Its a question of bodily autonomy. Moral arguments on abortion are irrelevant because nobody has the right to tell a woman (or any one) what to do with her body. Especially when it causes no direct harm to others lives. Pro-Lifer's are pro-forced pregnancy. They see it as punishment for women committing the crime of having sex.
Why do people get abortions?
The most common argument is that of she who never chose to become pregnant. Rape, Miseducation about contraceptives, Or even contraceptives that didn't work. I think it absurd to consider forcing a child on someone if they don't want or can't support it. Not only could you be ruining the mother's life, But if she can't properly support it, You could be ruining the baby's.
Secondly, Anti-abortion laws do not reduce abortions. They only make them more dangerous because they can't be performed by medical professionals. Education and access to contraceptives reduce abortions.
Finally, A common argument by the other side is that we (or the mother) has no right to an abortion as she is killing a living human being. All I'll say to this is that a fetus can not be considered conscious before the sixth week, And even after that many aspects of consciousness as we know it remain unknown to the fetus.
I am saying that abortion should be "allowed' because the inverse is that it should "not be allowed". Abortion should be allowed in certain circumstances, Where the mother's life is medically in danger, Where the [pregnancy is the result of rapes, Etc. There should be very well thought out restrictions, And "abortion on demand" should be discouraged.
The bible doesn't prohibit abortion. The only reason Christians think it does is because they don't read it. Should a clump of cells that can't think or feel have rights? Yes it should have the same rights as a rock. If you want to smash that stupid blog of carbon it is 100% ethical.
Anyone who disagrees is an idiot sheep who only thinks it's wrong because they were told so.
Women have the right to do as they please with their own bodies, And there are certain circumstances where abortion should not be prohibited. Everyone woman's body is different and if they feel it is right to have an abortion than they should be allowed to do so without being shamed for it.
Abortion should be allowed, It is a way for mothers who do not feel responsible to have a child. It wouldn't be fair on the child if the mother could not look after it and therefore would be unfair.
It is also not a woman's fault if the man decides not to wear protection. Sometimes they can be caused due to rape and many other horrible scenarios. Their lives can be in danger - for example, Where there is a high rate of deaths in child birth and therefore if the mother is a single parent who does not want to look after a child, Dies, The child will be an orphan.
There's no reason someone should be allowed to get an abortion. If you didn't want a child in the first place, You should've practiced safe sex (wearing condoms, Birth control). Scientific studies show that fetuses are self aware and living as zygotes - it's not just a "clump of cells". If you had a baby and you feel as if you're not responsible enough to care for it, Just give it up for adoption.
The only times I support abortion are when:
-The fetus is seriously deformed
-The mother is underage, A rape victim, Or otherwise in critical condition
-The fetus has a birth defect where their quality of life and mental functioning are severely impaired, Like Down Syndrome
If you believe that foetuses are not people, It does not mean the foetus has no value or no rights. There are many living beings that are not human that have both value and rights: dogs, For example. A living being doesn't have to be a person in order to have rights. But why should a man hold views on abortion? Well, Pretty much everyone is against slavery, But virtually everyone who is against slavery doesn't own a slave. So, By saying that men cannot have an opinion on abortion because they cannot give birth, By using that same logic, One cannot have an opinion on slavery if he/she doesn’t own a slave. Some also argue that the foetus is not human, But a parasite, Because it cannot survive without its mother. Well, Neither can new-born babies, Yet virtually everyone agrees that it is immoral to kill a baby. And why does the mother have the right to end her foetus's life under any circumstance, For any reason, And at any time in her pregnancy? Is that moral? It is only if we believe that the human foetus has no worth. But in most cases, Nearly everyone believes that the human foetus has an absolute right to live, But only when a pregnant woman wants to give birth. Only if a pregnant woman does not want to give birth, Do many people regard the foetus as worthless. That makes no sense. Either a human foetus has worth or it does not. Why is it moral for one person, A mother, To determine whether that being has any right to live? Supporters of abortion claim that a woman has the right to "control her body. " That is correct, But the foetus is not "her body". It is in her body, But it is a separate body. Virtually everyone agrees that the moment the baby comes out of the womb, Killing the baby is murder. But deliberately killing the foetus a few months before birth is not considered morally problematic at all. That makes no sense. If we look at when human life begins, We use scientific criteria and various characteristics that distinguish humans from every other form of life, And one of the most best ways to do that is through DNA, And at the moment of conception, Every piece of genetic code that makes you uniquely human and uniquely you is already present. Most abortions are not done because of serious medical consequences the mother faces, They're not done because of rape, They're done essentially because someone doesn't want to have the child. When two people willingly engage in a physical activity that they know can bring about a child, Both people should have some obligation to at least make sure that that child can be born, And if necessary that child can be given up for adoption, But there is no justification for the destruction of innocent human life for no greater reason than because someone finds it inconvenient.
Take these two premises:
P1: The fetus is a person or is not a person.
P2: We either know it or we don’t know it.
We end up with four possible outcomes.
In the first case, The fetus is a person and we know it, So abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent person. In this case, Abortion is murder and therefore is always wrong and is more valuable than a woman’s convenience or society’s convenience.
Alternatively, If the fetus is a person, But we don’t know it for certain, Then abortion is manslaughter. Even if the fetus is not a person, But we don’t know it, Abortion qualifies as criminal negligence. Without perfect certainty that the fetus is not a person, Doing anything to endanger its potential personhood is morally indefensible. (In the case of danger to the mother it would be considered self defense)
Only in the final case, If the fetus is not a person and we know it definitely, Is abortion morally permissible.
Abortion can only be permissible if the fetus is definitively not a person. Those who are pro-life believe that the fetus is a person, But even those who are skeptical of this point should not be advocates of abortion. And those who think they do know, Beyond the shadow of a doubt, That the fetus is not a human person should engage in meaningful dialogue as to how we have confirmed this by any measure. Science has still debated this topic and has seemed to shift its definition based on our current technology and as a result there is no certainty in taking any position.
I believe a fetus is a human being, And therefore nothing has the right to kill it. A fetus may not have the same form that we do nor can it feel pain. However, These things aren't what makes something a human, Neither do they make killing something right. To kill it is to kill not just its past and present state, But also its future as well.