Disparity of wrongs
I think that your insistence on “child” is telling. Are you attached to that because you believe that all pregnancies result in humans? Or are you attached to that because you believe that a pregnancy can be induced and a premature birth can be viable at a certain point and anything at that point should be considered a baby? Or is there some other reason?
What do you know about pregnancy statistics? What do you know about premature births? What do you know about miscarriage? Are you aware of how much damage is done to a woman’s skeleton by carrying a pregnancy to term? Do you know what the medical side-effects of a healthy pregnancy are? How about an unhealthy one? Do you know the average cost of a hospital birth?
Do you care?
My final view is that abortion isn’t killing kids. It’s preventing them from becoming kids. That’s the breakdown in our discourse. The C variable isn’t a child, it’s the potential of a child. It’s a lottery ticket with a better than average chance of returns. It’s a gamble — and you’re insisting that you get to make medical decisions for complete strangers based on a probability.
Your handcuff analogy is backwards. You’re the one insisting that the other person cut off a part of their body, except in this case it’s a woman’s skeleton, and it’s not a cut that’s over quickly, it’s damage that’s building up the rest of her life. I’m the one saying “we can cut the handcuff…” but you’re over here saying “they knew what they were doing when they lost that key! Make them pay!” Ignoring the fact that only women ever get penalized medically for this, and half the time men are the ones forgetting the key or bringing the wrong or broken ones.
I want to be able to kill unwanted or already non-viable pregnancies because I believe that the value of an existing human infinitely outweighs the value of a potential human, especially when society places the burden of raising a human on the woman carrying that unwanted pregnancy. I want to be able to kill unwanted or non-viable pregnancies because it is safer and saner to have that option than to emotionally pre-declare it anathema and then force sick women to fight all over for the right to live after having to make emotionally fraught decisions. I want to be able to kill unwanted or already non-viable pregnancies because I don’t feel it’s my right to force anyone else to gestate for any length of period for any reason if they deem it not in their best interests, and I believe that humans should have the right to self-determination wherever possible.
I want to have the right to kill unwanted or non-viable pregnancies because I want every child born to be wanted, to be cherished, to be loved by their parents, and for every terminated pregnancy, one less child is in danger of dying in pain before they can live, or being told they are wrong, a mistake, or an abomination. You might think you’re pro-life, but I actually want children to have the best lives possible. As far as I can tell, most people who claim to be pro-life are really just pro-suffering.
So what views are diametrically opposed to the killing of children? Uh, are you still trying to argue I think killing children is good fun? I think if a child is attempting to kill me, I get to kill it first. I’m very big on not-killing autonomous sentient beings, but I draw the line at just letting things kill me.
As far as the eating thing; I eat young plants, and eggs and all sorts of food that’s most likely not yet “adult”. (Now I need to go look up the life cycle of molds…) I don’t eat humans, even religiously, because cannibalism is unhealthy and morals. I also don’t think killing things to eat them is wrong, although by my own rules they are allowed to try to kill me for doing so.