A time traveler goes back to a hospital on a certain date, because he knows that the birth of a certain child will result in the extinction of the human race in three years. It is the only spot where the time stream can be altered, because he didn't have much time to build it before the extinction event destroyed everything. He only had time to set a random date, and his computer thinker told him that the only way to fix things would be to abort a child. Should he kill one to save billions of others?
The point of that was to say that sometimes sacrifices have to be done for the greater good.
When bears don't have enough food, they let their cubs starve. Without the parent alive, the child will die regardless of whether food was saved for them. But if the parent lives on, it can have more children and be productive. While we are not wild animals and generally do not prioritize reproduction above all else, it is true that if the child's life is chosen at the expense of the mother's, the child has a lower chance of surviving on its own.
If we can't compare lives to each other because we don't know enough about their futures, we can assume they are equal on average, and then go on to point out that the odds of survival are what matter. If there are medical complications and you can either abort or kill the mother in childbirth, aborting gives you a greater chance of a life continuing on than not aborting.
I am aware that I pretty much dodged the question of whether any worldly reasons can compare to the value of a life, and I don't know whether to say that a life should be saved at all costs. I'll address that next. But I do know that when trading lives, more is better, most of the time. If it's wrong to try to look any deeper than that, then I don't have to. I've still proven that there are cases in which abortion is on the SIDE of life. It should be left an option for cases when it rightfully should occur (maximum life preserved).
NOW let me get a little closer to the underlying issue: should the greatest amount of life be preserved at all costs? Imagine three trillion children suddenly appear on the planet, all at once. The resources necessary to support them all would cause an extinction event for ALL life. That's a hypothetical situation to justify murder of living things. Again, it was really trading for the maximum amount of lives, because you won't end UP with three trillion seven billion living things, you'll end up with ZERO if you don't kill those trillions. Choosing between zero and seven billion, seven billion is the better choice, even though the trillions must die. They're dead regardless. One way is more humane, because it doesn't involve starvation.
While I don't support abortion personally, the US has this nifty little law in place about "bodily autonomy", which is what stops us from being able to get life saving organs out of corpses unless the person, while alive, had previously agreed to it. It basically states that people can't use your body without your permission, or use any part of your body without permission. While our justice system seems to forget that often in cases of rape and sexual assaults, it is literally impossible to make any kind of argument that not allowing abortion is not a violation of the bodily autonomy of a woman.
Although I wouldn't feel comfortable about getting an abortion myself, I think abortion should be an option available for people, considering people will still try to terminate pregnancies, some in very dangerous ways, some even harming themselves, or others harming them. In cases of rape, I think victims should have the option available to them.
It's basic human rights to be able to do what you want with your body and life. Some argue that it is preventing the unborn baby from living a life, but would that not be better than living a horrible life hated by their mother (and possibly father depending on the situation), or spending an entire childhood in foster care? Plus some women may have been raped, so not being able to abort would ruin their lives. Plus, there is the risk of dying in childbirth, so why should the woman have to risk her life, and if she does survive have to deal with something she didn't want?
It is the woman's right to choose. Some argue that it is preventing the unborn baby from living a life, but would that not be better than living a horrible life hated by their mother (and possibly father depending on the situation), or spending an entire childhood in foster care? Plus some women may have been raped, so not being able to abort would ruin their lives. Plus, there is the risk of dying in childbirth, so why should the woman have to risk her life, and if she does survive have to deal with something she didn't want?
Any person can disagree morally with the concept of abortion, but legally, we're deciding whether a woman gets to choose what she does with her own body, something that can't be legislated. A person who doesn't want to carry a pregnancy to term can't be forced to do so, and it's not a law that can be enforced (we've never been able to effectively enforce it). Imagine living in a society in which a woman who has been violently raped is threatened with jail time because she can't emotionally or physically handle carrying her rapist's child. Not that it matters what someone's reasons for abortion are - they're personal, and ultimately up to one person. A better focus for the anti-abortion crowd would be to support affordable and accessible birth control and sex ed programs - solutions which would prevent the vast majority of unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Also, easier access to abortions (MORE clinics, affordable procedures) allows women to do it in the first few weeks of a pregnancy simply and easily.
As an atheist, I'm genuinely against any form of violence against an individual. Even going as far as to be against any form of killing in war. However, the difference between being against killing and being against abortion is in the development of of the body. A fetus at 6-7 weeks hasn't developed a central nervous system, which means it can't feel, think, or move. At this point in the pregnancy I would call it a cancerous parasite, if it grows inside of you, taking your nutrients, and you don't want the fetus, it's a parasite (kinda a leap in logic, sorry). Any point after the development of the central nervous system, the fetus must be carried to full term if it doesn't have any dangerous disabilities that would make its life a living hell, or the birth would have a probability to kill the mother).
A fetus has not yet entered the real world, and therefore has not done anything at all, let alone anything that is wrong. It is also notable that biology has proven that a fetus has human characteristics for the full duration of time that it spends as a fetus. Also, justifying the killing of a fetus in anyway can justify the killings of certain adults as well- if you justify it by saying that it cannot breathe or live on its own, then you're also justifying the killing of adults who are either on life support or relying on machines to breathe, as they can't breathe or live on their own, either. If you justify abortion by saying that a fetus isn't awake, that also provides justification for killing adults who are in coma, even though they could wake up from their coma. Another notable fact is that, ever since the U.S Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade here in the United States of America, an overall disproportionate amount of black or otherwise non-white babies and have been aborted- all due to the fact that a lot of the leading pro-abortion activists at the time were eugenicists who were also white supremacists. Then, we have China, where, a One-Child Policy, meant to allow only one child per family -with the exception of multiple births at once, of course- that was aimed at reducing the growth rate of the overwhelmingly large population of the country, resulted in many baby girls being selectively aborted.
Even though fetuses cannot think, feel or move it has a future. Everyone has a purpose in this world and killing someone without letting serve its purpose is just cruel. You don't know that the baby will grow up to discover the cure for cancer or will be one of the greatest leaders in this world.
I am catholic and i feel that abortion is wrong and women who want to have an abortion need to look up what they are going to be doing to their baby before they make their decision. The catholic church is against abortion and so i am .Therefore abortions should be allowed in general.
From the second that conception has occured, a new life has formed. To discontinue the life of another person is to murder them and to impede on their right to life.
Some might argue that its for freedom etc but the reasoning is not the issue at hand, the issue is that there was someone who was killed.
Actions that take away the life from innocent people are wrong and should be condemned. Murder is illegal. Slavery is illegal. Why? Because not only are they morally wrong, but they infringe upon the right of life of other people. Abortion does not the same thing. It takes away the life of an innocent baby. Just because the baby is growing in a womb, does not mean that it isn't a human. If a born human was placed inside a womb shaped room that would not then mean that it would be acceptable to kill that human. Also, just because the baby depends upon the mother to live, does not mean that the baby can be justifiably killed. Babies depend upon their mothers for years after they are born, yet this does not entail that it is acceptable to kill them. So there is no logical reason why abortion is justified or should be legal. Of course some woman are in desperate situations and this deserves empathy and help. But killing a baby is still not justified. There are many agencies that can offer help and assistance to mothers in need. Pro life people should also work to support mothers and agencies that help mothers. So I am not trying to judge people, I want to help people in desperate situations, but the unborn babies need our help too and it is wrong to take their life.