But then you would be a murderer. It would be like saying a 5 year old will go to Heaven if you murder it so you'd be doing the kid a favor.
I would be doing the kid a favor, since they would be guaranteed heaven. It's an unfortunate but persistent implication of Christianity; what is a temporary mortal life compared to an eternally perfect afterlife? I'd not only be guaranteeing the child salvation, but I would also be saving them the trouble of the pain of life.
Of course, since I am an atheist, I would consider that taking that child's one and only life away from them, and since I am not a crazy person, I don't really want to kill people to begin with.
A child that weighs less than a pound can suvive outside the womb. If you kill it while it is hooked up to the machine you'd go to jail for murder. Do you really think that killing a baby inside the womb that weighs four times as much is not murder?
1. assuming that I am prochoice, when lots of atheists actually aren't, one of the most notable examples being Christopher Hitchens.
2. I'm only barely prochoice, in that I think the option should be there, especially in life threatening situations for the pregnant woman and various mental health complications (I don't think a violent schizophrenic should be forced to go through a pregnancy, their life is rough enough as it is). However, I support actions that would reduce abortion rates, such as free healthcare for pregnant women, childcare programs for those in need, competent sex education in schools, etc. You can protest outside of an abortion clinic all day and maybe delay a few abortions, or you can reduce the number of abortions that occur by over 30% just through social programs, considering that 33% of abortions are gotten because the mother feels that she doesn't have the funds to care for a child. That is, I think the best solution is to reduce the want for abortions rather than to ban it and force people unprepared to be parents to go through that stress.
3. I hope that one day, rather than having to kill the developing embryo, it can be transplanted into an artificial womb to be adopted later. No bodily damage and stress from pregnancy, and no death of a potential life, so everyone wins. Wouldn't that be a better investment in time and money than a bunch of billboards and protests than end up going nowhere? And I say that to both sides of the debate on that one. Especially considering that one of the legislative acts prolife people pushed through stands in the way of it, which is the law that states the developing embryo cannot be removed intact. So, all those pictures of blended masses? Yeah... prolife people made it happen because it makes the abortion process more traumatic. That, and a few of them come from China, and we both know China couldn't give a single crap about any prolife agenda.
4. Most abortions occur around the end of the first month of pregnancy, at which point the embryo is 0.04 ounces. At 8 weeks, the embryo is about the size of a kidney bean. The most premature baby to survive outside the womb was at 21 weeks, and weighed 1 pound, 6 ounces. Note that in most places, unless the mother's life is on the line, an abortion cannot be legally performed after 12 weeks into the pregnancy. Thus, unless you live in China or something, abortions of fetuses that could potentially live outside of the womb at their current level of development are exceedingly rare. I'm not sure why you, as a prolife individual, would care; wouldn't any abortion, even one the first day after conception, be murder to you?
