Would pro-choicers favor abortion of 2-year olds?

[Anrakyr]

Yes I did because it’s frustrating to watch Catholics outlaw something instead of solving the issue why people have abortions.

Great, abortions are illegal now in this hypothetical world. All the reasons that causes people to want them will push you right back where you were before. Soon the political winds blow the other way and all that lobbying was for nothing.

 

[FiveLinden]

Then why is the baby not just delivered?

Because it is difficult to get it out.

 

[Sbee0]

Yes I did because it’s frustrating to watch Catholics outlaw something instead of solving the issue why people have abortions.

Great, abortions are illegal now in this hypothetical world. All the reasons that causes people to want them will push you right back where you were before. Soon the political winds blow the other way and all that lobbying was for nothing.

Seens for some reason you’re lecturing Catholics for something we already agree with you on this. Sounds like you’re confusing Catholics with another group. All of us agree that a law alone won’t stop abortions that it’s a symptom of a root cause -society’s failure to be there for women in need- and stopping that cause will stop abortions.

The Church already does and continues to do an excellent job addressing this problem and filling in this gap.

 

[Fauken]

Seens for some reason you’re lecturing Catholics for something we already agree with you on this. Sounds like you’re confusing Catholics with another group. All of us agree that a law alone won’t stop abortions that it’s a symptom of a root cause -society’s failure to be there for women in need- and stopping that cause will stop abortions.

The Church already does and continues to do an excellent job addressing this problem and filling in this gap.

Apparently the fact the Church is the largest charitable organization on the planet is not enough. I have a feeling we’re all being generalized as stereotypical members of a certain American political party that starts with an R, and shall remain nameless.

 

[PetraG]

‘Partial birth abortion’ is extremely rare. When it is done the foetus is often already dead. Opposition to it has been promoted in the US as a way of causing embarrassment to pro-choice politicians who can be accused of being happy to see full-term babies killed. As ‘pro-lifers’ you should be as vociferous in seeking medical solutions to the one-third of zygotes, embryos and foetuses that die as a result of natural abortion. But doing something about that very common occurrence is not as easy as raging against rare and extreme events in late-term abortion.

You are saying, however, that there is an occasion when this procedure is performed when the child is not dead, correct?
Yes, some pregnancies end in miscarriage. Speaking of false accusations, I do not know where you got the idea that Catholics aren’t in favor of improving prenatal care and pregnancy outcomes.
We are not talking about improving the standard of care, here. That doesn’t imply we don’t care about it. It simply is not the topic of conversation.
We’re talking about eliminating unethical medical procedures by which physicians act with the motive of hastening death or even killing patients outright. I hope you are not suggesting that we would think it ethical to kill some patients as long as we can do some other unrelated things that will save others. This isn’t a bean-counting exercise.

 

[PetraG]

Give it 10 years and they’ll support killing 2 year olds outside the womb.

Not healthy two-year olds, but anyone of any age who doesn’t have enough physical or mental capacities to have “a life worth living.”

 

[FiveLinden]

I imagine that there have been occasions when a partially-delivered fetus has been killed. That’s not the point. ‘Partial birth abortion’ is very rare. I was making the point that laws in the US (only the US I think) are proposed as part of a pro-life communications campaign, not because of serious concern about the existence of the procedure. After all, Catholics are as concerned about a zygote that came together seconds ago as they are with a full-term fetus are they not? But the emotional content of laws about them is not so useful to the cause.

My point about the lack of ‘pro-life’ concern about natural abortions is not that there is absolutely no concern, but that the degree of relative concern between natural and induced abortion is not what logically one would expect from people genuinely concerned about pre-natal lives. It seems to me that the Catholic concern is not with the unborn, but with the deliberateness of the action of inducing an abortion and with the consequent breach of ‘natural law’ and the belief that ‘the end cannot justify the means’. Many of us who are not Catholic do not accept either of these philosophical beliefs. We point to the relative lack of concern about spontaneous abortion to illustrate our conclusion that laws are proposed to restrict us on the basis of beliefs we do not share rather than principally out of concern for human life.

I do not dispute the genuineness of Catholic opposition to abortion. Yes, it is a strongly-held belief. I question its consistency.

 

[PetraG]

…the degree of relative concern between natural and induced abortion is not what logically one would expect from people genuinely concerned about pre-natal lives…

Do you think people are not usually far more interested in preventing the active taking of lives than they are about looking for opportunities to save lives? The latter is an opportunity to do good, but the former is a crime.

Honestly, if there were a law that allowed someone to get onto a bus and crack someone else in the head with a bat, what would opposing that have to do with one’s position on bicycle helmet laws? Apples and oranges, and it would not matter how rare it was that someone actually did it.

 

[Elf01]

I imagine that there have been occasions when a partially-delivered fetus has been killed. That’s not the point. ‘Partial birth abortion’ is very rare. I was making the point that laws in the US (only the US I think) are proposed as part of a pro-life communications campaign, not because of serious concern about the existence of the procedure. After all, Catholics are as concerned about a zygote that came together seconds ago as they are with a full-term fetus are they not? But the emotional content of laws about them is not so useful to the cause.

Abortions due to rape, life of the mother of disability are also rare and pro aborts always bring them up.

 

[FiveLinden]

Abortions due to rape, life of the mother of disability are also rare and pro aborts always bring them up.

Not as rare as ‘partial birth abortions’.

 

[FiveLinden]

Do you think people are not usually far more interested in preventing the active taking of lives than they are about looking for opportunities to save lives? The latter is an opportunity to do good, but the former is a crime

Even if this is so, how does this approach square with Catholic teaching? Is there a teaching I have somehow overlooked that says it is better to prevent others doing evil than to do good yourself?

