If killing your baby was acceptable, would more women do it?

In our society, abortion has become a relatively common practice, leading many to believe abortion must not be so bad. But just because something has become legally acceptable does not always mean it is okay. Abortion has become so common place that even many young Christian women, who believe abortion is wrong, have still had an abortion. But is this just because abortion has become so common place, and in many social circles seen as no big deal? It must be quite a temptation when for-profit abortion clinics are so readily accessable, and there are no legal consequences. It makes me wonder...

If killing you baby (that has already been born) was culturally and legally acceptable, just like how abortion is now, do you think droves of women would be having their infants aborted?
What if there was some place where desperate women could permanently drop off their babies for termination? Perhaps anonymously, just drop the baby down a chute for processing and disposal.


Many countries already have baby "drop boxes" at hospitals, where unwanted babies can be anonymously dropped off.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/1870994...ific/t/japanese-baby-drop-box-service-abused/

 

You have very big problem with this ... once the fetus is born it is accorded all the rights of a person, killing it would be an act of murder. your scenario is about two unrelated things. Abortion is about the rights of the woman.

 

Women don't even choose to have late-term abortions. Canada has no law regarding abortion, and women there do not choose late-term abortions either. So WHY would anyone think women would murder newborns? Your mistrust of women is showing.

 

I do not think that is true:
http://www.abortionmyths.ca/late_term_abortion_Canada.html
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2010/jun/10060202

Alberta judge rules that baby-killing outside the womb is apparently just a late, late-term abortion:
http://www.unmaskingchoice.ca/blog/...icide-apparently-just-late-late-term-abortion

It is all about the "rights" of the woman, and not about the rights of the unborn child to his own life.

 

SOME late-term abortions are medically necessary. They are NOT a CHOICE. Your sites are reporting such a tiny number of late-term abortions that is unquestionable that they were medically necessary.

Hogwash, that is not at all what the article reports. Please reread.

The "unborn child" doesn't have a life unless the woman GIVES it life. Why do you think she should be compelled to give that gift to her own detriment? A gift is usually freely given, not compelled.

 

Whenever something becomes socially acceptable, you get more of it. Look how many people have divorces today or bear illegitimate children compared to 50 years ago. People are only horrified by the idea of killing a newborn baby today because they don't see it around them everyday. If those two Australian "ethicists" got their way and the idea of "post-birth abortion" ever took off, eventually many people would no longer see anything wrong with it. Because they would become desensitized to it. Just as they have with abortion.

 

The parents already gave the little human life when they engaged in unprotected sexual intercourse. A child in the womb at 18 weeks is already alive, the woman has given her child life over these 18 weeks. It's rather unfair for her to seize the baby's life away, just for her own convenience. A parent does not own the life of their child, even if the child is situated inside the mother's body. A parent is a guardian, entrusted with the wellbeing of another human life. A woman who gets an abortion betrays this guardianship. (assuming the pregnancy is not terminated very very early)

 

Women DO think of the well being of their "someday it might be a child" by aborting it....

 

A "child in the womb" only has life if the woman continues to give life to it. It cannot maintain a life on its own, therefore the only life it has is the life given to it by the woman.

It's rather unfair for her to be compelled to continue to give life, particularly since it is damaging to her own body.

A pregnant woman is not a parent, she is only an expectant parent. By far the vast majority of abortions do occur very early. Women know better than anyone else if they are capable of being a good parent at a particular time, and they betray themselves if they give birth when they know they cannot adequately parent.

 

It has a small chance of surviving without the mother at 22 weeks, yet women in the USA and Canada still abort.

 

Not without medical reasons.

