SEE DETAILS!! How is Abortion not taking a human life? How is this morally and/or logically justifiable?

Question

Preface: I am not a religious fanatic (Agnostic), just pro-life. I made this decision based on LOGIC. Anyhow, this is your chance pro-choicers to frame your arguement on this topic. PLEASE NOTE I DID NOT USE THE WORD KILL, YOU MUST EXPLAIN HOW IT IS NOT *TAKING* A HUMAN LIFE (SEE BELOW)!! Please do not insult me with the "it's my choice" arguement with no supporting arguement. You will be labeled an mindless parrot with no ability to critically analyze.***I had to repost this question because people don't read for comprehension. This question is saying: How is it logically or morally justifiable to take a human life via Abortion. I do NOT want to hear this nonsense about when life begins. I am saying that you must explain how it is justifiable because if you had not interfered in the life cycle of pregnancy, an additional life would be on this Earth.

Answer 1

It is not guaranteed the fetus will be born alive. And if the fetus is removed from the uterus at the limit point down the pregnancy when the abortion can be performed, the fetus would not survive by itself.

The fetus have never take a breath in his life, hence it cannot be considered alive, so it cannot be considered KILL

The fetus is not a citizen by law standarts, which mean it cannot be considered MURDER.

Now about being immoral, that depend of the person, since being immoral is not a crime, abortions should be legalized.

I am against abortion. I would never do it or even suggest that to someone. But people should have the right to choose and then deal with their God

Answer 2

First, use "a" not "an" when the following word starts with a consonant. Second, the whole "taking a life" debate is hinged on the premise that said life will be better than ending it from the beginning. Since the carrier of the life considered abortion in the first place, it goes without saying that they don't want to parent (for whatever reason) so the "child" would be put up for adoption or end up in foster care. So, that may or may not be a "better" option. It really pisses me off that people would promote an option that they themselves have no clue about, have not experienced, and probably don't even know a single adopted adult person or person that has been thru the foster care system. I happen to know about both.Speaking as an adopted child (now 40 yrs old) and someone who has had an abortion,I am neither prolife or choice. I just don't think one should speak so adamantly on things without real research. My experience has been excellent, but there are so many trials and situations that stem from being adopted, that if that "child" does not have the right/strong mind or support system, they can be very miserable, possibly end up in ruin/suicide, or just remain here on earth to screw up everyone else. After talking someone into keeping their baby, those people just disappear. They're not there to help, assist, or advise. You just butt in long enough to win your argument and then leave the parent(s) and child to work out the tough stuff on their own. I'm sure they really appreciate that. If you're not in for the long haul - stay out of it.

Answer 3

First let me say I am Pro Life. That said the argument revolves around when is a human a human its not nonsense it is the argument or at least a large part of it, just because it is not logical to you does not make it any less true. Most of those that are in favor of abortion argue that what grows inside of a woman is not human, those that have religious beliefs say that human life starts at birth for that is when the soul enters the body. others will point out that at least for the first trimester and a good portion the second trimester that which will become a baby at birth is nothing more than a parasite that steals nutrition from the host (pregnant woman) and not human. The total debate comes down to when does a fertilized egg become a human. Most pro lifers say at the time of fertilization. Many pro abortion say at the time of birth or at the time when the baby can live on its own out side the womb, until then it is just a parasite and not human.

Answer 4

You say you do not want to hear "this argument about when life begins." Unfortunately that's a huge piece to this debate.

Did you know that sometimes, completely naturally, women's bodies excrete fertilized eggs? There is something about the pregnancy that causes the body to engage in a natural abortion. Are you going to suggest that these women have "taken" a human life? Of course not.

How then can you say it's problematic for a woman to engage in this process willingly, given that the pregnancy is not too far along? The question of when does a fetus become a human life still exists.

If you are asking why abortion is justifiable enough to be legal, it is because countless women would injure themselves in an attempt to give themselves an abortion. Making abortion illegal would interfere with the safety of the lives of thousands of women.

Answer 5

I don't see it as being logically justifiable. I cannot understand how passing through a hole somehow makes a previously non-human into a human life.

