I dont get why ppl vote "always" so what? when the baby is a fully formed human at 8 months you think its fine to kill it?.Thats just weird man you got some problems.
In virtually all circumstances, with the appropriate caveat that I'd say that a late-term baby should probably be protected (but that this should be defined by some appropriate biochemical marker).
A baby that is not wanted is an organism that has effectively invaded the mother's body and is taking nutrients and putting her at risk. It is a parasite. Like all organisms, it has certain rights, but it has no right to take up residence in the body of another living creature.
This approach balances the autonomy of the woman with the rights of the baby. My approach would even make it so that any forced abortion or destruction of embryos would be treated as a crime against life not property. An intentional forced abortion in my mind should be treated as murder.
Yes, up to a point. Where that point is depends, on your point of view. Personally I draw the line at about three months. That would mean a person should have missed at least 3 periods and had time to think about what they wanted to do. I also feel the the health of the mother or fetus or in cases of rape/incest abortion could be preformed at anytime.
The problem I have with most anti-abortion people is that when you really question them their objection it is almost always religious. Personally in my questioning it has always come down to religion, but there may be someone who is anti-abortion who doesn't feel that way because of religion, but so far I have found if you dig it comes down to religion.
You know what's funny, I was involved in a discussion about abortion when an anti-abortion person asked me,
"“Aren’t you glad your mother didn’t abort you?”
"Yes," I answered, "but if it would have made her life better then she should have. It's not like I would have known about it." They really didn't know what to say after that.
BTW I also feel the morning after pill should be free or at a very low cost and available without parental or anyone's consent.
To me it's all about timing.
Abortion is acceptable prior to development of the central nervous system sufficient for pain awareness.
To point: If sperm and egg don't unite, they are just some of the billions of cells that die inside us everyday. Prior to significant development of the nervous system, the zygote or fetus feels no more pain than the multitude of other cells dying everyday. If sperm and egg do unite, it's not magic, it's not a miracle, it's simply the continuation of a very complicated biological process.
This is one issue where I think people argue around the edges. I will say that I believe the only correct answers are always and never. The middle ground is all equivocation and red-herrings.
The bottom line is that either a fetus IS a human life deserving of the basic human rights or it is not. If the answer to this is the affirmative then abortion for any reason (to me) is immoral. On the contrary, if it is just a cluster of cells like a kidney and not a human deserving of such rights, then why should the Government be involved at all in a medical procedure?
The trouble is that whether the fetus=human or not is very subjective and philosophical, but without such an answer the rest of the debate is meaningless.