Abortion is not acceptable for any reasons at all

[TheDag]

Oh, and Margot was, with the rest of the family, arrested by the Nazis and died in a concentration camp.

Unfortunately the person who betrayyed the Franks never confessed. Guess he was too much of a coward to admit his guilt.

Step-sister. She is alive and has condemned Trump. Bit hard to do that from the grave.

 

[Archivist]

Step-sister. She is alive and has condemned Trump. Bit hard to do that from the grave.

But you said sister, not step-sister. And a posthumous step-sister at that. Otto Frank didn't marry her mother until eight years after Anne and Margot had died. Eva was a 23-year-old adult by that time. It isn't as if they were ever a family.

BTW not doubting what she did, apparently she saved lives. But she wasn't Anne Frank's sister. Anne Frank's sister died a few days before Anne died. Thank you Germany.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

So you would force a woman to carry a pregnancy such as:
https://sonoworld.com/TheFetus/page.aspx?id=292
https://sonoworld.com/TheFetus/page.aspx?id=1520
https://sonoworld.com/TheFetus/page.aspx?id=191

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Abortion is not acceptable for any reasons at all, not even for the life of the mother. Why is this? Because you cannot do an evil deed to bring about a good end. It's as simple as that.

That said, there are situations where a medical procedure can be done which results in the death of the baby but which is not morally evil. An example of this would be a woman who finds out that she is pregnant and then during the pregnancy discovers that she has uterine cancer which must be operated on or she will die. If that woman has surgery to remove the cancerous uterus which results in the death of the baby then that is not morally evil because the intention was not to kill the baby but to save the life of the mother.

Likewise in the case of an ectopic pregnancy if a woman has surgery to have the affected fallopian tube removed which will, of course, result in the death of the baby then that is not morally evil either because the intention was not to kill the baby but to save her life.

The difference between this and a direct abortion is the fact that in a direct abortion, the intention is to kill the unborn baby. A direct abortion is an abortion either willed or as a means. Abortion is willed as a means when the instrument is to end the pregnancy or kill the unborn baby.

I really don't know how to explain this further and so I will offer a couple of links:

What's the difference between direct and indirect abortion? | Catholic Answers

Can a pregnant woman undergo chemotherapy if it will harm her child? | Catholic Answers

God bless,
Ave Maria (Holly)

Your post encapsulates the major part of the problem I have with the "pro-life" movement, despite my being against the vast majority of abortions.

An "abortion" is an aborted pregnancy. The situations you describe are abortions. They are abortions with very good reasons behind them but abortions nonetheless. You use semantics to avoid calling them abortions but they are abortions. At least the link you provide does call them abortions, albeit "indirect" abortions.

I know two people who were in each of the scenarios you describe. A friend of mine and his wife found out she had cancer after she was pregnant. She had to abort or she would die. She aborted the pregnancy and got the necessary procedures done for her cancer. This couple is (well, was) very staunchly Roman Catholic. She went crazy from the guilt that was laid upon her by their friends and church and she left her husband and 3-year-old daughter to go off and live by herself. She became very angry and broke off relationships with all her friends and family and is that way to this day, 10 years later.

The other person I know is my own sister-in-law who had an ectopic pregnancy and had to abort. Some people gave her and my brother grief but we know better than to listen to them. But the vitriol that came their way sure told me a lot about that movement.

Add to this that nobody criticizes them for their fertility treatments which, if they were successful, would likely result in embryos being destroyed. I hear pro-lifers always tell me, IF I ask, that they are against IVF, but I don't see them protest against it, ever, ever, ever. So this leads me to believe that their movement has another agenda.

I do believe it's wrong to abort a pregnancy just due to a desire to get out of it, to get out of having a kid and the responsibility that goes with it. However, the "pro-life" movement has shown to me that it is not as concerned with what's right as it is with only what they want to impose upon others, their way only, without listening to reason or any other points of view.

But make no mistake, abortion is abortion even in the case of cancer or ectopic pregnancy.