If the idea of whether or not the fetus is an actual human life is up in the air, wouldn't it make more logical sense to err on the side of caution and NOT allow abortions to take place? That actually makes sense to me. However, most women (and some men) consider the idea of a world without abortion to be personally inconvenient, so they insist on ridiculous arguments to justify their own selfishness, like most folks do who resent inconvenience and a lack of personal responsibility.

Answer 6

You are ignorant by just tellying people if they say it's my choice then they are mindless parrots. What right do you have to tell anybody what to do with their body?

I am asking you to cut off your left arm. If you say I don't want to because it's my choice then you are a mindless parrot.

To answer your question, it's justifiable because protection failed. That person may have no means to take care of a child (poor, no father, no home). The life they may live may be worse than death. They could be a rape victim and not want the child. This world is already overpopulated. I don't need to be paying into somebody else's welfare claim.

Noone is going to be abel to convince you of any justification because you've already made your mind up. Religious fanatic.

Answer 7

I don't agree, you are a religious fanatic. My dog is a agnostic so I understand your ability to reason. Abortion was invented by God in the form of miscarriage. God uses abortion because he knows when it is to the benefit of His creation. And God gave each person free will to determine when abortion is correct. Abortion would be the ethical answer in a number of situations. If God (or the mother) knows that the suffering the child will incur is extreme then abortion is better than life. And MY GOD does not kill a human life when he uses abortion. My God takes the soul of the fetus and simply uses it again.
The pro life movement brags that their god says that abortion is murder. Their god kills doctors, bombs clinics and harasses women. I can understand how a person that is an agnostic could support the pro life movement, but I myself support the God of the Pro Choice movement.

Answer 8

Well I used to be pro-life but someone I know changed my mind a bit on the issue. This girl I know, she ended up getting pregnant. This girl is a drug addict, and refuses to give up her habit. She does various kinds of drugs that are very harmful to a fetus, and even though she is aware of the harm that she is doing to the fetus, still refuses to quit. She ended up getting an abortion. I mean yes she could of giving it up for adoption but the child would have more than likely had serious problems, and how many people do you know would have adopted a child with those kind of problems. Not to mention that adopting a child in America is costly, and then add on the possible high cost of health care they would of had to give the child. I don't think that most people could really afford that. So with that knowledge I think she did that kid a favor. I mean that kid is gaining more love in heaven than it would have got on Earth I think. And as far as logically speaking, to make something illegal like abortion, means that more girls will probably die from doing back alley abortions, or home abortion like falling down a flight of stairs with a hanger. So I ask my self, do you want to kill a bunch of scared girls who don't know what to do, or allow them to send the unwanted children to heaven.

Answer 9

Induced abortion is taking a potential human life. Until the potential human can eat, drink, and breathe outside of the womb, it still has the potential to become a live human independent of the mother. (Other care-takers can feed it, and it can then breathe on its own.) Logically justifiable-it would depend on what
kind of logic the person is using-it would vary with each situation.
China justifies it as a population issue-if abstinence and other forms of birth control have failed, and the laws in China only allow each woman to have one living child because of overpopulation, they say there is an obligation to abort that potential life because it's the law. Morally-each person has a different code of morals they go by. If those morals say it is moral to take human life, then those morals would also say it's OK to take potential human life. Morally-to me, if the devil became incarnate as a potential human life in a mother, and inducing abortion to take that potential human life would prevent future evils caused by an incarnate devil-I'd have no problem with inducing abortion to take that potential human life away from the devil to prevent future evils if he were to be born and live on independent of the mother.

Answer 10

That's easy. It's NOT morally or logically justifiable.

1. If it weren't alive you couldn't kill it.
2. It's human. It doesn't have the genetic material to be anything else.
3. Killing a live human outside the context of war, and in the absence of self-defense, is murder. The baby has done nothing to you maliciously, or with forethought, so it can't be considered self-defense. It's murder. Plain and simple. People who think otherwise are mostly just rationalizing their own selfishness.

In a case of rape, blame the rapist, not the child by taking its life, the only thing it really has.