For the most part, these children weren’t slaughtered. Their mothers simply refused to extend them the hospitality of a stay in their wombs. You may be surprised by this, but I’m actually against 7, 8, or 9th month abortions in just about all cases. That’s because a C-Section at that point in time should be able to be performed and the baby delivered alive. The numbers of abortions performed at this stage is currently low and rightly so! As technology improves, you can tuck 6th month in there too as being a safe place for a C-Section. 4 and 5 month points are harder. The child can’t survive without her mother’s hospitality. I can see benefit on putting reasonable restrictions on these abortions for the simple reason being that abortions at this stage are less safe for the woman and that it isn’t that far to the safe third trimester where a C-Section can be obtained. 1 2 and 3 I see no compelling reason for the government to rule over the **property **of the young woman. Just as a woman can choose to extend the hospitality of her womb to a child, she can refuse.
Do I want abortions? No, I would gladly a day come when there are none. I have great hope that the morning after pill will reduce their occurence greatly. I hope the artificial womb research going on bears fruit and that abortion clinics can be transformed into foetus adoption centers where women can go and anonymously drop off their feotus.
What about the child that was killed? You know the one who was about 8 weeks along? Does the government have a right to say that people should not kill him or her?
If the children were not “slaughtered, what happened to them?
You talk about “hospitality”. Clearly that is a euphemism, like “special treatment” was in a certain European country in the early 1940s.
“Mothers refuse to extend the hospitality of their womb…” This statement is so profoundly offensive and [self edit here].
You describe a woman’s body as “property”. Or perhaps I misunderstand. Perhaps it is the child she is carrying that is property. Either way, people
are not property.
Do you really think abortions would not happen if children could reside in an “artificial womb”? Not a chance. Too expensive. No motivation. People already throw the bodies of children into dumpsters, usually in bags marked as bio-hazard. Why would they change?
The “morning after” pill just kills them when they are younger and weaker. It is not an alternative to abortion; it is an
alternative form of it.
Your profile says you are an Episcopalian so arguments from the Catechism will, presumably, have little effect. How about the Bible? When the commandment “Thou shall not kill (murder)” is considered along alongside Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. Before you were born I set you apart…” That does not sound like an endorsement or even a toleration of your position. On the other hand, if you do not think of these as binding or definitive, as the Catholic Church teaches, on what
biblical basis is abortion specifically acceptable?
Abortion is legal because men want to be able to fornicate and commit adultery. Eventually, women caught on too; believing the lie that sexual gratification at any time with anyone for any reason is okay. Abortion is all about the oppression of women.
Abortion is without a doubt the greatest wholesale massacre of people in history. And why? The silliest of reasons; personal convenience and for men to use women for personal gratification.