 

[SPF]

But make no mistake, abortion is abortion even in the case of cancer or ectopic pregnancy.

This is misleading. When we think of abortion, we typically think of a woman choosing for reason X, where X is not a life threatening medical emergency to terminate the life of the fetus inside her.

During an ectopic pregnancy, we are faced with a life threatening situation where it is almost a certainty that if action is not taken that both the mother and the fetus will die. In this situation and all other life threatening situations the doctor should view both mother and fetus as his patient. The doctor's aim should be to save the life of both fetus and mother. However, there are times in which there is a life threatening emergency where the doctor will not be able to save the lives of both. In these situations, we leave it to the doctor to make the best choice with the information available to him. In most cases, the fetus has not reached viability and so the choice is simple - he cannot save the fetus.

But there is a strong distinction that does need to be made and carries much substance. Abortions committed for reason X, where X is a non-life threatening situation, are different from emergencies where the doctor would save both lives if he could.

 

[Archivist]

This is misleading. When we think of abortion, we typically think of a woman choosing for reason X, where X is not a life threatening medical emergency to terminate the life of the fetus inside her.

During an ectopic pregnancy, we are faced with a life threatening situation where it is almost a certainty that if action is not taken that both the mother and the fetus will die. In this situation and all other life threatening situations the doctor should view both mother and fetus as his patient. The doctor's aim should be to save the life of both fetus and mother. However, there are times in which there is a life threatening emergency where the doctor will not be able to save the lives of both. In these situations, we leave it to the doctor to make the best choice with the information available to him. In most cases, the fetus has not reached viability and so the choice is simple - he cannot save the fetus.

But there is a strong distinction that does need to be made and carries much substance. Abortions committed for reason X, where X is a non-life threatening situation, are different from emergencies where the doctor would save both lives if he could.

But in either case it is an abortion.

 

[SPF]

The term abortion is a morally charged and loaded term which is generally understood by people to mean the choice of a woman to terminate the child in her womb for reason X, where X is a non-medical emergency.

If Siamese twins experienced a medical emergency and the doctor realized that if he did not separate the twins that they would both die - would we expect him to do nothing and allow them to both die? No, we would expect him, as a doctor, to make the best choice he could and while desiring to save both, realizing that the inevitable outcome may be the death of the weaker one. Would we call this abortion? No.

I would argue that abortion done for any reason X, where X is not a medical emergency is immoral. If there is a medical emergency while a woman is pregnant and the doctor can only save the mother, that should not be called an abortion. What if the situation was flipped, let's say there was a medical emergency but the fetus had reached viability, and while trying to save both, the mother died. Would we say that was an abortion of the mother? No, we wouldn't. So why call the death of the fetus in a life saving operation an abortion?

Is it technically accurate to call the saving of a mother at the cost of the child during a life threatening operation an abortion? Yes. But I would argue that due to the morally charged nature of the term and the general understanding and use of the word, that a distinction is important, if not necessary when discussing abortions done for reason X, where X is a non-medical emergency and abortions done as the result of a medical emergency.

With one, the goal and intention from the beginning is to terminate the life of a fetus. With the other, the goal and desire and hope is to save both lives. There is a gigantic moral chasm between the two scenarios.

 

[Archivist]

The term abortion is a morally charged and loaded term which is generally understood by people to mean the choice of a woman to terminate the child in her womb for reason X, where X is a non-medical emergency.

But words have meanings. The term abortion is not limited to non-medical emergencies. Merriam Webster defines it as follows:

"the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus : such as a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation — compare miscarriage b : induced expulsion of a human fetus c : expulsion of a fetus by a domestic animal often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy."

If Siamese twins experienced a medical emergency and the doctor realized that if he did not separate the twins that they would both die - would we expect him to do nothing and allow them to both die? No, we would expect him, as a doctor, to make the best choice he could and while desiring to save both, realizing that the inevitable outcome may be the death of the weaker one. Would we call this abortion? No.

But that doesn't meet the definition of abortion.

