Listen. I totally understand the concern all of us have for the unborn child. But the real question we have to focus on is when does an unborn child have rights, such as the right to life? When the sperm fuses to the egg, a human with a working brain and capable of awareness HAS NOT been formed.
We have no problem performing surgeries to remove cancer from a hospital patient, even though the cancer is a living thing. But we don't have the cancer rights.
The same with chicken and cattle. Now, chicken and cattle DO ENJOY some rights, but our needs to consume them for nourishment overrides their right to life!
We have to be very careful with similar debates involving the human fetus; for several months, the human fetus DOES NOT have a consciousness even resembling that of a new-born human baby!
It's my contention that for the first few months, up until the human fetus develops a central nervous system, does not have human rights--simply because it lacks the basic sentiency even found within a new-born human baby!
Less than 1% of all abortions are to save the mother's life. Most other reasons are because the child would be; too inconvenient, too expensive or too difficult to cope with. That is just a rather selfish reason to not let the fetus be born and experience life.
Guttmacher institute has shown this for years ( http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.html ) with unintended pregnancy being the capital reason. It isn't so much something to debate as it is a question of it's weight which we can see actually in the same source I just showed that people worldwide are having fewer abortions, safer and smarter sex, and generally speaking are pushing forward.
Abortion does happen for selfish reasons but it is not something that is untempered with wisdom and progression either.
I believe that a lot of the time it is more for the sake of convenience of the mother and not having to raise a child she had after having unprotected sex. I do believe that there are always cases of rape or other legitimate reasons one may consider it, but it seems to me that it's due more out of conveniece than anything else, and it's wrong
I am not judging women who get abortions and feel bad about it. They might have been forced into it by an abusive boy friend or by their parents, they might have been raped or they might have been in a really tough spot. All women who get abortions have been tricked by eugenics groups into thinking it's their right to kill their baby and that their choice is more important than their child's life. Women who get abortions because they're not ready for kids or they want to focus on their career and don't regret it are bad people. They are selfish to think that their jobs are more important than their child's lives and they are cruel to kill their kid. Many women like Abby Johnson feel bad about their abortions and become pro life. Most women who have abortion doctors kill their kids are good people who have made a cruel choice . Others like whoever wears that shirt are cruel, selfish and sociopathic people who deserve to look at pics of aborted babies every day until they wake up from their eugenics group indiced coma. Whoever wears that shirt knows what they did is wrong and doesn't want to admit it so they are hiding behind false ideas or they are satanic demonic creatures with no soul.
Abortion is much, but it is certainly not easy. Not psychologically, not socially and also not emotionally. To stigmatise women who abort with a word like this is not respecting the variety of reasons they got pregnant in the first place or the situation they live in.
A pregnant woman can only make inconvenient choices.