re: Abortion Question For Those In Favor...

quote:

---

And what's always overlooked in all of this is that the gender of the kid getting hacked to bits en utero is never considered.

---

The viability argument is "viable" because of a mistaken assumption parroted over and over again by pro-abortionists and summed up by, "it's a woman's body; it's her choice." I am "pro-abortion" in the very narrow and limited exceptions where the mother's life is at certain risk.

The baby/fetus is never an appendage or organ of the mother's body but is a distinct organism which is far more in control of the mother's body and her pregnancy than she is.

1.The preborn child is genetically distinct from the mother.
2.Often, the preborn child's blood type is distinct from the mother's.
3. In roughly 50% of pregnancies the preborn child is a different gender than the mother.
4. When the embryo implants itself in the uterine lining it biochemically locally disables the mother's immune system so that it will not be rejected, unnecessary if it is part of the mother's body.
5. A preborn child may die in utero but the mother may live just as the mother may die and the preborn child may live. If the child were part of the mother's body this would not be so.
5. Sperm and ovaries are part of the male and female bodies respectively and remain so and die unless mated creating an entirely new and distinct human embryo with characteristics of its parents.
6. The preborn child is racially distinct from its mother. If an Korean zygote is placed in the ovum of a Swiss woman, the developing embryo does not take on the racial characteristics of the female.
7. Upon fertilization, the initial cell is distinctly unique human, different from its mother, with all of its characteristics such as eye color, hair color, height, gender and skin color already determined.

Even the late Christopher Hitchens, militant atheist and pro-abortion advocate recognized the fallacy of the "it's a woman's body" argument. In his God Is Not Great he states:

quote:

---

As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.

---

Arbitrary definitions of viability are constructions to either extend the window for allowable abortions or to narrow it and limit them. They have little bearing on the fact that abortions kill human infants at all points along the spectrum.

Perhaps the real question is not when is the child viable outside or inside the womb but under what medical conditions crucial to the survival of the mother is abortion warranted?

As it is now, abortion is a highly profitable industry offering primary birth control, responsible for the death of 55,000,000 humans and has become a grotesque, ghoulish and ghastly sacrament in the liturgy of radical progressives.