I would argue that abortion done for any reason X, where X is not a medical emergency is immoral. If there is a medical emergency while a woman is pregnant and the doctor can only save the mother, that should not be called an abortion.

The definition says otherwise.

What if the situation was flipped, let's say there was a medical emergency but the fetus had reached viability, and while trying to save both, the mother died. Would we say that was an abortion of the mother? No, we wouldn't. So why call the death of the fetus in a life saving operation an abortion?

No, because that doesn't meet the definition.

Is it technically accurate to call the saving of a mother at the cost of the child during a life threatening operation an abortion? Yes. But I would argue that due to the morally charged nature of the term and the general understanding and use of the word, that a distinction is important, if not necessary when discussing abortions done for reason X, where X is a non-medical emergency and abortions done as the result of a medical emergency.

No, it is more than technically accurate to call it an abortion. Words have meanings.

With one, the goal and intention from the beginning is to terminate the life of a fetus. With the other, the goal and desire and hope is to save both lives. There is a gigantic moral chasm between the two scenarios.

Perhaps, but the definition doesn't take morality into consideration.

 

[SPF]

This is why I don't particularly like online "discussion" forums. Discussions typically dissolve into one person trying to win an argument and meaningful discussions are generally lost.

Is it technically accurate to call the saving of a mother at the cost of the child during a life threatening operation an abortion? Yes. But I would argue that due to the morally charged nature of the term and the general understanding and use of the word, that a distinction is important, if not necessary when discussing abortions done for reason X, where X is a non-medical emergency and abortions done as the result of a medical emergency.

No, it is more than technically accurate to call it an abortion. Words have meanings.

You're trying to tell me that it's more technically accurate to call it an abortion when my very first sentence here is acknowledging that it is technically accurate to call it an abortion. So first you didn't correct me, you agreed with me. But more importantly, you've ignored the entire "heart" or "spirit" of my point.

People tend to use emotionally charged words and terms when discussing abortion so as to dramatically prove a point. People try to vilify those that disagree with them, and examples are often fallacious in nature.

As I said, there is a world of difference on a moral level between a woman who has an abortion for any reason other than X, where X is a non-medical life threatening emergency and an abortion that happens as a result of a doctor performing an emergency surgery to save lives.

 

[Archivist]

This is why I don't particularly like online "discussion" forums. Discussions typically dissolve into one person trying to win an argument and meaningful discussions are generally lost.

I am not trying to "win an argument." I am pointing out an incorrect statement on your part.

You're trying to tell me that it's more technically accurate to call it an abortion when my very first sentence here is acknowledging that it is technically accurate to call it an abortion. So first you didn't correct me, you agreed with me. But more importantly, you've ignored the entire "heart" or "spirit" of my point.

Please read what is written. I did not say that "it's more technically accurate to call it an abortion" as you claimed. My exact words were "it is more than technically accurate to call it an abortion." An abortion, no matter what the moral grounds, is an abortion. It isn't just technically an abortion. Neil Armstrong was an astronaut because he flew on a US space mission. He was not technically an astronaut, he was one.

People tend to use emotionally charged words and terms when discussing abortion so as to dramatically prove a point. People try to vilify those that disagree with them, and examples are often fallacious in nature.

Who is trying to vilify anyone in this thread? I am merely pointing out your misuse of a term. Words have meaning.

As I said, there is a world of difference on a moral level between a woman who has an abortion for any reason other than X, where X is a non-medical life threatening emergency and an abortion that happens as a result of a doctor performing an emergency surgery to save lives.

An either way it is still an abortion.

 

[SkyWriting]

Abortion is not acceptable for any reasons at all, not even for the life of the mother. Why is this? Because you cannot do an evil deed to bring about a good end. It's as simple as that.

It is an evil deed to do unto others in a way you would not want them to do unto you.
Example: You have been crippled and unable to walk since birth and yet you found a man who loves you (your step-dad) but sadly you got pregnant in 6th grade.

(I know of 2 females in these situations, but I combined them, just for argument.)
It would be a sin for you to make medical decisions best made by the family who would be carrying and then raising the child. God's law is not a sword you can swing around and apply to others as you see fit.
Period.

