If unborn babies could see into their future and decide if they wanted to be born or not, I would be all for letting them decide. Since they CAN'T, it's up to their mother to make the best decision they can for them.
No baby chooses to be conceived or born. And again, I don't believe that aborted babies CARE that they didn't "have a chance" or not. To me, that is a projection of feelings that just don't exist...
Exactly.
Tweet
And this also applies to a one day old baby, a one week old baby, and a one month old baby, and a two month old baby, and a three month old baby, and a four month old baby, and a five month old baby....well you get the picture. Just when does a baby assert the will to live? Just when does it think, 'hey, I want to be a doctor, or a lawyer, or a feminist,...? And remember, when you answer this question, you must do it without projecting feelings that just don't exist. So, until we determine exactly when a baby is capable of these 'feelings', a mother should be able to hire someone to dismember and hack to pieces said baby for her very own personal reasons.
ReplyDeleteCome on - a one week old baby certainly doesn't CARE if it doesn't get a chance. This would be a projection of feelings that just don't exist.
try again.
But don't kill the unborn human. You don't know what will be that human's story. You can't imagine what THEY are going through, because you are not they and you will not live their life. Don't project YOUR FEELINGS on unborn humans.
ReplyDelete@JustUs: the fetus is not "going through" anything, the same way my tonsils don't "go through" anything when I have them removed.
ReplyDelete@Anonymous: Yes, the same can be said for babies in the "fourth trimester" (as Dr. Karp calls it), and probably for many months, maybe years, after.
ReplyDeleteThe difference is that before birth, the only person who can take care of the fetus is the biological mother. No one else can help.
After birth, anyone can take care of the baby. If the biological mother is not willing or able to care for the child, she can hand the baby to someone else (temporarily or permanently).
After birth, the baby is not imposing itself on solely one person. There are more options, more people to help. Before birth, it's only the biological mother, and she has a right to make decisions about her life and her body.
After birth, after the fetus is no longer a fetus because it has EXITED the mother's body and has become a SEPARATE and DISTINCT individual baby no longer connected to the mother and depending on her as its sole source of life support, the separate and distinct baby entity is free to life its life (in the care of whomever chooses to take on the role, be this the biological mother or anyone else), until it can choose on its own what it wants to do with its life (if anything at all).
This has nothing to do with what I posted. So what if it has exited the mother's body. It is still imposing on her. She either has to take care of it, or find someone else to take care of it. It has no idea, no subjective experience, does not know about life and death or what it can look forward to. So it should be ok for a woman, being responsible for what her body produced, to kill her one week old if she so chooses. At 24 weeks and even younger, the fetus does not need it's mother for survival. She can opt to have it removed from her body, and she can kill it before it comes out. So what does it matter if it comes out at 24 weeks and she decides that she doesn't want to be a mother, or doesn't want to give it up for adoption? A 24 week fetus does not rely any more upon it's mother for survival outside. Is it just better then, to kill it before it sees the light of day? Your defense of abortion is not consistent. You argue that a fetus is not sentient, until someone points out that a newborn is also not sentient - then you change your tune. If it's ok to kill a human in utero, it's ok to kill one ex utero. This is the only way to apply consistency to your silly argument. Why don't you just stick with the fact that abortion is legal, women cop out, and leave it at that? There really is no other justification.
ReplyDeletePs. It was YOUR thesis that stated that it's ok to kill because unborn babies don't care whether they live or die. So following your argument, it should be ok to kill a child until the moment it cares about life and death.
ReplyDeleteHere - this is for your reading pleasure, if you're smart enough to make sense of it (questionable).
http://www.westchesterinstitute.net/images/wi_whitepaper_life_print.pdf
Anonymous:
ReplyDelete"It was YOUR thesis that stated that it's ok to kill because unborn babies don't care whether they live or die."
I never stated that. I believe a woman has a right to control what happens to her body, and therefore has a right to terminate a pregnancy if she does not want to be pregnant.
I posted the quote above, A STATEMENT BELONGING TO SOMEONE ELSE, because it addresses an argument often brought up by the anti-choice crowd. The statement above explains why that ONE argument is silly.
"So what if it has exited the mother's body. It is still imposing on her."
No, it is not. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT.
She can leave the baby at the hospital (if that's where she gave birth). She can drive the baby to any Safe Baby Moses site. The most that will be demanded of her then is to answer a few medical history questions, for the baby's records.
"At 24 weeks and even younger, the fetus does not need it's mother for survival. She can opt to have it removed from her body..."
I like you how you say this, as if "removing" the fetus from her body were as simple as removing nail polish from your fingernails. Get a cotton ball, dab on some acetone, wipe, wipe, and voila! Fetus removed!
Have you ever given birth?
Do you know what inducing labor at 24 weeks would entail, for both the woman and the fetus?
Or are you suggesting she have a C-section? Do you know what a C-section entails? What kind of damage it does to a woman's body, to her uterus specifically? How, in some states, that will make it against the law for her to deliver vaginally if/when she is ready to have children?
As to your link, if you tell me what it is, where it's coming from, and why I need to read it, I'll consider it. I'm not interested in more anti-choice circle-talking drivel, though.
At 24 weeks, a woman may have a fetus removed from her body, and yes, abortion proponents would lead us to believe that the procedure is as safe as removing fingernail polish.
ReplyDeleteYes, I am aware of what inducing labor on a woman at 24 weeks gestation entails. The same as inducing labor on a woman at full term. I also know the details of a surgical elective abortion at 24 weeks. Do you know what kind of damage that does to a baby's body? But somewhere, someone decided that it is ok to crush and dismember a 24 week gestation baby, but it's not ok to deliver it and save it's life.
Yes, I know what having a cesarean section entails. VBAC is not illegal in any state, except perhaps in your delusional "state" of mind.
The point that you apparently missed - the 'sentience' argument is illogical. Your original post is agreeing with a person who is saying that since unborn babies are not sentient, then it's ok for the mother to kill them if she feels it is necessary. Extending that logic would mean that it is ok to kill your baby up until the point at which it understands what the desire to live means - until it understands that it doesn't want to die. Mentioning a 24 week gestation fetus was merely to illustrate that sentience at this stage of development is basically the same as that of a newborn. You still haven't explained what the difference is between a woman killing her preborn and killing her newborn (while remaining consistent with your logic). What if she doesn't want to be bothered with the questions? What if she doesn't want to, or doesn't have someone she can give the child to? If the child is not dependent on her anymore, she should be able to drop it off on the side of the road and let it fend for itself. Maybe she could just crush it's head, or maybe someone could market injectable medication for stopping a baby's heart (distributed by your local Planned Parenthood). You should not infringe on her choices as a mother, because (quoting the person you agreed with "exactly") since her newborn "CAN'T [make decisions], it's up to their mother to make the best decision they can for them".
Yep. Babies are impositions. Before and after delivery. Opting to kill an unborn baby before it is delivered is much easier than finding someone to take care of it after it's born, right (and please don't feel the need to 'enlighten' me about the perils and pitfalls of having a baby as compared to having an abortion)?
What a cop out. Makes me ashamed of women. If men hadn't been effectively carved out of your pro abortion arguments, I would be ashamed of them, too.