No Real Choice In Pro-Choice.

It's legal to kill this baby.

The pro-abortionist (Shouldn’t be calling it ‘pro-choice’ since the babies don’t seem to have any choice in their eventual slaughter) argument that rights only pertain to actual persons and not to potential ones isn’t a slippery slope but a greased precipice.

Differences in size and physiological development notwithstanding, there is no ontologically significant distinction between a fetus and a newborn baby, as celebrated philosopher and bio-ethicist Peter Singer exposits: “The liberal
search for a morally crucial dividing line between the newborn baby and the fetus has failed to yield any event or stage of development that can bear the weight of separating those with a right to life from those who lack such a right.”. Therefore, since the fetus and newborn are both incapable “of seeing themselves as distinct entities, existing over time.”, both aren’t rational and self-aware.

Singer is hardly alone in this belief; philosopher Michael Tooley has made the claim that a human being “possess[es] a serious right to life only if it possesses the concept of a self as a continuing subject of experiences and other mental states, and believes that it is itself such a continuing entity.”;  Feminist and philosopher Mary Anne Warren, argues that  personhood requires a “developed” capacity (self-awareness) which is in turn what’s needed for the prohibition on killing to apply.

Given the above, if it’s completely O.K. to kill a baby within 24 weeks of gestation (the duration in which abortion is still legal), then it’s likewise completely O.K. to kill an infant within 4 weeks after being born.

Since a fully-grown cow, as opposed to a newborn baby, will necessarily have more developed cognitive faculties and thus a higher level of self-awareness, the question then becomes: why shouldn’t we be turning infants into cheese burgers instead, given that, in Singer’s worldview –one that is fairly consistent with that of the pro-abortionist’s– it’s the more moral bet?

Removing potentiality will leave no ontological difference between getting an abortion and stabbing a newborn baby. The corollary is that all arguments for the legalization of abortion can just as well be made for the legalization of  infant- killing. Although pro-abortionists, who are smart enough to follow their views to its logical conclusion, will argue that their reasoning won’t be used for the normalization of infant-killing, it’s worth noting that the same has been said for a lot of similar issues in the past, and history will show them to be completely mistaken.

Abortion. Telling It Like It Is.

I read this from a pro-abortionist at another blog.

Notice how changing some words to what they ACTUALLY mean puts his/her ignorant diatribe in better perspective.

Pro Abortionist says:

” Also, before Roe v. Wade, abortions were not performed in a medically safe environment and therefore, many women died or were no longer able to have children as abortions were performed by people who were not qualified to do so. So…just b/c you want to make it illegal for a woman to get an abortion, it doesn’t mean it won’t happen and you are therefore, NOT protecting the lives and health of women at that point. How is that Pro-Life? I also want to clarify something….the WOMAN will decide what to do with her body. It is her choice and her decision and she may choose to consult with friends, family, doctors or God or whomever but bottom line is. It’s the Woman’s choice. Not yours.

The good news for all the women out there is that the right to choose has already been decided and has been upheld by courts across the country for decades. Even now…when people who want to take away women’s rights and freedom of choice, and even though there are many radicals in several states who have attempted to pass laws making it even more difficult for women to access health care and family planning services, ALL of the laws have been struck down in federal court and a women’s right to choose has been protected. “

Without violating the principle of charity, this is what his/her diatribe really means (granted he/she may be too ignorant to realize it):

Also, before Roe v. Wade, [killing babies] were not performed in a medically safe environment and therefore, many women died or were no longer able to have children as [baby slaughtering] were performed by people who were not qualified to do so. So…just b/c you want to make it illegal for a woman to [slaughter her baby], it doesn’t mean it won’t happen and you are therefore, NOT protecting the lives and health of women at that point. How is that Pro-Life? I also want to clarify something…..the WOMAN will decide what to do with her [baby]. It is her choice and her decision and she may choose to consult with friends, family, doctors or God or whomever but bottome line is. It’s the Woman’s choice [to kill her baby]. Not yours.

The good news for all the women out there is that the right to [kill her baby] has already been decided and has been upheld by courts across the country for decades. Even now…when people who want to take women’s right [to kill their babies] away, and even though there are many radicals in several states who have attempted to pass laws making it even more difficult for women to [kill their babies], ALL of the laws have been struck down in federal court and a women’s right to [kill her baby] has been protected.

——————————————————————————————————-

So, if we don’t provide a “medically safe environment” for mothers to be able to kill their babies, they might do so elsewhere and will thus be endangering themselves. And this you say would be the antithesis of being  ’Pro-Life’. Also, people who want baby-slaughtering to be illegal are “radicals”.

O.K., I get it; you’re a nut.