 

[Archivist]

It is an evil deed to do unto others in a way you would not want them to do unto you.
Example: You have been crippled and unable to walk since birth and yet you found a man who loves you (your step-dad) but sadly you got pregnant in 6th grade.

(I know of 2 females in these situations, but I combined them, just for argument.)
It would be a sin for you to make medical decisions best made by the family who would be carrying and then raising the child. God's law is not a sword you can swing around and apply to others as you see fit.
Period.

Well said SkyWriting. The decision must remain with the pregnant woman. I know a woman who became pregnant following a violent rape. No one else should be telling her that she must carry the fetus to term; that choice belongs to her and her alone.

 

[SPF]

Archivist, you're still missing the point I'm making. I agree with you in your explanation of the term abortion.

What I'm saying is simply that not all abortions are wrong. it is important for discussion purposes to then distinguish between the two.

Well said SkyWriting. The decision must remain with the pregnant woman. I know a woman who became pregnant following a violent rape. No one else should be telling her that she must carry the fetus to term; that choice belongs to her and her alone.

This however, is wrong. Human life begins from conception. All human life is precious to God and of equal moral worth. Abortion for non-medical emergencies is just as morally wrong as it would be to kill a 3 day old baby or a 30 year old adult.

 

[Archivist]

Archivist, you're still missing the point I'm making. I agree with you in your explanation of the term abortion.

What I'm saying is simply that not all abortions are wrong. it is important for discussion purposes to then distinguish between the two.

Then we are in agreement. It is an abortion. However, your initial statement was that an abortion to save the life if the pregnant woman should not be called an abortion. That is incorrect. As I have said, the moral aspect is not in the definition. An abortion is an abortion whatever the reason. You are trying to draw a distinction when there is no distinction.

This however, is wrong. Human life begins from conception. All human life is precious to God and of equal moral worth. Abortion for non-medical emergencies is just as morally wrong as it would be to kill a 3 day old baby or a 30 year old adult.

I disagree. No one should be forced to carry a fetus to term when she was a victim and had no choice in the sexual act. To require otherwise--to force a rape victim to go through nine months of pregnancy and the pain of childbirth--would constitute involuntary servitude. That choice has to be left up to the rape victim, not you.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

I am not trying to "win an argument." I am pointing out an incorrect statement on your part.



Please read what is written. I did not say that "it's more technically accurate to call it an abortion" as you claimed. My exact words were "it is more than technically accurate to call it an abortion." An abortion, no matter what the moral grounds, is an abortion. It isn't just technically an abortion. Neil Armstrong was an astronaut because he flew on a US space mission. He was not technically an astronaut, he was one.



Who is trying to vilify anyone in this thread? I am merely pointing out your misuse of a term. Words have meaning.



An either way it is still an abortion.

Well said. The whole reason I brought this up (and you got involved and you are representing exactly what I have been trying to point out) is that the OP starts of by saying that an "Abortion is not acceptable for any reasons at all, not even for the life of the mother" but then goes on to provide examples of two exceptions where abortion is acceptable for the sake of the life of the mother. The OP doesn't use the word "abortion" because she is trying to use semantics to deem those exceptions as not being abortions, but they are. They are aborted pregnancies - abortions.

It's this kind of game of semantics that bothers me with the pro-life political groups. It makes me believe that there is some other agenda because they try to describe some abortions without that word. I can't think of why someone would do that if not for some ulterior motive that they are not revealing (or perhaps they themselves aren't even aware of because they are following the lead of someone else).

 

[SkyWriting]

This however, is wrong. Human life begins from conception. All human life is precious to God and of equal moral worth. Abortion for non-medical emergencies is just as morally wrong as it would be to kill a 3 day old baby or a 30 year old adult.

Life is precious. But death only comes under the law.
Babies have no exposure to the law and so they do not die.

