I would think the answer to this question would be obvious, but with abortion apparently it throws everything into question. So why should murder be punished? And why not in the case of a baby in the uterus?
Because it doesn't have the right to life as given to any person who has been born. Murder is illegal, Abortion is not.
It's not discrimination since the unborn AREN'T equal to the born. It's simply recognizing a difference.
So just hypothetically, if the mother gave her permission, would it be okay for a doctor to sterilize the fetus while it was in the womb so that the fetus would never be able to have children when it grew up? After all, according to your logic, it is okay to do whatever one wants to the fetus, because it is not a "real" human being. If this would be wrong, can you please explain why. Why would killing the fetus be okay, but mere sterilization would not? Although this is just hypothetical, I can envission this being a form of population control used in China, as it would be a loophole to get around the ethics of sterilization. Perhaps the government would pay women to have their unborn fetuses sterilized while still in the womb.
This would be wrong because: Once a woman has decided to bring a child into the world, she owes that child the best life she can give it. The best life would include the possibility of the child having the ability to make choices of its own one day. Once a woman has decided upon birth, she owes that child freedom from damage from drugs or other environmental hazards to the best of her ability to provide. She owes the child the best health possible by providing herself pre-natal care. None of these obligations on her part extend to the obligation to birth, that is still her decision, and if she is unable to provide pre-natally or post-natally for the child, the choice for abortion is logical.
Unless you are willing to say (as another "pro-lifer" here has) that you are willing to see a woman EXECUTED for taking RU-486....your own analogy fails. If you ARE willing to say that...then there is little to fear of you influencing the public debate, since it would put you on the fringe. Please choose one option.
What about a 16 week old fetus? What about a 19 week old unborn baby?? At the very least, the age limit for elective abortions should be pushed back.
Its set a 24 weeks for a very good reason; and before you shout at the 1995 date, this is the most up to date information available that I can find, though recently there was a debate in the UK about moving the last abortion time from 24 weeks to 20 weeks . .however medical evidence shows that while there has been an increase in premature babies surviving after week 23 there has been little change before that time in survival rates and as such it was decided that the 24 week limit is correct.
And yet there have been documented instances where fetuses prematurely born at 21 weeks survived into adulthood. So it is okay to kill a baby because it had a 93% chance of not being able to survive outside the womb?!?
And yet you want to count the less than 1% of neonates born at 21 weeks that survived yet dismiss every case of pregnancy by rape or abortion due to medical reasons which is at least 1% as nothing. No, it is ok for a woman to have an abortion because pregnancy carries with it a long list of medical risks to her life and health and the possibility of death. If you want to start playing the statistics games, more women die every year worldwide due to pregnancy related complications, childbirth and complications from c-sections than the number of neonates born at 21 weeks live. http://www.who.int/features/qa/12/en/index.html These statistics do include unsafe abortion which is at 13%.
My opinion is known on this issue, so I'll just ask you if you want to punish abortion doctors and mothers like murderers. That's a lot of death penalties! If abortion is murder then treat it as such and go around the United States executing mothers. The fact that you don't advocate this is proof right there that you're not fully committed to this viewpoint.
Have no problem keeping elective abortion to the first three months, after that it should only be done in cases where the mothers life is in danger or the fetus has a condition will will not allow it to survive even if carried to term, both of which are rare.
Never said there hasn't been. Well as its not a "baby" until its born and its the mothers private choice with nothing to do with you or anyone else .. then yes she is entitled to have an abortion.
I'd still like an explanation for how you are supposed to prosecute a woman for abortion....without knowing if she was pregnant in the first place?
Fugazi, I can't help but notice a recurring theme in your posts. You consistently use the law to justify the law. Are you not familiar with the term circular reasoning?
I am very familiar with it. I see it so often from religious people. The above is not reasoning it is statement.
Choicers still have not answered the original question. Why should murder (when it is not an abortion) be punished? If I slipped a drug into a pregnant woman's drink that would poison her 18 week old fetus, would pro-choicers advocate that I should NOT be punished for murder, because it was not really a person who died? According to pro-choicer logic, wouldn't putting me in prison for the rest of my life be almost just as bad as punishing a woman for getting a late-term abortion?
If murderers aren't punished, then any one us can be murdered for any reason Scary thought. That's why we have a right to life. Rights stop when they limit the rights of other people. A baby in utero doesn't have rights in Europe, because they would limit the rights of a person. Two entities occupying the same body cannot have equal rights. The rights of one must override the rights of the other. Any rights a baby in utero has are given by the woman whose body it occupies, because otherwise her rights would be removed when she became pregnant whether she agreed or not. She would be nothing but a vessel. That's the situation is some countries right now. It is my opinion, morally repugnant.
