How can you be Christian and be Pro Choice?

I certainly don't favor abortions up until birth. There IS a point at which the fetus has a reasonable chance of surviving on its own. It's damn difficult to pinpoint that time, of course. That only makes an already complicated issue even more complicated. But I don't favor late-term abortions.

Operations in the womb--I'm not sure when those become possible or workable to try to maintain the pregnancy or correct possible defects. Not everyone is able to take advantage of such technology, financially or otherwise. And obviously those who do are those who are highly motivated to give birth to a healthy child.

Do you think the law should also require that all fetuses should have the benefit of these technological procedures if they have a reasonable chance of saving the fetus's life, or correcting severe defects? If so, who will pay for that? As I also ask, who will pay to take care of an unwanted child that is not aborted?

I think you mis-spoke about neonatal care.

ne·o·na·tal (n-ntl)
adj.

Of or relating to the first 28 days of an infant's life.

Perhaps you meant pre-natal care. If so, I agree that favoring pre-natal care demonstrates giving "worth" to the fetus. But I disagree that it necessarily means equating ANY fetus to ANY infant. People who want to be pregnant generally get pre-natal care, because they want that fetus to develop into a healthy infant. People who don't want to be pregnant usually don't, unless they feel that abortion is not an option for them (because of personal beliefs or whatever).

I can understand the desire to protect an innocent life. What I can't understand is how anyone who isn't personally responsible for that life can claim the right to make that decision in any particular case. If you're not going to take on the responsibility for the child that is born--to feed it, clothe it, educate it, protect it AFTER it's born, provide it with love & encouragement & the tools to become a productive citizen--it's not your place to make that decision.

 

thanks.

yeah, we have a son in my wife's belly. it is a fetus and i think of it as my baby. however, a fetus is not a baby. it certainly becomes a baby, but to start with, it's way not a baby. so without a qualification of the age of the fetus, you can't really say they're equal.

in particular to this discussion, tho, sly is talking "wad of cells" age (which is the only "on demand" abortion i would support). "wad of cells" != baby. if we lost the pregnancy at 10 weeks i'd be sad that we had to start again (because we're anxious) but i wouldn't tell our eventual child that they had a brother/sister. i wouldn't have a funeral. heck, i probably would only tell a few people about it. clearly not the same as how i'd react to the death of a baby.

 

You are making my argument for me.

I am completely comfortable saying that I have no idea when a clump of cells becomes a human life that deserves protection. The only thing I do know is that I believe this occurs while the baby is still in the womb.

 

Yep - sorry about that - prenatal care. And everyone is elibigle for it, not just rich people.

But you bring up an intersting thought with this one. How is this any different than children? I mean, we have standards that the gov't enforces there, so why shouldn't they enforce them prior to the baby coming out? I know that the answer is that its the woman's body, it's a red herring to establish no more abortions, etc. But seriously, there really is pretty much no one that believes that a fetus the day before it makes its journey down the birth canal is not a baby.

 

I wish our laws were more reflective of this. It seems like banning of late term abortions should be a slam dunk.

 

That is becasue the 10% of the extreme would use it as a first step to abolish all abortions. It makes the other 10% of the oppostite extreme refuse to give in to anything that even remotely resembles common sense.

 

no, i'm recognizing that while SOMTIMES a baby = a fetus, the blanket statement baby = fetus is not true.

 

i agree. but keep in mind those things are going to include stuff you put in your body -- alcohol, tobacco, drugs, vitamins, food, etc. do we really want the gov't regulating this stuff? even for a pregnant mother?

edit:
and in terms of the "day before birth" -- roe v wade only mandates that states must allow abortions to be performed when the mother is at risk in these situations.

 

Prehaps I am a member of one of those 10% extremes you describe but if so then why can't my 10% and the other 80% who have common sense hold sway over that other 10%?

 

Oh, I totally agree. Slippery slope and all that.