 

[SkyWriting]

Well said. The whole reason I brought this up (and you got involved and you are representing exactly what I have been trying to point out) is that the OP starts of by saying that an "Abortion is not acceptable for any reasons at all, not even for the life of the mother" but then goes on to provide examples of two exceptions where abortion is acceptable for the sake of the life of the mother. The OP doesn't use the word "abortion" because she is trying to use semantics to deem those exceptions as not being abortions, but they are. They are aborted pregnancies - abortions.

It's this kind of game of semantics that bothers me with the pro-life political groups. It makes me believe that there is some other agenda because they try to describe some abortions without that word. I can't think of why someone would do that if not for some ulterior motive that they are not revealing (or perhaps they themselves aren't even aware of because they are following the lead of someone else).

They have the problem of a strict definition of wrong, then the task of explaining
when they would break from enforcing the code they have set.

 

[SkyWriting]

Well said SkyWriting. The decision must remain with the pregnant woman. I know a woman who became pregnant following a violent rape. No one else should be telling her that she must carry the fetus to term; that choice belongs to her and her alone.

In real life. the 6th grader had her step-dads baby and brought it to middle school
to show the other kids. The disabled woman did not.

Females have become pregnant from ages 6 to 10.

 

[SPF]

This however, is wrong. Human life begins from conception. All human life is precious to God and of equal moral worth. Abortion for non-medical emergencies is just as morally wrong as it would be to kill a 3 day old baby or a 30 year old adult.

I disagree. No one should be forced to carry a fetus to term when she was a victim and had no choice in the sexual act. To require otherwise--to force a rape victim to go through nine months of pregnancy and the pain of childbirth--would constitute involuntary servitude. That choice has to be left up to the rape victim, not you.

This line of reasoning demonstrates exactly why in most abortion discussions the two opposite sides end up talking across each other instead of addressing each other's points.

The focus of your position is upon the mother and her freedom of choice. The reality however is that the how in which a new human life came into existence bares 100% no impact upon the value of its life.

If there were 5 American adults, all 30 years old standing in a line, we would all agree that even though their conception stories were all different - 1 came from IVF, 1 came from rape, 1 came from an accident, 1 came from married parents, and 1 came from incest - we would all agree that regardless of how they were conceived, that at this point they were all humans with the same right to life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

In fact, if we went back to when they were all 5 month old fetus' inside their mother's womb, we would notice something if we performed an ultrasound - they all looked pretty much the same. The how in which they were conceived had absolutely no impact upon their constitutional makeup.

The morality of abortion stands or falls entirely upon understanding the nature of human value. Abortion is not a women's rights issue. Attempting to make it a women's rights issue is essentially a red herring. The morality of abortion begins and ends with our understanding and classification of the zygote/embryo/fetus inside the mother’s womb.

All of us agree that as Americans we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But even those rights have limitations. For example, if I'm a kleptomaniac and my pursuit of happiness involves indiscriminately stealing from every store I walk into, there are laws in place to prevent that. My pursuit of happiness can be restricted. For people who break the law, they risk forfeiting their right to liberty either temporarily or permanently depending on their actions. It is even possible to forfeit your right to life by committing heinous acts of violence against another person.

Thus, attempting to justify abortion from a women's rights line of reasoning fails because there are times when our rights can be limited, temporarily, or permanently suspended. In order to determine whether pregnancy is one of those times or not is going to be based upon our understanding of what the baby in the womb is.

The Biblical narrative is that the moment a human life comes into existence that it is created in the image of God, has intrinsic value, and possesses an inherited sinful nature. There is absolutely nothing in Scripture about a length of existence when a human is not a "full human" without a soul or a sinful nature.

King David, when reflecting upon his own nature made the observation that he was actually sinful from the moment of his conception. He recognized that his sinful nature began literally at the first moment he was alive. Only humans have inherited sinful natures. And Scripture tells us from conception we have ours.

Scientifically, we know that human life begins at the moment of conception. At conception, a new, living organism is created.

The question is simple – if we know that human life begins at conception, how can we justify terminating this clearly innocent life?

