OK, so the pro-fetus-cide leftist feminists successfully used “Pro-Choice” arguments to legalize abortion. The basis being that a woman has the freedom to do with her body as she wants. Why don’t they want “Pro-Choice” for other actions like:
If you believe that a woman has the right to do with her body as she wishes, and murder a unique human life, that only exists because of the voluntary actions of another, and in no manor initiated any force against her, but don’t believe everybody should have the freedom to choose those things listed above, you’re a liar and a hypocrite that has put little or no rational thought into your beliefs.
Call it whatever you want, but abortion is the legal premeditated murder a unique human life that is completely innocent. It’s not even a justifiable homicide. The fact that it is legal doesn’t change the fact, that it’s murder with planning and forethought. You can try to justify it however you want to make you feel good, but no amount of rationalization is going to change the fact that virtually every abortion is the murder of a totally innocent unique human being. Rationalizations like the person would be better off not born, than born into the custody of a drug addled single woman with no means of support who might be abusive, supposes that you or any individual has the right to determine which person’s lives are worth living and whose aren’t. You can rationalize that a mere fetus isn’t a person if you want, it’s a lie. The fact is from conception to death it is a unique human being, the only determining factor is the stage of development in that human’s life cycle. Rationalizing that killing a unique human at certain stages of development is acceptable has lead medical “ethicists” to conclude that infanticide should be legal, and have coined the term “post birth abortion” to attempt to lessen the emotional connotations attached to the more accurate term infanticide.
Unfortunately accidents, disease, and other medical conditions make survival from every malady for every person impossible. Medical science has advanced greatly in the past century, and doctors can now save many people who would formerly have died. Sometimes medical and physical conditions are such that doctors have to make the unenviable decision on which lives to save, because time, conditions, resources, etc. make saving everybody impossible. This is a decision process called triage. Triage is the process to determine medical priority in order to increase the number of survivors, in a situation where it is evident that not everyone can be saved. In some rare medical cases doctors must choose between saving the life of a mother or her unborn child. If physically impossible to save both lives, the decision on which life should be saved should be left to the doctor. The emotions of the mother, father, and family could only cloud a triage decision, which is scientific based on survivability. I don’t envy doctors who have to make such decisions, as they can and do weigh heavily on their souls. Triage decisions are not murder, but may result in the failure to save one person while increasing the survivability of another.
So if the murder of an innocent human being is “pro-choice,” how can any “pro-choice” person argue that the government has the right and/or responsibility to dictate the food choices other have, or dictate what you can choose to purchase for food and drink, or a myriad of other choices? These things don’t even have an effect on others directly, while “Pro-Choice” has the effect of ending an innocent human’s life. If you believe in “pro-choice” but also believe the government should regulate, food, safety devices, wages, medicine, etc. you a hypocrite and should put some time into thinking about your conflicting views.