Unborns are not fully alive. They can not survive outside of the womb. They can not produce their own breath. I, myself, and a huge number of pro-choice people belive in stoping aborton at 20 weeks, thats 5 months in to pregancy. This is also when the unborn can feel pain, so abortons are not legal after the unborn can feel pain. If a woman hasn’t aborted by that time, she’s more than likely not going to.
Your position is the same as the ‘pro-life’ advocate who makes exceptions for rape, incest, and age of the mother.
Either killing a living human being, regardless of what stage of development they may be passing through, is acceptable or it’s not. A child conceived by an act of rape is completely innocent, as is his or her mother. This is no reason to kill an innocent human being.
You, as well as a ‘huge number of pro-choice people’ are hypocrites for the same reason stated above. Using viability outside of the womb as a reason to suddenly become pro-life invalidates the bedrock of the pro-choice argument — bodily autonomy.
Given your logic, the mother must carry her pregnancy, no matter how unwanted, until birth, so long as a child has magically sprung to life beginning at the 20th week. Do you really think extracting a living 20 week old prenatal child from their mother’s womb in the event she decides she doesn’t want to carry them any more is something we would dedicate our limited medical resources to? That will never happen. That’s why the killing will continue until you accept that life begins at fertilization and that life should be jealously guarded until natural death.
Your pain argument is simply heartbreaking. Using this logic, why can’t we just administer anesthesia to a prenatal child at nine months gestation or to newborns in order to kill them in the event their mother decides their existence is no longer in her best interest? They won’t feel pain, so it must be justifiable, right?
PLEASE THINK HARD ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE FIGHTING FOR. Our humanity depends on it.