If the rationale behind abortion is that no one wants the child . . . ?

Question

then should mothers be allowed to kill their newborns too?

If not, why not?

Answer 1

No, a newborn is a human life which can be sustained as long as it is fed and such just like any other life

A fetus is a parasite which can not survive without its host

Answer 2

Well, your question is improperly worded...I think for most pro choice supporters, the rationale is that a child is not a child at the time of conception and/or up until it is far more than a mass of cells bigger than a half dollar.

So, that being said...the rationale is that a child is not being killed. A mother who has born a child would thus be committing murder.

Answer 3

some folks believe that the fetus has no rights unlike the newborn.

Answer 4

No, the rationale revolves more about the right to privacy with ones own body.

Answer 5

You are asking a hypothetical question (if the rationale is one thing) in a highly controversial area (what is legal, what is moral).

One reason for abortion is that the woman was raped and she does not want the child of the rapist.  The cure for this is to end rapes.  Ending rapes would solve a mountain of problems.  But we as a society have known about the problem of rape for centuries, and have been unable to resolve it.

There are many other reasons for abortion, that are equally difficult to solve.

Answer 6

first off, abortion should be illegal anyways, and second off EVERY baby has a life, if it has a beating heart, its alive so WHY would you kill a newborn? thats so outrageous i dont even understand why someone would even think about this? abortion is literally killing your baby, so if you didnt want it, give it up for adoption, dont kill it. i mean come on seriously.

Answer 7

Well yes, and no. In many countries where having a male offspring is paramount to surviving an ecomonmy of subsistance living, female newbornes are often killed.

If you are a Christian, killing an unborn is sin.  It is murder because the baby has done nothing to deserve deadly force.  So take a look at those civilization that believe in killing infants vs those who cannot kill.  By not "culling" you risk the welfare of the group.

For you, I ask,

You have 1000 servings of baby food, and 1000 servings is required to get the baby healthy enought to eat regular food.  If you serve only 500, there is a risk of health problems and poor mental skills. The child is at risk of not developing into a healthy adult.   Under 400 servings, your baby cannot develop enough to eat regular food.

Now you gave birth to 3 babies.  What do you do?

Answer 8

No, because I think everyone agrees that a newborn is a person.  Besides, that's not the rationale behind abortion.  Most often the reason is for health reasons for the mother or social situation or a combination of both.  The ethical debate is at what point a fetus becomes a conscious person.  Some say from conception and are thus anti-abortion, and some say from a certain point in development, such as after the first trimester or four months or some time around there, and before then the fetus is still a part of the mother, and she is entitled whatever rights over it, whether to abort it or keep it.  After a point, the fetus is most definitely a person, and definitely after it is born.  So no, I don't think anyone would buy that logic, or the ethics behind it, and to come to that conclusion shows an ignorance of the debate behind abortion rights.