Position:Home>Philosophy> Can someone explain to me the logic behind being pro-life when it comes to abort

i agree with you but i understand where they are coming from!. most of them have never had to make that choice, feel that because of their faith they deem it wrong for them, or of the few that have had one they regret it because they did it for the wrong reasons!. losing a baby for any reason is hard but there always will be situations where abortion is the correct or acceptable choice!. i do hope that us women never lose this choice because history has already told us what will happen!. many deaths and more abused children!. people need to look at history there is a reason it is important!. Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

I don't think life starts when it's a muti-cellular organism, but I don't think it starts with your first breathe, either!. I think you 'life' starts with your first really memory, regardless of if you can remember!. I am sure, something during the pregnancy, the fetus' brain begins to function and that's when you should no longer be able to have an abortion!. Up until that point, it should be the woman's choice!. It's her body!. If it can't think and doesn't have a beating heart, is it really anything more than like a tumor at that point, anyways!?Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

I'm glad u said that u believe in God!. That would make it more simple to explain!.

In science, yes, we can say that life started when the baby is born!. But since u believe in God, then u must also believe in the unseen like angels, demons, and souls!. So the womb may not be in human form yet but that doesn't necessarily means that it has no soul!.

Some religion allow abortion if the pregnancy threatens the mother's life but we certainly cannot do abortion just because we don't want the baby!. Why do u think some religion forbid sex before marriage!?Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

its very simple reason!. ITs murder to kill someone and if you have seen any abortions they are already formed and when they are even days there are things you can make out such as eyes head arms legs and you need to see the abortion pictures and then you would then say hey this is murder of people no matter how small they are!. I don't care if you have religion or not but its a matter of killing InnocentWww@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

For them it is simple: All life is sacred and life begins at conception!. I don't agree with that view, but it is what they believe which is fine with me as long as they don't try to cram their religious beliefs down my throat by making it the law of the land!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

I agree with you, but I can see why some women would choose to be pro-life!. It's not fair to end a baby's life!. Humans, no matter how small, deserve to have a future!. And it might be one of those things that haunt you for the rest of your life!.!.!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

because they are warped and want to control everything!. I also wonder why if they value life at all costs, they are all for hunting and capital punishment, lol!. They are irrational!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

You know, I tried countless times, typing in answers only to delete them!. Why!? Because I see no logic behind it!!!Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

Its long, but its the defined official catechism of the Catholic Church on abortion:
(I think my explanation might get cut off)

Abortion

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception!. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life!.72
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you!.73
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth!.74
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion!. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable!. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish!.75
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves!. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes!.76
2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense!. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life!. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law!.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy!. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society!.
2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:
"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority!. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin!. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death!."80
"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law!. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined!. !. !. !. As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights!."81
2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being!.
Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual!. !. !. !. It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence!."82
2275 "One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival!."83


This is a religious explanation!. From a personal point of view I am also extremely Pro-Life!. I am Catholic, so the catechism's teaching do hold weight with me, but I believe in life from a moral and scientific viewpoint as well!. To me, the only difference between a fetus and an adult human being is time!. This is an essential tenet to my belief system!. For anyone who has committed a murder or gruesome crime throughout history, the reasoning must be rationalized!. Those who killed Jews in Nazi Germany or mass murderers in present day alter their views of life in order to remain emotionally detached!. A person must be viewed as less than human, and they can be killed as one kills an animal!. If someone is "Just a Jew" or "Just a fetus," in some minds that is justification for his/her lesser status!. The only difference between a fetus and a full grown human being is time!. You define it by its first breath, but what about other milestones such as limbs, organs, a heartbeat, or even the first cell division!. In time, in the normal course of development, two cells become you or me!. To base life on a time period would be to consider the murder of a toddler just!. It technically does not have fully developed skills we label as "human!." Does that not, in a pro-life view constitute him to be "abortable!?" The only way to debate the issue is if there is an acceptance of life in the womb, otherwise it is debating whether it can be "chosen!." I believe there cannot be a choice to the murder of innocents!.

The logic is: a fetus is an early stage to an infant, an infant to a toddler, a toddler to an adolescent, an adolescent to a teen, a teen to an adult, an adult to the ederly!. It is a stage of life as is any other!.

PS: no tumor has ever breathed after 9 months, the biological process that leads to life is more complex (and in my religous opinion sacred)!.

