Why are people considering abortion morally correct?

Question

Is there really a difference between having an abortion, or waiting until the child is born and then killing it?
Shouldn't the only instances for allowing abortion be when a woman is raped against her will, as well as cases of incest? - OR when the life of the mother is in jeopardy?
Come on people, how would you feel if your parents had abortion? (more like wouldn't feel.... ; you wouldnt exist.) Just some stuff to chew on!
Which is better to remember, "I gave my baby life. And because I loved him, I gave him into the arms of a loving couple" - or to remember, "I selfishly ended my baby's life?"
People pose the argument: "A woman has a right to her body" - Of course she does!, but rights have limits . . . I have a right to swing my fist, but that right stops at your nose. We have a right to freedom of religion, but not if that religion involves human sacrifice.
A woman has a right to her body, but this new being, growing within her is not part of her body.

Answer 1

Sorry to break this to you, my fellow pro-lifer, but babies ARE being left to die after botched abortions...I mean, what's the difference? It's not that big a leap for an abortionist who would murder a baby in utero to let it die of exposure in a steel bowl...happens every day in this country.

This is the result of the marginalization and dehumanization of human life. Infanticide and child abuse have actually increased since 1973, when abortion was legalized. That was when the abortion industry and our government began lying to women and indoctrinating them with the ridiculous idea "my body, my choice". Since the advent and wider and wider availability of the internet beginning in 1990, abortion rates have decreased, I believe in response to the TRUE information that has become available to women about the horrible nature of abortion.

All of the arguments you listed are valid, logical arguments that are slowly but surely breaking down this ridiculous notion that an abortion is nothing more than having a leach removed from your skin. Soon, the only argument that will be left in support of abortion will be, "women have the right to kill their babies simply because their existence will not be pleasing to her". When we reach that point, the true motivations of radical feminism will be bared for all to see, and we will know what they're really about...punishment of men and children for their perceived "oppression". Revenge is an ugly thing, isn't it?

Answer 2

Like most emotionally charged issues, this one is complex, and clear-cut black and white answers are hard to arrive at and often unfair to someone.

You make a few good points: namely, that a woman has a right to her body, but one person's rights end where another person's rights begin. Hence, once a baby is born, neither parent can kill it or let it starve to death simply because it's an inconvenience or something. Furthermore, I agree that once a fetus reaches the stage of clear-cut viability and has the physical and mental ability to feel pain and experience thought processes, abortion should not be allowed unless the life of the mother is threatened. However, since the fetus is basically living off a host body, the host/mother should have the right to rid herself of the fetus during its earlier stages before it begins to think thoughts and feel pain. In other words, a fetus in its 7th month of a pregnancy should not be aborted, but a 3-day old fertilized zygote certainly can be.

Now, the line of demarcation can be tricky, and it is here where science should step in to present evidence and where open debate should be encouraged. We'll never get anywhere in this country with half the people screaming "It's my body and my rights, always and forever!" and the other half screaming, "It's a human baby from the moment it's fertilized!" Surely there has to be a rational and acceptable answer somewhere in the middle that most of us could be comfortable with as a legal rule of thumb, even if we personally might do things a little differently.

Consider this hypothetical: If a woman is 1 month pregnant and has a tumor in her uteris that must be removed immediately or she will die, but the surgery will abort the fetus, is it morally correct, or should we say, morally permissable to have the surgery? Of course it is. The mother is a full life, while a fetus at 1 month pregnant doesn't even have a brain yet. How about at 2 months? How about at 3? 4? 5? 6? 7? If you ask me, the mother's life is always more important than the fetus' until it is born, which is not to say that the doctor and the woman shouldn't try to figure out someway to save the woman's life without sacrificing that of the fetus if it's possible. Of course, once it reaches the point of viability, it's more or a moot point; they can remove the fetus via a c-section, put it in intensive neonatal care, and perform the surgery on the mother.

From this hypothetical, we see that the mother's rights must be balanced with the fetus' rights, but that there are times when one prevails over the other. There are no black and white answers here, just answers that seem more morally correct or morally permissible depending on the situation.

In other words, it's not morally correct to abort a baby in the last month, but nor is it morally reprehensible to do so in the the first month. Deciding what's moral and what's not becomes a little more complex as the fetus becomes more viable and more responsive.

Answer 3

You have answered your own question!

The proclivity of convienience abortions is NOT GOOD!

I also believe that it comes from a feeling of ENTITLEMENT; this child is not convienient now, so I will just abort is NUTS but common place.

It is simply Womens Rights vs. Religious Beliefs and BOTH are a HUGE LOBBY that give HUGE amounts of CASH to our law makers.

I personally feel that it should be the woman's CHOICE in conjunction with her partner. An INFORMED and EDUCATED choice and NOT one of convienience; you did the deed so you should take the responsibility.

"Oh gosh I am in my last year of law school and just can't be pregnant BS,BS,BS". OH DAMN, I thought we were just having a little fun and I am up for a promotion that involves international travel"; BS,BS,BS

I could go on and on but would crash Yahoo if I did.

You are on the right track by gib=ving up your baby; I do know how hard it was! Stay in contact PLEASE!

Good Luck,
Jacques

Answer 4

No. there are a kind of motives for "no." at the starting up, to make certain that it to be "homicide" the concern desires to were born. If it does no longer have a delivery certificate or any type of papers, this is not registered as someone. subsequently who became murdered? perchance feoticide, yet no longer homicide. and there is not any regulation on the books adverse to foeticide. If someone kills a pregnant lady, at best he can get manslaughter, if the plaintiff has a reliable criminal specialist, in the right state. yet apart from this, enable's communicate theology. Catholics have self belief that you ought to appreciate the sanctity of all life, from concept till organic lack of life. subsequently, executing human beings does no longer appreciate the sanctity of life.

Answer 5

yeah it's wrong. It's become a so called fashion of GenNext to abort the baby and say they were not ready to be mothers. Why do they take the chance in the first place then? It's a huge sin in the sight of the LORD too. Thanks for the question. Maybe a bit of awareness can curb this stupid practice.

Answer 6

A fetus isn't a human being. Very simple.

To say otherwise is to accuse millions and millions of women of being murderers. And that just isn't so.

Answer 7

sorry, but a fetus is unable to sustain itself if its outside the mother's womb. thereby, it can't be considered murder, because the law doesn't define a fetus as a human being.

a fetus is a parasite until its born.

Answer 8

abortion is not a NEW thing--sorry to burst your bubble. Do some research.
http://www.unc.edu/courses/rometech/public/content/special/Stephanie_Doerfler/Contraception_and_Abortion.html
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pain.htm
http://home.att.net/~wiccanhistorian/histories/abortion.htm
http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2006/3/prweb357377.htm
http://www.prochoicemovement.com/2006/02/south-dakota-loses-it.html

Answer 9

Murder has been legal off and on all throughout history.Whereas
justifiable homicide is yet again a different bird altogether.