 

96% of the time, abortion has absolutely nothing to do with the woman's health. Even in the rare cases it does, abortion still is usually unnecessary:

T. Murphy Goodwin, M.D., a distinguished professor of maternal-fetal medicine at the University of Southern California, has written describing how women are told they need abortions for their own health when this is patently untrue. A major reason for unnecessary abortion referrals is ignorance, to put it bluntly, especially on the part of physicians in medical specialties inexperienced in treating women with high-risk pregnancies. According to Goodwin, there are only three very rare conditions that result in a maternal mortality greater than 20 percent in the setting of late pregnancy — these medical conditions are Marfan’s syndrome with aortic root involvement, complicated coarctation of the aorta, and possibly peripartum cardiomyopathy with residual dysfunction. Even in these three situations, there is the option to wait for fetal viability if the mother chooses to accept some increased risk. Goodwin presents several cases in which pregnant women with cardiac conditions, cancer, or severe renal and autoimmune disease have been told plainly that they "needed" an abortion for their health or to save their life, despite being given incomplete information and not offered any other alternatives besides abortion.
T. Murphy Goodwin. “Medicalizing Abortion Decisions.” First Things, 61 (March 1996): 33–36.

 

Women with medical conditions during pregnancy are not always in the place to get top-notch medical care, they must go with the best advice available to them. It is not always the woman with medical conditions, sometimes the fetus dies in late pregnancy and must be removed surgically (yes, that is called an abortion). Sometimes the fetus has severe anomalies which mean it will die soon after birth anyway, and the parents opt for an abortion. Really, there are only a tiny number of late-term abortions done, why focus on those?

 

Here is an interesting paper that questions whether after-birth abortion is ethically acceptable:
http://blog.indexoncensorship.org/2...j-free-expression-infanticide-medical-ethics/


Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, in a paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, proposed:

Giubilini and Minerva also proposed that a newborn is not yet a person (Sound familiar?)

 

Where do you get this kind of ridiculous notions?

 

Where did abortionists get the ridiculous notion to murder babies halfway through the pregnancy? Who came up with such an idea, and how did this ever become acceptable?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion

 

Infanticide has a long history also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide#History_and_pre-history



[video=youtube;GpA7gC3nWyc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpA7gC3nWyc[/video]

 

Yes it does, but that is irrelevant to abortion.

 

Not really. The only difference is whether the baby has passed through the birth canal. The concept that a human life can be denied personhood should be a little disturbing.

 

The concept of forcing a person to risk their health and life for the sake of another against their wills should be a little disturbing.

 

If abortion were banned, only 4% of these women would be risking their health. For the rest of these women, there is a greater chance they will die in a car accident than die because of their pregnancy.

If you were truely a Libertarian, I would stop arguing with you. But I'm not convinced. I strongly suspect you're just a Libertarian when it comes to abortion, and will do a complete 180 when it comes to any other issue.

 

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1971633,00.html

I don't care what you think of me. I know what I am and I know where I lean on nearly every political topic. Also the only reason I put that in my signature is because I am sick and tired of people assuming I am liberal and that I voted for Obama. I voted McCain and I voted Johnson these past two Presidential elections.

 

Oh, those poor women!

Now what about all those fetuses inside them? And all those late-term unborn babies? So many babies...

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/10/04/963901/47000-women-die-each-year-from-unsafe-abortions/

I suspect that, between the women who die from abortions and the 19+ week unborn babies who are slaughtered in elective late-term abortions, more human lives are lost than women who die from childbirth.

I can understand why you did not vote for Romney (there were plenty of good reasons), but one thing for sure, you would not have had to worry about him opposing abortion. That guy put a gleeful smirk on a crowd full of baby-hating feminists early in his political career when he revealed what he really thought about the issue. Hell, he probably would have supported infanticide if he thought it would give him a few more votes!

 

Sorta reminds me of Obama...how he flips flops for votes. Was against gay marriage...then last spring...wow he had a change of heart. Funny it came at election time. Politicians will do anything for votes. the thing Romney did not do was to play dirty like the Democrats do. He should have nailed him on our Diplomats death...drilled him on the war he was supposed to stop and didn't until one year before election time. No more Obama talk he makes me sick.

Obama flat out voted for infanticide...I don't believe Romney did.