Quote:
Originally Posted by whell
Do you know of any sentient being that would agree that the above statement is logical? Do we leave any child, born at whatever term of the pregnancy, left to die because it can't survive on its own? "Sorry, kid. If you can't wiggle your way to your mom's tit on your own, you're SOL. Survival of the fittest, and all that..."
No baby can survive on their own. Is a child outside of the womb is viable because anyone can hold him/her now when the kid is feeding, and we can change their diaper? The kid was still consuming nourishment, growing, developing and defecating right up to the point he/she was born. Some children born with disabilities or certain birth defects are certainly less "viable" than a typical child. Some children born with disabilities/birth defects would certainly perish is there wasn't intensive medical care, and in some cases surgical intervention, shortly after birth. Does this make them any more or less worthy of medical intervention that a child born prematurely? Is a child born prematurely only viable if delivered, a child aborted at the same number of weeks of fetal development is somehow not viable?
|
In truth we do intervene during pregnancy and the amount of that intervention is increasing. Surgery is being performed in the womb with increasing frequency for things such as spina biffida.
Intervening to terminate a pregnancy to save the motherr's life is really not a great difference. Especially where there are already children in the family. The more we play with the wording of laws the more it seems that we hopelessly complicate things.
I do not welcome abortion as birth control, but is the 'morning after pill' really any different than a diaphragm and spermicidal jelly? Yet, is a woman who casually uses abortion as birth control really a fit mother? But God forbid we try and devise a law that would allow us to remove a child from her care. We have done a more than adequate job of screwing up the nation's justice system as it stands.