This question references this post.
I’m baffled by your response and all I can say is – why? why should I either be in favor of aborting children for any reason through all nine months of pregnancy or join pro-life movement? the government of my country draws the line at 24 weeks of pregnancy. past that point abortions are only permitted if the pregnancy is putting the mother in grievous danger. why are you stating so categorically that I can’t support this approach? please reply, this is important to me.
Your government, like the government of many states in the U.S., draws the line at 24 weeks because of the reality of politics. Political decisions rarely make logical sense, they are an amalgamation of multiple competing positions derived through compromise in order to actually govern. If you base your moral values on political necessity, you will forever live in a world awash in hypocrisy.
At the federal level, the U.S. supreme court ruled that a human being can be put to death at any time prior to the moment of birth if the mother’s ‘health’ is at risk [Doe v. Bolton, 1973]
The medical judgment [for a late-term abortion] may be exercised in the light of all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age—relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment. And it is room that operates for the benefit, not the disadvantage, of the pregnant woman.
As you can see, this is an incredibly broad definition, in effect leaving the option for a mother to kill her child during all nine months of pregnancy. And this does happen, thousands of times a year.
It is a scientific fact that life begins at fertilization. Very few abortion advocates still deny this fact. Most even agree that we are human after fertilization (what else could we possibly be?). They argue for the right to kill prenatal children in the womb due to the bodily autonomy of the mother and the lack of viability of the child.
Pro-life agrees that the mother has a right to life and a right to her body, but that this right is equal to that of her prenatal child. This creates a dichotomy of human rights. In this situation, there is no option but to carry her child to term to protect her child’s rights to his or her own and separate body. Interestingly, if this child is a female, she will bear the same responsibility when she becomes pregnant. This protects everyone’s right to life.
I have already addressed the pro-life position on viability. To kill an innocent human being at any point from the moment of fertilization until their natural death is a violation of their most basic human right – the right to life.
Therefore, to be free of hypocrisy and moral ambiguity:
Pro-choice must stand for the killing of prenatal human beings from the moment of fertilization to the moment of birth for any reason given by the mother.
Pro-life must stand for the protection of innocent human beings from the moment of fertilization to the moment of natural or accidental death, regardless of any reason given to kill them.
Pick which side of history you prefer to be left standing on.