Why is it that people reject unborn children as people if they are willing to accept corporations as people?
If a woman willingly has sex and is impregnated is abortion truly necessary?
Assuming that the goal of abortion is to relieve the parents of the responsibility that comes with raising a child, then I don’t think it is.
It is often argued that an abortion does not end the life of a child because the child does not actually exist yet.
Although my opinion is that the life of a child begins at the very moment of conception, why is it that people need to be so specific about when life actually begins if a life will be the result either way?
I imagine the only purpose in trying to draw such a fine line is for the sake of lessening the guilt of the action itself.
An abortion is not about simply ending the “idea” of a child existing; it is literally about ending the existence of a child.
The fine line between existence and nonexistence should not be drawn during one of the trimesters.
It should be drawn at the very moment of conception because by then the process of human development has begun—a process that simply should not be stopped.
Even if people are uncertain about when life begins, shouldn’t the benefit of the doubt go toward preserving life?
Furthermore, I don’t understand why preserving life needs to be seen as robbing the parents of a choice.
Just because the other side of the argument is labeled as “pro-choice” does not mean that the side “pro-life” implies the lack of choice.
If the point of abortion is to remove a child from the parent’s lives then pro-life ought to be classified as a different means to a similar end.
Ultimately, to be pro-life is to favor an option that does not involve death.
Adoption is a perfectly viable alternative to abortion; no one has to die.
A life should not be denigrated to a matter of convenience. Born or unborn, the sanctity of life should always be preserved.