To those who favor abortion, a life in the womb is only life if the mother wants the baby.

I agree. The whole issue with a late term abortion is that it isn't actually less egregious than infanticide. Whatever we decide a person is. I don't see how taking a breath is important. A baby 30s before birth and 30s after is no difference.

AstroAg17 said:

---

Can anyone explain why the baby being "born" makes it more deserving of rights? Abortion still kills them in the woman. It's the same thing whether it dies in the womb or the doctor's hands. Either they're both fine or neither is.

---

The way it's typically framed is it's not the baby's rights which are in question. It has the right to life. But a person's right to life does not mean he has free reign to your resources to sustain his life. Whether or not he has access to your resources should be your call, and anything else would be an incursion on your rights. When the resource in question is the very hardware you're made of, that incursion is all the more greater. So the argument being put forth isn't that it's moral to terminate the life of the fetus, but rather that it is immoral to wrest away the mother's call on whether or not she wants to grant the fetus access to resources that rightfully belong to her. Birth is sort of a discrete change of state on what resources the baby requires from the mother.

Edit: After rereading, I realize now you were asking about those instances where the fetus survives abortion, not abortion in general, so my reply doesn't necessarily make sense.

Macarthur said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

https://www.politico.com/story/2012/08/the-abortion-extremist-080013

And that was from a simple google search my friend. From politico which is not a conservative source.

---

This article is wrong. By the way, the guy that wrote it is very much a conservative.

Richard Lowry is an American author who is the editor of National Review, an American conservative news and opinion magazine. Lowry became editor of National Review in 1997 when selected by its founder, William F. Buckley, Jr., to lead the magazine.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/did-obama-vote-to-deny-rights-to-infant-abortion-survivors/2012/09/07/9852895a-f87d-11e1-8398-0327ab83ab91_blog.html

https://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/obama-and-infanticide/

---

And how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? There are so many mental gymnastics one has to perform to think that way that I am not capable of it. What Obama is saying is that he voted against the bill because it might harm Roe. So even though he states does not support the killing of babies who survive abortions, the way he voted allows that very thing.

So he is therefore okay with late term abortions which I consider infanticide also.What magically occurs one second after the baby leaves the womb?

No hard feelings or animosity meant. I just do not get the logic.

I will stop commenting on this as it has little to do with r&p at this point.

I didn't mean egregious in that sense. I meant there is less of an argument that it isn't a person, and it highlights the inconsistency of our laws and some people's morality. When nearly everyone agrees it's a baby, it is shocking to more people that someone would kill it.

Right I mean, it is more egregious in the same sense that it would be *even more* egregious to do the exact same thing to a six month old.

PacifistAg said:

---

Quote:

---

That's, like, your opinion, man.

---

Like, obviously, man. Of course it's just my opinion. Just as all you typed is merely your opinion.

My opinion is based on looking at the history of the GOP and abortion, especially at the federal level, since Roe v Wade. Nothing in that history indicates a desire to actually do anything about it. The status quo is far too valuable for them. In fact, their approach to many issues is very similar to how they approach abortion. High minded rhetoric not backed by any substantive action. Trump could veto spending bills, but instead chooses toothless EO's. Government continues to expand under the GOP, just as it does under their counterparts.

But hey, maybe this time will magically be different. My guess, though, is that in 4 years we'll be right here having the same arguments. "This election is the most important ever!" "Vote (insert principle-free Republican) to end abortion!". Same song every election cycle.

Quote:

---

'pro-birth isn't pro-life' argument

---

Pro-birth isn't inherently pro-life. Life is far more encompassing than just birth. One can be pro-birth, but not have a consistent pro-life ethic. One cannot be pro-life without also being pro-birth though.

---

The big Lebowski line wasn't meant as a dig or to insinuate mine isn't either. Don't give it too much thought.

Pro-birth, by being the opposite of pro-abortion, is inherently pro-life in a way that 'pro-life is a whole life thing' isn't. If you can justify murder and call yourself 'pro-life' then your definition isn't synonymous with life but instead means standard of living. That's quite a different thing! Someone with down who wasn't aborted would tell you they prefer to live, much as many poor people don't wish to die as an alternative to their standard of life. Being poor isn't a death sentence, nor is being born to a woman who was raped or considers her child unwanted a 100% determinant of standard of living.

If you think you advocate for the oppressed and marginalized by murdering their children you're doing it wrong. You're invalidating their experience, not empowering them! It sucks being poor, kill your children before it gets worse? Or, don't have children because you won't be able to have economic success? What things are these, compared to the human experience throughout time? Jesus didn't castigate the poor who gave generously instead of hoarding.

Uh, my definition of pro-life is consistent. I believe abortion is murder, and no life, no matter how guilty we may view them, should be taken. That's a consistent pro-life ethic. It's not limited to just birth. It sees the image of God in all.

PacifistAg said:

---

Uh, my definition of pro-life is consistent. I believe abortion is murder, and no life, no matter how guilty we may view them, should be taken. That's a consistent pro-life ethic. It's not limited to just birth. It sees the image of God in all.

---

I applaud you for that. It's not the standard new 'pro-life means whole life' position I see, which often reflects on more than the DP and includes, healthcare, wages, etc.