If you perform abortion are you murdering God's beautiful children?

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Someone can take a 1 year old.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, but finding a suitor requires a positive action, and you've already said that letting it die is not murder.

[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't say finding a suitor would be required. I think that assuming people wouldn't take this positive action in nearly all cases is a pretty big assumption.

I also think that taking a baby home from a hospital bestows responsibility onto you, especially in a situation in which abortion is a legitamate option, and where adoption is viable.
[ QUOTE ]
Edited to add: Someone can take a fetus at 6 months gestation, too.

[/ QUOTE ]
Seriously? How's that work?

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
Seriously? How's that work?

[/ QUOTE ]

My point was that the baby can be delivered at that time and can survive without use of the mother's body. It can then be cared for by someone else, just as a 1-year-old can. As medical technology advances, babies will be able to survive outside the womb from even earlier in pregnancy. In light of this, we will see that in most cases, choosing abortion really has very little to do with the temporary physical burden on the mother.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't say finding a suitor would be required. I think that assuming people wouldn't take this positive action in nearly all cases is a pretty big assumption.

I also think that taking a baby home from a hospital bestows responsibility onto you, especially in a situation in which abortion is a legitamate option, and where adoption is viable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here it's like you're arguing against your own arguments from before.

Your argument for abortion rights is that the the mother can't be required to perform a positive action. (I don't even concede that which I will explain.) Well, obviously, caring for a born child/securing an adoption requires a positive action as well. The process can take months. You seem to think it's a trivial one, but it really doesn't matter - the point of the argument is the same.

I'd also like to note that more people would choose adoption if they were actually interested in seeing the baby live. Many would just prefer the baby were destroyed for a myriad of selfish reasons; this motive does not always disappear after birth, and sometimes it can appear even when it wasn't there before (for whatever reason).

In a vacuum, I would consider carrying a baby another month (or even just giving birth prematurely), so it could then be adopted and allowed to live, to be an action that nearly everyone would perform, too, but that's not how things are. You're basically saying, "No monster would ever fail to take the basic step of putting the child up for adoption." Well, that's exactly what I thought as a child when I first heard about abortion. What monster would kill someone else's child, much less their own? And we have 1.2 million a year in the US alone. So no - I won't concede that everyone would pursue an adoption. Far from it. People are capable of a great deal of evil, especially when it is societally acceptable.

Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer, hmk, and other intellectually honest pro-aborts concede that either the pro-lifers are right, or infanticide must be legalized. If you're ok with infanticide in principle but you're ashamed to admit it, well, you should be. If you're not ok with it, but you're ok with abortion (especially late-term ones), you're inconsistent.

Then, you go on to say that the woman accepts responsibility when she takes the baby home from the hospital, which to me sounds eerily similar to BCPVP's argument that the woman accepts responsibility when she gets into bed.

I also do not believe that abortion is simply "removing a positive," in the first place. Watch an abortion. The baby is pursued with a serrated knife. Often times it pulls away. (Wouldn't you?) The baby is then cut into pieces and scraped out of the womb. Abortion is an act of aggression, plain and simple - not "removing a positive."

In fact, this "removing a positive" argument is far more applicable AFTER the baby is born! No positive act of will is required by the mother to keep the baby alive in the womb - that part pretty much takes care of itself. The only requirement is that the baby NOT be forcefully, aggressively removed from the womb. In contrast, after the baby is born, it requires many, many, daily willful commitments by the mother (or someone) to be kept alive.