Life begins at conception. This is a medical fact. Abortionists go out of their way to deny it. "It's just a clump of cells", "It needs it's mother to survive, so it's not really alive.", "It's not conscious or self aware, so it's not really a person." These arguments are ridiculous. Anyone who aborts a baby, except in extreme cases where the mothers life is in danger, is a murderer and they will answer to God for it. You may not believe in God, but He is real. So is gravity. Disbelief, in either one, will not save you.
ONCE THEY ARE BORN they do have these rights, just like any other person. If this post is referring to foetuses, then the issue becomes more complicated.
Even if I grant that a foetus has a right to life, I would STILL be in favour of abortion, since my primary argument has nothing to do the foetus' rights (bodily autonomy argument).
Claiming that abortion is murder is asinine; not only is murder illegal by definition, but it also entails that the primary goal is to KILL the subject, which is not the goal of abortion (it is the termination of the pregnancy which, unfortunately, leads to the death of the foetus).
The babies are innocent. They never went on a bloody rampage or even stole anything. They deserve to live just as much as you. If you really don't want the baby just have it and simply put it up for adoption. It's as simple as that. Killing it is murder by definition. And yes the unborn baby is either a person or will become one. It is a person when it becomes a zygote. I really don't see how the government justifies having abortion legal. It's like the dark side of society. This is coming from an Atheist who thinks everyone innocent deserves a chance to live.
The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
Kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation.
Should we give babies this protection with "due process" under the 14th Amendment as well as "equal protection" with the mother (an equal right to be born)?
Are you Pro-Choice on Homosexuality and Pro-born-that-way on abortion? You know you can't be born gay if you are aborted. But some will say that is just D.O.G.M.A. (Defense of Gay Marriage Act). President Ronald Reagan once said that he noticed that all who were for abortion had already been born.
Babies are outside of the mother.
Fetuses and embryos take nutrients from the mother, give nothing back, and endanger the health, and sometimes the life, of the mother, and therefore fit the definition of 'parasites'.
Saying a parasite has rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, implies that the parasite owns the host, despite contributing nothing to the host.
Without a functional brain, you are not you. Medically, a person dies when their brain stops transmitting signals. It would make sense for the reverse with birth. However, without any identity apart from a genetic code, it's hard to say anything else about the baby.
People are not equal, and neither are their intentions. In a hostage situation, a president's life is more important than a CEO's, and CEO is more important than a service worker, and so on. The same applies for a baby and its mother. In the US, intent also matters. That's why there are manslaughter, second and first degree murder and why they are treated separately.
To put it frankly, one baby today is no different on society than a baby tomorrow (unless you want to talk demographics). Sure, it is quite emotional, but unless you are a vegan, you have already applied similar logic with the repeated killing of farm animals. Although in the case of the farm animals, it's manslaughter for their meat-which isn't needed in most cases. Abortion is to prevent pregnancy-which is needed to prevent risk of death in most cases beyond the brain-wave point I discussed earlier. Which one sounds more moral to you?