I’m pro choice up until 20 weeks into pregnancy because there are 2 situations in my head:
1) An unintended pregnancy gets brought to term and set up for adoption (because teenagers and anyone who doesn’t want to be a parent shouldn’t parent a baby). In the best of circumstances, the kid gets adopted by foster parents super early in the kids life. A starving African kid that got adopted by the foster parents in situation 2 dies of starvation because the foster parents adopted a baby that got aborted in situation 2.
2) The fetus gets aborted; a painless death since it was aborted before 20 weeks. The starving African child gets saved by foster parents.
In situation 1, an African kid died of starvation and it was very slow and painful. In situation 2, a fetus died a painless death. The foster parents only have the ability and the will to adopt 1 of the kids. Which situation do you prefer? I prefer situation 2. Banning abortion causes situation 1 to occur if everyone followed the law. If a kid will die either way, it’s better to kill the kid who can’t feel pain and is not expecting the death. Even if you kill somebody painlessly, they are expecting the death so such a death truly isn’t painless since death stress(stress knowing your going to be killed) is often more painful than a shot in the back of the head.
If there were no starving kids anywhere in the world, I’d be against abortion. But there are tens of millions of starving kids worldwide that are going to die a painful death from starvation. If babies that didn’t have to be birthed were aborted, then foster parents could save starving kids in the rest of the world instead of having to adopt kids that didn’t have to exist.