I never defend my faith so fiercely as when the lives of unborn children are treated like worthless wads of cells (that is in fact what we all are composed of)Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

I'm not religious and consider religion to never be a valid argument!. But I am pro-life on ethical reasons!.

Basically I view abortion as an act of convenience!. People have abortions for various reasons but most can be explained in terms that "it wasn't convenient"!. It may not be convenient because the child has a disease or genetic defect and would be an enormous expense or the mother was in extreme poverty or not old enough to assume the difficult responsibility of being a parent!. These are reasons not to be ignored!. However, there are other reasons that are not being considered!.

If we terminate a life because it is not convenient, what do we do about old people who become an increasing burden!? Establishing convenience as our highest priority sets a standard that has far reaching implications about how we treat anyone who becomes an inconvenience to society!.

I am also mystified by those who support abortion but who want to eliminate capital punishment!. And I am equally puzzled by the pro-life people who support capital punishment!. Both are inconsistent in their regard for life!.

I hope this explains on a more rational ethical basis why one person would be pro-life!. Yet I can certainly understand the positions of the abortion supporters!. Life is hard and sometimes we make decisions that if things were easier we might not make!.

That said, as a scientist, while I define life as beginning at conception, I do not define human life as beginning at conception, as if not for some different genes from our beginnings as a collection of a few stem cells we would develop into a chicken or monkey!. Human life begins over a period of time with the development of the central nervous system and an embodied mind that doesn't really form until some time into the pregnancy!. I don't want to get into a debate of when that occurs but it is clear that the Supreme Court decision to only allow abortions in the first trimester is a reasonable compromise!.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court's decision is not what is being provided in todays world!. Abortions at any point in the pregnancy including abortions of a viable fetus that would be an infant with all the legal rights and protections except for having been born, strikes me as being absurd and unethical by any standard!. And also unacceptable!. Which is one of the reasons why abortions without legal limits is an unacceptable social political position and will eventually have to be revised and contained!. Other wise there will never be an end to this controversy!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

Here's an answer, and while I am a Christian this answer has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with logic!.

Firstly, you must recognize your choice for when life begins (the first breath) is totally subjective and you have not given an objective reason to back up your claim!. I will attempt to give objective reasoning to the contrary!.

There are only four major differences between a fetus and yourself:
1) Size
2) Level of Development
3) Degree of Dependency
4) Environment

Let's carefully consider each of these categories to see if they are valid reasons to say that a fetus is a non-person!.

Size: This should be obvious!. Do persons who are larger have more rights than persons who are more dimuinitive!? Do I have more rights than a toddler because I outweigh them and I am taller!? Clearly this is not a valid criteria for determining a human being!.

Level of Development: Again this should be obvious!. I am more developed than a 10 year old but that doesn't make the 10 year old a non-human or accord me more rights!.

Degree of Dependency: If we use this as a criteria, is my grandmother who has alzheimer's and cannot take care of her self, or much less think for herself, a non-human!? This can be applied to the other end of the spectrum as well since an infant cannot feed or care for themselves!. This can further be applied to people dependent on pacemakers or insulin (diabetics)!.

Environment: This item plays into your criteria for life since the fetus does not start to breath until they leave the womb!. However, this again fails scrutiny because your status as a human being is not dependant on your location!. Am I a non-person because I live in a certain environment!?

Lastly, let's speak to your particular proposal: Life begins when the multi-celluar organism takes its first breath!. I think you are trying to play the role of God here and determine the start of life from your own opinions!. I could just as easily pull an arbitrary point out of a hat and say this is when life begins, especially since you didn't give any objective evidence to back up your claim!.

The only way to derail this line of logic would be to show that I have forgotten a basic difference, that we do currently use one of these items as a criteria for personhood, or that we should change our minds about using these criteria to define personhood!. None of these options look particularly attractive to me!.!.!.

For the individual angry that conservatives would support the death penalty and yet deny a women's "right" to choose, might I mention that not all deaths are equal!. Would you consider the execution of Osama Bin Laden morally equivalent with the death of a fetus!? Perhaps Hitler!? Stalin!? While I would tend to prefer life in prison to execution, I can understand the feelings of those who would like the punishment to fit the crime!. And tell me the crime of the fetus, aside from being "unwanted!." Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---