Thames, abortion issues for you or anyone...
If you are in a mood to discuss this subject further, let me throw some thoughts at you, using a real case as an example. We have a friend who delivered a baby at four and one-half months, so from this one case alone I can say authoritatively that a fetus can survive on its own as early as that. In this particular case of prematurity, the baby was born blind (I understand that the eyes are among the last organs to develop fully). This child, Jake, is now three years old and is dearly loved by his parents.
The main question I would pose to you (as an "abortion on demand" advocate) is this: At what point did Jake acquire a right to life? We know that as far as the "state" is concerned, Jake certainly had a right to life in the delivery room -- i.e., had his parents seen him, and said, "Doctor, please kill him," the state would have considered that to be murder. But suppose on the day before he was born, the parents had said, "Doctor, please abort him." Would that have been okay? This is neither an emotional rant, nor is it hypothetical. Jake is a real person. Did he only become a person when he was delivered from the womb?
Jake might not have been born prematurely. He might have lived on in the womb for as long as four and one-half more months. During all that time, would he still not have been a person? Would he still not have had a right to life? Should it still have been the parents right to abort him at any time of their choosing right up to normal delivery?
I think, Thames, that an abortion advocate has to take a position on these kinds of questions. In the case of the teenager who delivered in the toilet stall, this was also a premature birth. As I recall, the baby was born at about seven and one-half months. This baby lived, despite being left in the cold water of the toilet bowl. The mother was charged with neglect and abandonment, but had the baby died, she no doubt would have been charged with manslaughter, or even murder. But if she had aborted the fetus at seven and one-half months (a legal late-term abortion), she would not be charged with anything. Isn't this just a technicality? What difference does it make whether the baby was killed at birth, or killed by abortion, at exactly the same point in time? If an expectant mother is intending to have a legal abortion, but the baby comes prematurely, why shouldn't the mother still be allowed to kill it?
Would not logic and rationality say this: As long as you kill your baby within nine months following conception, it makes no difference whether you do it by abortion within the womb, or by some other method after it has left the womb? Isn't that only fair?
What this all comes down to is whether a fetus has any rights, including the right to live. The state seems to say yes, in the cases where people have been prosecuted for killing a fetus, as in a drunk-driving accident. In effect, the state is acting as attorney on behalf of the fetus, a person. Yet, the abortion laws currently seem not to regard the fetus as a person with rights.
I am not taunting you here, Thames. I'm simply asking how you, as an abortion advocate, deal with questions such as the ones I am raising. Perhaps you regard it as "emotional" to describe abortion as "killing," but what else is it? It doesn't solve any problems by masking reality with euphemisms. I realize that there is inherent unfairness in men addressing an issue that can never be experienced by them personally. But even so, men do have obvious interests, if not rights, in the abortion debate. |
