Let me lay out my argument against abortion..
I haven't exactly figured out why the common population has decided to allow abortion's legality while simultaneously convicting people on charges of murder for unborn children.
But Will! I thought you believe in liberty for all?! Doesn't a woman have the right to do what she wants with her body?
Hell yes, she does. But, as I believe in all cases, a woman's right to flail her arms ends at the tip of another's nose. Now, a child in her stomach is a child nonetheless (See next question). Therefore, as it is, her right to mess with her body ends the second she touches the fetus. She can't honestly say that the baby is her. It's not, it's another person, temporarily dependent on her. She has the right to do what she wants with herself, but where is the child's liberty if she kills it?
If the fetus isn't born yet, it isn't a life! Maybe abortion is wrong in the last [trimester, four months, etc], but at the beginning, we're talking about a bunch of cells! Come on!
It's a future life. Look at it this way. If the baby is never born, it won't have an effect on the world. It will never go to kindergarten, it will never experience success, failure, love or drugs. It will never graduate high school, it will never drop out of high school, it will never get hired, fired or promoted. It will never shoot the winning basket, miss the winning basket, or ride the bench. It will never experience an obstacle, it will never be overcome by an obstacle. It will not love, it will never be loved. It will never propose, it will never be proposed to, it will never marry, it will never file for divorce. It will never experience happiness or depression. It will never live, and perhaps most importantly, it will never change the life of another.
Long story short, it will not happen, it will not affect the world. That, in and of itself, is taking away a life. That's murder.
What about a baby that has a mental illness? That's such a hard thing for a parent and the child.
It is. But have you every seen a mentally ill child? That was a stupid question; I'm sure you have. But tell me that child isn't changing the world in some way, either positively or negatively. That child may not have the best life, but I'm sure it's better than death. Should we just not give him chance to live, based on some predetermined dividing line between 'good life' and 'bad life'? The child, regardless of diseases and disorders, should be given the liberty to make his or her impact on the world; to change the life of another in some way.
"A well-documented investigation has shown that there is no difference between handicapped and normal persons in their degree of life satisfaction, outlook of what lies immediately ahead, and vulnerability to frustration." Source.
What if the birth will kill the mother or child?
In a situation where, if no abortion takes place, both the mother and child will definitely die, I can't argue. This is a valid point, and in this case, and this case only, I understand the need for abortion. I have a feeling though, that this could be exploited. (Example: My mom will kill me if she hears about this.)
Let it also be known that this particular case of abortion accounts for only 1.5% (source) of all abortions (fetal and mother's health combined). This reason alone is truly not enough to allow abortion. (Basically, if you agree with all the other points, this one alone should not deter you from being pro life.) I do feel, however, it is enough to make an exception to the rule.
What about in cases of rape and incest? There is no possible way you can explain this one.
Rape is one of the most common arguing points for "pro choice" supporters. Unfortunately for their case, rape and incest together make up less than .5% of all abortions (source).
I understand the struggle and pain women go through when they are raped. I understand the idea that living for nine months with the child of a person's rapist in them is no easy task. I understand how this could motivate almost anyone to get an abortion. However, does nine months of pain and suffering counter a loss of somewhere around 75 years of life? Does being a victim of rape justify creating a victim of murder? I don't think so. I also understand most people would not want to live with this child for the rest of their lives. The answer is simple. Adoption. There is a notion that it is difficult to place a baby for adoption; no one will want him. This notion is quite the opposite of the truth, as there is a ratio of 35 couples competing for every one child placed for adoption (source), giving the mother an extensive selection of potential couples to choose from. In fact, so many couples never end up getting a child in this country that they go elsewhere (usually China and the Middle East) to adopt children.
But if you still don't think killing a baby in this situation is murder, Faith Daniels will tell you otherwise. She was a prominent CBS and NBC news anchor who is, in fact, the child of a rape victim, and she is now an active supporter of the National Council for Adoption.
You've already written a ridiculously long entry, and I think you have maybe covered about 2% of abortions. What are we missing?
You see, the issues you hear argued for and supported the most are the rarest of the rare cases. It needs to be understood that 98% of abortions come under the category of "personal choice" (source). These abortions are done for much less significant (while still serious) reasons than those listed above. They are done for reasons such as not wanting parents to find out, economic issues, personal feelings of immaturity and irresponsibility, poor parenting situations, adjusting one's life around the child, and least respectably, already having too many children. I understand all these issues, but they can be covered by one word. What is it?
One more case, if you are still doubtful:
There was a woman Pennsylvania who would be getting married in several months. She and her fiance were living together and the woman discovered she was pregnant. This was not an issue at the time, because the woman was planning on getting married. Unfortunately, though, her fiance became too distressed with the situation and didn't feel he was ready to get married and raise a child. The man left her, leaving the woman with a huge problem and obviously huge problem. The woman was left with only two financially possible options: have an abortion or put the baby up for adoption and wonder what happened to the child she never knew....
If the woman had an abortion, you wouldn't be reading this article.