- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Just a minor quibble.
A zygote/embryo/fetus is not *yet* a baby.
Even if there were no effort ever made to abort a pregnancy, the decision *not* to abort is no guarantee that a child will be born. (Especially here in the US, where our infant mortality runs a bit higher than the average in modern industrialized countries.)
So in any given case, you can't know that an abortion prevented the birth of a child. There may have been any number of accidents of nature or fate that result in the loss of that child regardless of the decisions of the mother.
From a purely objective perspective, an abortion is not "murder of a child," as you vigorously assert. It is destruction (or murder) of a *potential* child.
Then again, so is menstruation or male masturbation. (I'm not sure precisely how that speaks to your argument, but it's a fact.)
That was a nice question that I must've missed your answer to before, I'm going to remember it.
Trapped in a burning building is a 3-yr old child and a tray of 10 blastocysts. Would you, in good conscience, leave those 10 blastocysts to die while saving the child?
Could you square causing the deaths of ten children (in your mind) vs the death of one? Or vice-versa?
In your opinion, would your decision there be *rational* or *emotional*?
