It is ok to kill a baby in the womb when...
•A woman is not financially or emotionally able to handle it.
•A woman does not WANT it
•keeping it would put the woman's life at risk
Abortion should be legal all around the world. It is a woman's DECISION to have a baby, NOT her OBLIGATION. It's her body, not yours.
When a mother is incapable of taking care of a child, or paying the hospital bill to birth it.
2. (This kind of changes the question but it remains on the topic).
It is okay to kill not only a child in the womb, but ANYTHING... When it can't feel anything, like pain, and emotions such as happiness, sadness, guilt, betrayal, excitement, fear etc. and that thing doesn't even have a capability to understand what life and death is.
As many have pointed out, it's fine to do when she is in danger. If she is raped, she shouldn't need to raise the child of a criminal, or suffer with PTSD. We have many people under the poverty line, due to their life being effected by child birth. They couldn't finish college or start the business they wanted to. I believe a woman should have the right to choose what happens to their body, if it doesn't effect anybody else. If you have a right to wear condoms, or use the morning after pill, you should be able to get an abortion.
Abortion is a difficult situation to go through. I believe having an abortion is a sin, therefore, I am against it. When aborting a baby we are aborting potential for the world. Who knows, we might be aborting the cure for cancer or the next great president. Abortion is a difficult situation to go through.
Killing a baby in the womb is depriving a defenseless individual of their life. Yes, they would probably become a lowlife, but there's always the chance they could make something of their lives. Yes, it's an off-chance, but it's better than killing the innocent child out of hand. . .
Where do we draw the line between alive and not alive? If a baby cam survive outside of the fetus it does not need the uterus and can be independent. If the the "baby" is just a bunch of cells, then mayb e it's morally sound. But at one point the baby is not part of the woman's body but instead a living being trapped inside another one.
While it is certainly true that a woman's body is greatly impacted by pregnancy, it is not true that abortion is simply a matter of her choosing to do something with her body. The fetus growing within her womb is a separate person with its own distinct genetic makeup. Abortion does not remove some part of the woman's body; it destroys the body of a separate, unique individual.
If its simply because it should be a woman's "choice" then why don't we allow other things that are simply a "choice"? I'm pretty sure it was Hitler's choice to kill 6 million Jews. He had convincing reasons, and since he was the head of the government, he wasn't doing anything legally wrong. It's a dangerous thing to make a decision purely for selfish reasons such as abortion.
It is her responsibility to take care of him, if she wanted to have a baby then killing him is no one of her choices, dying or suffering after his birth that is what mothers count for I mean for her baby, how could someone dare to kill his child.