alright one more time,
OK, trying to keep on topic here....
How then do you respond to the argument I made in my original post? To recap
"A woman should have every right to her body" - I assume you mean "every right to do what she wants with her body"? But abortion and infanticide obviously involve someone else's body as well - the baby's - so that should really be phrased as "A woman should have every right to do what she wants with her body, even if what she wants to do with it is kill someone else" (or at least, sign the consent form allowing someone else to do the killing).
Yes, if she's KILLING her unborn child it's her right. I'm using words you probably would appreciate as they're the ones you're already using and I refuse to sugar coat. Yes she may kill her own in utero child. One crappy aspect about being a woman is that the fault/blame/responsibility will always fall on her shoulders.
If you believe that wholesale, then you eventually descend into complete anarchy - if we can all do whatever we want with our bodies, even if harms others, then rape and murder and theft and genocide are all OK. I'm going to assume you don't believe that. :p So presumably you mean "A woman should have every right to do what she wants with her body, even if what she wants to do with it is kill someone else, under specific circumstances". Right?
Under no specific circumstances. When there are "circumstances" in place there is always room to invade the mind and soul of the woman with guilt and unnecessary medical procedures as they are doing now here in the states.
So what are those circumstances, and how do the circumstances of abortion (which you think should be legal) and infanticide (which you find "disturbing", although I don't believe you commented on whether you felt it should be legal or not) differ? A PP mentioned that a baby in the womb can only be looked after by one specific mother, whereas a baby outside the womb could be looked after by others; but that distinction would seem to assign moral worth to babies solely on the basis of convenience. If it were impossible for a mother to hand over her baby for fostering/adoption; if she were the only person available to care for it; would not infanticide be permissible, under that paradigm? If her "moral compass" were OK with it, and she wanted to use her body as she pleased (ie not feeding and caring for a helpless baby - or I suppose, by extension, an invalid or otherwise helpless person)... would you believe we didn't have the right to force her to do it, and that therefore she could order the death of the baby, or even perform it herself if she wanted to use her body that way?
You know what would be ideal. Education. We currently have some states refusing to allow any education but abstinence in the school system until the student is 18. There are no avenues for these kids to learn about the proper way to care for themselves other than their parents and more times than not the parents will not teach them either.
Do I honestly think babies should die due to a possible special needs outcome, no. Do I really think babies need to die at all? No absolutely not. However in the times we're dealing with it's NOT black and white at all. I don't like the idea of abortion and I wish there was never a need for it. However I do believe the right to make that decision for yourself is important. Nobody should be able to make it for you.
In other words: you seem to be pro-choice but anti-infanticide, but what's your reasoning that finds a moral distinction between the two?
I suppose it's because I see the child who is born to be just that a child and the one in utero a possibility.