. But people can get away with the “typical” abortion. If people are allowed to get away with this..
”..should be allowable up to the point that the child develops some ability to communicate and to anticipate the future”
What about people with special needs? What if there’s a 15 year old who can’t communicate? Is killing them considered a form of abortion?
Here’s an article written by Al Mohler about this. Al Mohler is the President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
The debate over abortion comes down to one essential issue — the moral status of the unborn child. Those making the case for the legalization of abortion argue that the developing fetus lacks a moral status that would trump a woman’s desire to abort the child. Those arguing against abortion do so by making the opposite claim; that the unborn child, precisely because it is a developing human being, possesses a moral status by the very fact of its human existence that would clearly trump any rationale offered for its willful destruction.
This central issue is often obscured in both public argument and private conversations about abortion, but it remains the essential question. We have laws against homicide, and if the unborn child is recognized legally and morally as a human being, abortion would be rightly seen as murder.
In the main, abortion rights advocates have drawn the moral line at the moment of birth. That is why, even with our contemporary knowledge of the developing fetus, abortion rights activists have persistently argued in favor of abortions right up to the moment of birth. Anyone doubting this claim needs only to consider…
What the hell is “after birth abortion”? Pretty sure that after a fetus is born it becomes it’s own being dependent on only itself as far as sustaining itself with its own organs and therefore has it’s own rights.
What you pro-lifers fail to consider is the rights of the parent that has to carry that child. You can’t just turn someone into a breeder against their will, even if “it’s only for 9 months!”
Uh.. yeah, what the fuck is “after birth abortion”??
Honestly, no. The debate over abortion does NOT come down to the “essential issue” of whether or not a fetus is a human being. It really comes down to the essential issue of the rights of the mother/uterus bearer vs. the rights of the fetus inside her*. Because, get this.. even if the fetus is considered a human being inside her, it doesn’t have any more rights than another human being. She* has the right to deny it the use of her body, just as she has the right to deny ANYONE the use of her body. If the fetus cannot survive outside the uterus.. well, that’s unfortunate but it’s no more morally reprehensible than denying someone your liver or a kidney just because OMG THEY’RE GONNA DIE WITHOUT IT. Nope. It’s still the donor’s choice, and her bodily autonomy still trumps any fetus’ “right to life.”
*sorry for the cissexist language - by “woman” and “her/she” I am referring to uterus-bearers and those who COULD get pregnant. Not all women can get pregnant, and not all people who can get pregnant are women.
What the ever loving fuck?!?!