When we look at the laws in America, we can be certain that under all circumstances, the law seeks to protect the innocent. The only time when people risk losing their liberty or life it is a direct result of their individual choice to break the law. Yes, it is true that innocent people are convicted of crimes at times, but that is reflective of a failure of the practice of law as carried out by imperfect people. But the law itself never intends to do harm to innocent individuals.

It is not a difficult thing to say that the human life inside a mothers womb is indeed innocent.

So why is abortion legal? Both The Biblical evidence and scientific evidence are in agreement that human life begins at conception. The answer lies in a fabricated and arbitrary distinction known as Personhood. Advocates of abortion have created a distinction between a human being and a human person. The argument is that human beings do not possess natural rights, only human persons do.

The human life can be broken into stages such as this: Zygote --> Embryo --> Fetus --> New Born --> Infant --> Toddler --> Adolescent --> Teenager --> Young Adult --> Adult --> Elderly

People who are Pro-Choice, in order to justify the killing of innocent humans must create an arbitrary line where a human qualifies for personhood. One simple method we can use to demonstrate the arbitrary nature of this line is by looking at all the different views as to when a human becomes a person. Some Pro-Choice advocates argue viability; arguing that until the fetus is able to be medically kept alive outside the womb that abortion is acceptable. The problem with this of course is that this line is going to be slightly different for each baby, and as we advance medically, this line will change. Thus, this position is not based on anything related to the nature of the child, but upon our medical technology.

Some Pro-Choice advocates draw the line at the first, second, or third trimester. Some even approve of partial-birth abortion, arguing that so long as the baby is in the womb, or even partly in the womb that it is not considered a human person.

The point is that all these lines are entirely arbitrary. The real question we need to ask is why even make this distinction? The answer is as obvious as it is alarming. The creation of a distinction between a human being and a human person only exists so that we can justify doing something to the human being that we would otherwise consider immoral.

Remember, the law seeks at all times to protect the innocent. If we can say that a fetus is not a person, then they are excluded from the protection of the law. But I have yet to hear a valid argument as to why we ought to make a distinction between a human being and a human person.

 

[Archivist]

This line of reasoning demonstrates exactly why in most abortion discussions the two opposite sides end up talking across each other instead of addressing each other's points.

Who here is not addressing points that you have raised?

The focus of your position is upon the mother and her freedom of choice. The reality however is that the how in which a new human life came into existence bares 100% no impact upon the value of its life.

No, the focus of my position is that no woman should be forced to carry a fetus to term when she had no choice in participation in the sexual act that produced that fetus.

If there were 5 American adults, all 30 years old standing in a line, we would all agree that even though their conception stories were all different - 1 came from IVF, 1 came from rape, 1 came from an accident, 1 came from married parents, and 1 came from incest - we would all agree that regardless of how they were conceived, that at this point they were all humans with the same right to life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

In the US citizenship begins at birth. Once one is born he or she has all the rights granted to a US citizen. You have mentioned the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You do realize that those terms come from the Declaration of Independence, a political document. They are not legal rights.

In fact, if we went back to when they were all 5 month old fetus' inside their mother's womb, we would notice something if we performed an ultrasound - they all looked pretty much the same. The how in which they were conceived had absolutely no impact upon their constitutional makeup.

Yes, they would look the same. But in cases of rape the choice rests with the rape victim.

The morality of abortion stands or falls entirely upon understanding the nature of human value. Abortion is not a women's rights issue. Attempting to make it a women's rights issue is essentially a red herring. The morality of abortion begins and ends with our understanding and classification of the zygote/embryo/fetus inside the mother’s womb.

But you have already said that abortion--even though you didn't want to use that term--should be allowed when the pregnant woman's life was at risk. Does the fetus have any less value than the pregnant woman?

All of us agree that as Americans we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But even those rights have limitations. For example, if I'm a kleptomaniac and my pursuit of happiness involves indiscriminately stealing from every store I walk into, there are laws in place to prevent that. My pursuit of happiness can be restricted. For people who break the law, they risk forfeiting their right to liberty either temporarily or permanently depending on their actions. It is even possible to forfeit your right to life by committing heinous acts of violence against another person.

