> Suppose she decides she wants rid herself of the burden
> and takes it to a vet and pays him to put down the baby
> as he would a dog she does not want? What is the
> difference between this act and an induced abortion
> except the stage of development and the illegality of the
> first action?
The difference is that somebody else can take care of the child after it is born. The goal of abortion is not to kill the baby, it is to remove it from the woman’s body so that she is not forced to work for it. It just so happens that before birth (or at least, until a few weeks before) there is no way to remove the baby and keep it alive afterward. Because there is no hope, the baby is killed immediately rather than left to die slowly on his own. It’s the humane thing to do; euthanasia, not murder.
If there was a way to keep the baby alive after abortion in some kind of an artificial uterus, everyone would do that instead. There would be no involuntary servitude then.
You can also achieve a similar result by allowing adopting couples to pay the woman to carry the baby to term. If that were legal, you’d very likely see women choose that over abortion.
The purpose of an abortion is to get rid of the child. The most practical way is to kill it. If it does survive, then the first impulse is to let it die, and if it hangs on then to “help it along.”
God is pro-choice. Prayers for you.