I get it. But the part about abortion “not killing” the baby but merely removing it from the womb to die is absurd.
> the part about abortion “not killing” the baby but merely
> removing it from the womb to die is absurd.
Not at all. There is some research into an artificial uterus device. It is entirely possible that in the future a doctor could surgicaly excise the fetus and the placenta from the womb, implant it into this artificial device and have it mature to term there. Transplantation into another woman’s womb may also be possible, although tissue rejection reaction may make this considerably more difficult and dangerous.
The existence of these techniques, however, would in no way change the morality of abortion. Even if the fetus could be removed and kept viable, who will be forced to take care of it until adulthood? Is it moral to force society to pay for its care? The mother?
Consider the current debate about universal healthcare. If a man’s life can be saved with an expensive treatment, is it moral to force society to pay for it? The Obamacare mandate is an example of an affirmative answer. Aborted babies are no different. If you can force society to pay for the sick, you certainly can force mothers to care for their unwanted babies. The question you must answer for yourself is: does the life of another man trump your right to property and freedom? If yes, you must then both support Obamacare and be pro-life. If no, you must oppose universal healthcare (or any other form of forcible wealth redistribution), and be pro-choice.