If a woman were to have a child born two months early, and that baby were alive, no expense would be spared to keep that baby alive. If that same woman has an abortion at her seventh month, how can it be said that she and her doctor have not destroyed a life? This is something that I have never been able to understand.
Granted, most abortions are probably performed before the seventh month. So the question is, at what point can we be sure that abortion is not the destruction of life? The only dependable answer we've been able to come up with is that we don't know.It seems to me that honesty, morality and good sense would require that we say, just in case abortion does destroy life, maybe we ought to stop performing abortions until we do know.
By contrast, the most immoral approach would be to say, "Well, I don't really care if I destroy a life, I'll do as I please." The attitude of the pro-choice advocates seems to be somewhere between these two. Their attitude seems to be, "Well, we really don't know, so I won't worry about it."
Of course, the battle cry of pro-choice is, "A woman has the right to choose." I would just like to know: If it could be proved that abortion does destroy a human life, would we still give women the right to choose?