 

[PetraG]

Even if this is so, how does this approach square with Catholic teaching? Is there a teaching I have somehow overlooked that says it is better to prevent others doing evil than to do good yourself?

You’re talking as if the necessity of ending atrocities can be balanced against the goal of achieving good.
A) It isn’t a competition
B) If it were, then yes, preventing legal protections for active attacks on the lives of the innocent is more important than preventing accidental deaths.

From the Catechism:
CCC 2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation :

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."80

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights."81

I mean, really, are you really defending the premise “I was too busy doing medical research (or working as a paramedic or what have you) to be bothered with defending the rights of innocent people to not have their lives legally taken by other people when the ones having their lives ended had done nothing wrong, because those being eliminated weren’t recognized as citizens with rights.”

No, you wouldn’t defend that.

 

[PetraG]

A “pro-choicer” doesn’t advocate for abortion; they advocate for choice.

I must say IMO, this question doesn’t make sense.
In your scenario, can the two-year-old survive on their own?

To advocate for someone who wants to choose to do A is to advocate for A.
If you didn’t positively want them to do it, why would you advocate that they have the choice to do it?
If I advocate for freedom of speech, I’m advocating for people to say things I don’t want them to say.
Why? Because I think that it is important to hear what people are thinking, whether I like it or not.

Really, be honest–do you think people who advocate for gun rights are not “pro-gun” but are only “pro-choice” or do you think they’re actually advocating for an unrestricted route to gun ownership?

(PS What 2 year old have you ever met that can survive on his or her own?)

 

[Sbee0]

‘Partial birth abortion’ is extremely rare. When it is done the foetus is often already dead. Opposition to it has been promoted in the US as a way of causing embarrassment to pro-choice politicians who can be accused of being happy to see full-term babies killed. As ‘pro-lifers’ you should be as vociferous in seeking medical solutions to the one-third of zygotes, embryos and foetuses that die as a result of natural abortion. But doing something about that very common occurrence is not as easy as raging against rare and extreme events in late-term abortion.

Natural Miscarriage =/= abortion

The two are not related in any way. Miscarriages have no place in the abortion debate. Bringing them up is a red herring.

 

[Elf01]

Because it is difficult to get it out.

Why not do a C Section?

 

[goout]

My point about the lack of ‘pro-life’ concern about natural abortions is not that there is absolutely no concern, but that the degree of relative concern between natural and induced abortion is not what logically one would expect from people genuinely concerned about pre-natal lives. It seems to me that the Catholic concern is not with the unborn, but with the deliberateness of the action of inducing an abortion and with the consequent breach of ‘natural law’ and the belief that ‘the end cannot justify the means’. Many of us who are not Catholic do not accept either of these philosophical beliefs. We point to the relative lack of concern about spontaneous abortion to illustrate our conclusion that laws are proposed to restrict us on the basis of beliefs we do not share rather than principally out of concern for human life.

There’s a difference between dying of a heart attack due to all the natural factors, and being stabbed in the heart by someone’ choice to harm you.
I can be concerned about your heart health, but I’m not going to make laws to protect you from hidden congenital heart conditions.

this is a silly argument.

 

[phil19034]

Would a pro-choicer still advocate for abortion of a 2 year old in the womb? Why or why not?

Depends.

The group of abortion activists who claim the baby hasn’t reached “personhood” until being separated from the umbilical cord and taking first breaths would most likely be in OK with aborting no matter what.

And the far extremists who believe the baby hasn’t reached personhood until he/she can contribute to society surely would be fine with it.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

It’s not a partial birth abortion if the fetus is alive! In an intact dilation and extraction, drugs are administered to kill the baby first, in order to comply with the partial birth abortion ban act. But did you know that even now, you can pull a live baby through the cervix and birth canal, and as long as you don’t pull any further than the naval, you aren’t breaking the law?? So those little legs and bottoms can feel the air and human hands on them, before they are killed?? Sick sick sick!

 

[PetraG]

No, it’s not the same thing.
And your example illustrates that:
You advocate for free speech…even though you know someone may choose to say something you wouldn’t say yourself, something you don’t like, something you wish they would not say.
A person can advocate for abortion-choice…even if they hope a woman does not choose abortion.
In both cases, Person A is advocating for a legal freedom, even if Person B makes a choice Person A doesn’t like.
Many people who are pro-choice, and feel abortion should be legal, still hope women do not choose it.

That is, they want abortion to be an option, even if they can’t control how the option is used.
That is still advocating for the option.

When I asked about the two-year old surviving on their own, I asked because…many people who are pro-choice take into consideration whether or not the fetus can survive outside the woman’s womb or not when sorting out their thoughts on the issue.
It was difficult to answer the OP’s question without knowing if this was a two-year-old who could breathe, eat on their own, etc…or not.

Please give evidence of the political advocacy of the many people who take into consideration whether or not the fetus can survive outside the womb.

Sorting through thoughts does not do much good if it doesn’t change anything about what is considered behavior that is acceptable in a civilized society.

Really: is it OK to make infanticide illegal and just hope that it is rare? Child neglect? Child abuse?

 

[TheLittleLady]

deformed that s/he will not survive after birth or be in constant pain

I am very deformed. I live in constant pain. A good day is when my pain is at a 4, and I cannot remember the last really good day.

My life is valuable. My husband and child, my family and friends, my boss and my coworkers and my fellow parishioners, they are all in agreement that the world is a better place with me in it.