If People Are Truly Pro-Choice, Does That Mean They Can Choose To End Your Life?

Most of the debate surrounding abortions has to do with the question of when is the object being aborted a baby and when is it just a lump of flesh to be discarded?

Conservative Christians have no doubt that it is a human being from the moment of conception and thus should be protected the same way our lives are protected.  On the other side of the debate, many abortionists argue that it’s not a human in the early stages because it is not viable outside the womb.  I’ve already dealt with the problems of that logic in previous posts (How to Defuse a Pro-Abortionist’s Arguments & How to Defuse an Abortionist’s Arguments – Part 2), but want to raise another flaw in the logic of the pro-choice argument.

If someone can legally murder an innocent child solely on the basis that it has not been physically born, then can’t they use the same logic to kill people who have been born?

take our poll - story continues below

Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.?

  • Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Godfather Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: College Expels Disabled Boy Over Sex Assault Despite Girl Admitting SHE Molested HIM!

For starters, no child under the age or four or five can survive without someone caring for their needs.  Doesn’t that also qualify them as being unviable humans?  Therefore, a pro-choice person could use the same legal argument to justify any child who is incapable of caring for themselves.

That same argument also applies for anyone born with a physical or mental disability that prohibits them for caring for themselves even as adults.  Would someone with severe mental retardation, Down’s syndrome, and other genetic mutations be legal targets for a pro-choice person because they can’t survive on their own?

Or a person who is injured in a type of accident that leaves them unable to care for themselves physically or mentally.  I know a very beautiful young woman who is an inspiration to everyone around her.  Mentally, she’s as sharp and intelligent as anyone I know.  Physically, she’s a quadriplegic due an auto accident when she was in high school.  She needs someone to help take care of her, feed her, dress her and bathe her.  Since she technically can’t care for herself, does that leave her open to the option of being legally murdered by someone who believes in pro-choice?  I would hope not.

What about Stephen Hawking, the famed British theoretical physicist, cosmologist and author?  First diagnosed with a form of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS – or Lou Gehrig’s Disease) at age 21, Hawking is now nearly completely paralyzed at 71.  He has to speak through a speech generating device.  Should the brilliant scientist have been murdered once he was no longer capable of caring for himself?  If so, we would not have a large portion of his work and accomplishments.  Even though his work is evolution based, he has made positive contributions to the world of science, that would not have been made had he been put down by pro-choice advocates.

I trust you see what I’m trying to say.  All of the arguments used by pro-choice abortionists can also be used to justify taking the lives of millions of people after they have been born.  Logically, there is no real dividing line between legal and illegal murder using the pro-choice argument.  And with our liberal president and other leaders, it’s only a matter of time when we’ll see them start to utilize that same logic to kill the living.

Previous Could NJ Gov. Chris Christie Run for Re-Election as a Republican & a Democrat?
Next Obama as God and Father of the Nation


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.