Topic: Abortion
Quote: For this to be a consistent pro-choice argument, and assuming this to be a rightful interpretation and application of the 14th amendment there would be necessary conclusions. Those who hold this as an absolute belief must extend the right of a woman\xe2\x80\x99s right to choose the allocation of her bodily resources beyond pregnancy and into every instance of life. Therefore the pro-choice line of reasoning that says that a woman has the right to choose to abort because she does not wish do share her bodily resources can be extended to conclude also that a newborn infant can be aborted if a woman decides not to donate her bodily resource of nutrition and she has no access to formula (no other factors involved).
Response: That is an erroneous line of reasoning because it fails to take into account the myriad of other options open to a women after birth to remove the newborn from her care without any ill effects (physically anyway). Killing in the instance of a newborn is not justified because of those other options open to her. By contrast, a pregnant woman has exactly one option open to her to remove the fetus from her care and that is abortion. I would contend that the same line of reasoning that allows for adoption can be used here, that no one must donate their resources to a dependant.\nYour reasoning that a woman, using the same line of reasoning that pro-choice people employ, can withhold her bodily resources "until the newborn dies" as if that is equal to withholding bodily resources in pregnancy is faulty.
0.0