Why Abortion is Moral

[DeclinetoState]

:question:

All of the arguments against abortion boil down to six specific questions. The first five deal with the nature of the zygote-embryo-fetus growing inside a mother's womb. The last one looks at the morality of the practice. These questions are:
Is it alive (http://www.elroy.net/ehr/abortionanswers.html#alive)?
Is it human (http://www.elroy.net/ehr/abortionanswers.html#human)?
Is it a person (http://www.elroy.net/ehr/abortionanswers.html#person)?
Is it physically independent (http://www.elroy.net/ehr/abortionanswers.html#independent)?
Does it have human rights (http://www.elroy.net/ehr/abortionanswers.html#rights)?
Is abortion murder (http://www.elroy.net/ehr/abortionanswers.html#murder)?
Let's take a look at each of these questions. We'll show how anti-abortionists use seemingly logical answers to back up their cause, but then we'll show how their arguments actually support the fact that abortion is moral.

1. Is it alive?

Yes. Pro Choice supporters who claim it isn't do themselves and their cause a disservice. Of course it's alive. It's a biological mechanism that converts nutrients and oxygen into energy that causes its cells to divide, multiply, and grow. It's alive.

Anti-abortion activists often mistakenly use this fact to support their cause. "Life begins at conception" they claim. And they would be right. The genesis of a new human life begins when the egg with 23 chromosomes joins with a sperm with 23 chromosomes and creates a fertilized cell, called a zygote, with 46 chromosomes. The single-cell zygote contains all the DNA necessary to grow into an independent, conscious human being. It is a potential person.

But being alive does not give the zygote full human rights - including the right not to be aborted during its gestation.

A single-cell ameba also coverts nutrients and oxygen into biological energy that causes its cells to divide, multiply and grow. It also contains a full set of its own DNA. It shares everything in common with a human zygote except that it is not a potential person. Left to grow, it will always be an ameba - never a human person. It is just as alive as the zygote, but we would never defend its human rights based solely on that fact.

And neither can the anti-abortionist, which is why we must answer the following questions as well.
More (http://www.elroy.net/ehr/abortionanswers.html)

[TeenageRepublican]

I both morally and politically oppose abortion. The liberals oppose frying a criminal but they support sucking a child's brain out. Go figure.

[Neil Peart]

A zygote is not a "potential" person. Sperm cells and egg cells are potential persons. A zygote is a person.

[Kathy30]

Abortion cannot be said to be moral in any sense of the word! How outrageous. MORAL. This is what has corrupted the "choice" movement. The idea that abortion is moral, and having a child is immoral. That's what moral relativisim does. That's how we went from abortion to being an evil that is sometimes necessary to all abortion all the time.

[Livia]

Sperm cells and egg cells are potential persons.

Sperm, when left alone, and eggs, when left alone, will do nothing but be sperm and eggs. Therefore they are not potential people.

A zygote is a person.

Yup, most definitly.

The idea that abortion is moral, and having a child is immoral.

That sounds like something that a liberal would try to say.

[MaximumSam]

It's hard for me to say that abortion is right, but is also hard for me to say that people who have abortions should go to prison. I am still undecided on this issue.

[Eagle1]

It will be interesting to see this viability question answered once artificial wombs become a reality.

[LivingDeadGirl]

While I am staunchly opposed to abortion, any legilation to outlaw it will have to be carefully worded as to allow provisions for certain times when there are medical necessities. Tubal pregnancies are one that comes to mind. The child will die, the mother will die, there is no question that allowing the pregnancy to continue will lead to death. Is it moral in that instance to let the mother die rather than terminate the non-viable pregnancy?

What about the cases where in-vitro produces too many babies? Not everyone is medically able to carry 6 kids. In some cases the failure to remove a developing fetus will lead to the death of at least one of the others, if not the mother. What is the moral option there?

I believe in 99.9% of the cases where a pregnancy is terminated, it is immoral. But I blieve that the .1% of other cases are a grey areas that I am quite thankful I shall never again have to face.

Also, there are some who equate the procedure for the removal of a fetus who has failed to thrive (ie: heart stopped) during the 1st trimester to abortion. The child is not going to develop, but the body does not always miscarry and this could threaten the life of the mother if it is not removed. But I have heard some people, from a pulpit even, say that any procedure that could be used as an abortion procedure is immoral and should not be done. This could cause the mother to die from blood poisoning, somehow I don't see that as moral either.