And, again, you don't have a right to the pursuit of happiness so yes, your pursuit of happiness can be restricted. That has nothing to do with a rape victim having an abortion.

Thus, attempting to justify abortion from a women's rights line of reasoning fails because there are times when our rights can be limited, temporarily, or permanently suspended. In order to determine whether pregnancy is one of those times or not is going to be based upon our understanding of what the baby in the womb is.

In cases of rape the choice must rest with the pregnant woman. The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution makes involuntary servitude illegal. Further, you have already said that abortion should be permitted in cases when the pregnant woman's life is in danger. You are making a judgment call.

The Biblical narrative is that the moment a human life comes into existence that it is created in the image of God, has intrinsic value, and possesses an inherited sinful nature. There is absolutely nothing in Scripture about a length of existence when a human is not a "full human" without a soul or a sinful nature. King David, when reflecting upon his own nature made the observation that he was actually sinful from the moment of his conception. He recognized that his sinful nature began literally at the first moment he was alive. Only humans have inherited sinful natures. And Scripture tells us from conception we have ours.

The US is a secular nation. We cannot force or religious beliefs on others.

Scientifically, we know that human life begins at the moment of conception. At conception, a new, living organism is created.
The question is simple – if we know that human life begins at conception, how can we justify terminating this clearly innocent life?

Because in cases of rape the woman is an innocent victim.

When we look at the laws in America, we can be certain that under all circumstances, the law seeks to protect the innocent. The only time when people risk losing their liberty or life it is a direct result of their individual choice to break the law. Yes, it is true that innocent people are convicted of crimes at times, but that is reflective of a failure of the practice of law as carried out by imperfect people. But the law itself never intends to do harm to innocent individuals. It is not a difficult thing to say that the human life inside a mothers womb is indeed innocent.

But you have already said that a pregnant woman whose life is at risk should be permitted to abort. What "individual choice" did the fetus make in that case?

So why is abortion legal? Both The Biblical evidence and scientific evidence are in agreement that human life begins at conception. The answer lies in a fabricated and arbitrary distinction known as Personhood. Advocates of abortion have created a distinction between a human being and a human person. The argument is that human beings do not possess natural rights, only human persons do.

14th Amendment--citizenship begins at birth.

The human life can be broken into stages such as this: Zygote --> Embryo --> Fetus --> New Born --> Infant --> Toddler --> Adolescent --> Teenager --> Young Adult --> Adult --> Elderly People who are Pro-Choice, in order to justify the killing of innocent humans must create an arbitrary line where a human qualifies for personhood. One simple method we can use to demonstrate the arbitrary nature of this line is by looking at all the different views as to when a human becomes a person. Some Pro-Choice advocates argue viability; arguing that until the fetus is able to be medically kept alive outside the womb that abortion is acceptable. The problem with this of course is that this line is going to be slightly different for each baby, and as we advance medically, this line will change. Thus, this position is not based on anything related to the nature of the child, but upon our medical technology. Some Pro-Choice advocates draw the line at the first, second, or third trimester. Some even approve of partial-birth abortion, arguing that so long as the baby is in the womb, or even partly in the womb that it is not considered a human person.

Under the Common Law that was in effect at the time our nation was founded abortion was permitted until the time of quickening.

The point is that all these lines are entirely arbitrary. The real question we need to ask is why even make this distinction? The answer is as obvious as it is alarming. The creation of a distinction between a human being and a human person only exists so that we can justify doing something to the human being that we would otherwise consider immoral. Remember, the law seeks at all times to protect the innocent. If we can say that a fetus is not a person, then they are excluded from the protection of the law. But I have yet to hear a valid argument as to why we ought to make a distinction between a human being and a human person.

But you are already making such a distinction, that if the pregnant woman's life is threatened an abortion is permissible. Oh, I forgot--according to you that isn't a real abortion, it is just technically an abortion.