Quote:
Originally Posted by Combwork
If you believe there should be no interference, no matter what the circumstances in the natural process, logically you must believe that a baby born too early to survive on its own should be left to die. After all, it's the natural process.....
|
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?
The logic behind Roe V Wade continues to escape me.
04-09-2011, 12:27 PM
Threaded Mode