- Mingi, FGM and the Albino thing all involve the “community”-sanctioned killing of an individual who is already “viable” (IE: capable of survival as a separate entity, outside of a woman’s uterus), and — more importantly — who has already been born.
- In most cases, abortion is not seen as some sort of mandatory “cultural tradition” which is forced on the woman in question. By contrast, Mingi/FGM/Albinos being hacked to death so that “witch-doctors” can use their body parts in “magic potions” etc. are coercively perpetrated on their victims.
By contrast, in order for abortion to be available “legally” in the U.S., the “fetus” must be (currently) non-viable and not yet born. The thorny issue with abortion is the probability that many (most?) of the fetuses which are aborted will eventually become viable.
Now, you might have a (seemingly) coherent case for those things being similar if — and only if — you had a situation where abortion was forced on a woman, because the “fetus” she happened to be gestating was (say) biologically female, or she was carrying twins, and the “community” required her to have one aborted, or there was some sort of pre-natal test for albinism, or suchlike. You get the idea.
Now, if want to make an argument about the “personhood” of even (currently) nonviable fetuses, then that’s a different topic entirely. However, even in those cases, you will have (most likely inadvertently) opened up an entirely different can of worms:
Once you admit (even in principle) that an embryo/fetus is NOT merely “part of a woman’s body”, you are confronted with the following question: WHO has first claim to the woman’s organs? The woman herself, or a (separate and less developed “person”) who just happens to (currently) be contained within one such organ (the uterus?)
Far from justifying any sort of “anti-abortion” argument, you’d think this would lead “pro-lifers” to advocate for the development of stuff like fetal transplantation, drastically-improved incubators (“Artificial wombs”), etc.
(To be fair, at least some “pro-lifers” do actually follow through with what they claim to believe, by way of “embryo adoption”:
(Quite frankly, it strikes me that a reasonable solution to the abortion ‘controversy” is itself contained in Roe V. Wade:
It strikes me that any woman procuring an abortion (as opposed to resorting to self-inflicted abortion) is necessarily also consenting to have the “product of conception” disposed of by the abortionist, in whatever manner.
At any rate, at least some scientific/medical-type people are starting to understand the possible (future) feasibility of “Fetal adoption”:
Quite frankly, I’m not going to discount the possibility. The important thing to note from the above, is the following paragraph:
The elegance of this scheme is evident in its ability to placate both proponents and opponents of abortion. Pro-choicers under a system of fetal adoption would never be forced unwillingly to suffer pregnancy or to bear an unwanted child. A woman must retain full legal control of her own body and should be free to surrender her fetus for adoption at any time during gestation. On the other hand, pro-lifers would be satisfied because no “human being” (here defined arguendo as a “fertilized or developing human embryo”) is ever put to death. Healthy newborn babies placed for adoption are in very short supply, so there would be no problem finding an adequate number of adoptive or surrogate parents to absorb the surplus nonaborted infant population.
Quite frankly, this strikes me as at least being worthy of consideration.