Not extraordinary means, just the same means as anybody else that is already born, which would be to do everything that is possible. If you dont at least draw the line at birth of when an individual should have the right to live, at what point would it be? Should a child be allowed to live only if the mother wants it? Up to what age five minutes, five days, five years? Should we only give rights to those children that are loved?<quoted text>
I spent some time last night pondering your question.
Should a survivor of an abortion not only be allowed to live, but extraordinary means taken to help it live. Right?
Okay, so let's think about this. You stated "even if the mother doesn't want the infant to live." So...who will take care of this child? Chances are of it is a survivor of an abortion, it's around 20 weeks which the last time I read about it, gives it a less than 10% chance of surviving, and if it does, it's highly likely to have some profound health problems. Who's responsibility will it be? The chances aren't good it will be adopted. This little survivor has some major battles ahead of it and may need constant care. It's not only a major investment of money, but of time, energy, devotion, and possibly a full time job for two or more caregivers.
Again, it's much more than just "keep it alive." It's afterwards. It's not just the moment of conception or the moment it's born. It's a lifetime.
There are many variables here so there IS no cut and dried answer. I honestly cannot just say "yes" or "no" to this.
I agree with the poster who said "no abortions past the point of probably viability." My personal limit for an abortion FOR ME would be 12 weeks. I cannot speak for anyone else.
What you may not realize is that PRO-CHOICE means CHOICES:
The choice to have a child and raise it.
The choice to have a child and give it up for adoption.
The choice to terminate a pregnancy.
It covers ALL choices. Complete reproductive freedom. The ability to delay parenthood until one is completely ready to be a parent.
Imagine a society where every single child born is loved and wanted.
Isn't that far more appealing than a society where every child is born and many just exist...without love, nurturing, shelter, warmth, and the other things that make life worth living?
The responsibility to care for the child would undoubtedly not fall onto the mother; after all she was the one trying to kill the child.
I notice in your pro-choice choices you did not include the choice to kill an already born child, but if pro-choice means choices, does that not also include the choice to terminate a child that has already been born?
The law says that any infant born is considered a person with rights in the United States, but Im only wondering what you think and not what the law says. Please at least think it over a little more, because I think that you are avoiding the obvious logical answer.