Ten Reasons Why It Is Wrong to Take the Life of Unborn Children
All ten reasons given referred to God or the Bible. Reasons that depend on believing what Christians believe obviously carry no persuasive power with those who don't believe in gods or consider the Bible authoritative.
So they offer no non-religious reason not to terminate a pregnancy? Then they offer no reason for the unbeliever.
is it really pro-choice to take away the options (choices) of an unborn fetus
Fetuses early enough in development to be legally aborted don't make choices.
Strictly speaking, the term should be pro-women's choice. What pro-choice refers to is being in favor of the pregnant woman being the one who makes the choice of whether she wants to deliver a baby or have an abortion. Others would have the state make that choice on behalf of the church, in essence informing women that once they were pregnant, they were compelled to serve as incubators for the church and state.
It a little too Handmaid's Tale for me, a little too theocratic. I support church-state separation, not the state enforcing the religious preferences of the dominant religion. And I support empowering women to control their lives. A bright, college-bound teenager becomes pregnant. She should be the one to choose whether to drop out of school to wait tables and raise a baby alone, or to end the pregnancy and continue with her education and perhaps a professional career. Later, when she is older and chooses to have a baby, that will be the time to bring another child into the world.
People who aren't sure they can raise a baby do have options. They can give the baby to adoption. I don't really understand surrogate pregnancy but it's possible that's an option too. They can even choose to I dunno practice abstinence.
Abortion is also one of those options.
We are talking about taking away the rights of women to please the emotions of a group of people that do not seem to much care what happens after birth so long as there is one.
Agree, which is why some people call them pro-birth rather than pro-life. While generating another human being may be a positive thing for the people directly involved, I'd bet that you agree that it's not for the world, which needs fewer people, not more.
If you want to argue biology, you should actually do some research into human and animal life cycles. A human embryo will never become anything but a human. It is genetically a distinct human being that checks off all the boxes on the list of what constitutes a life form--engage in metabolic processes, adapt and react to their environment, maintain a state of homeostasis, grow and develop, and are composed of cells. It is, by every definition, a unique human life and a distinct human being.
Beginning of human personhood - Wikipedia
Like many others, you're assuming that the moral status of abortion depends on whether we call the fetus living, human, a human being, a child, a baby, or a person, nor whether the act of aborting is killing, nor when life begins. I am happy to concede all of that and still support a potential mother's right to choose, because none of those enter into my decision about the moral status of abortion.
It has only to do with whether the fetus is developed enough to know what is happening to it and experience suffering. There is no certain test for this, but the lack of a sufficiently developed nervous system is an adequate indicator that the fetus is experiencing little or nothing.
But that's irrelevant, since as a male who was never the father of any fetus that wasn't planned and welcomed into the world, I've never had to consider abortion. Only then would these issues have arisen for me. I don't know what I would do if I were a woman with an unwanted pregnancy, but that's not the moral issue before me. It's simply who gets to make that choice, the woman or the church-state alliance, and that's an easy choice for me to make.
My point was humanity must have a strategy for evolution that ensures that the human species survives this feminist crusade in favour of abortion on demand.
Actually, humanity needs a strategy to avoid overpopulation.
And what's wrong with feminists crusading in the interests of women? I support that as well.
Also, I support abortion on demand, but only early in the pregnancy. No reasons need be given, and nobody's approval sought.Like buying milk on demand, or taking a shower on demand.
In Their Own Words: Pro-Lifers Aren’t the Only Ones Who Call Abortion Killing
No, they aren't. I call abortion killing as well. But killing is not immoral per se. Only specific types of killing are. If you chop down a tree, you are killing it. If you euthanize a dying pet, you are killing it. If you take a living ear of corn from a corn stalk, it will die. If you take effective antibiotics, microorganisms are killed. All of those acts kill, and all are moral acts for most of us.
For killing to be immoral, there needs to be suffering caused at a minimum.
Incidentally, just how pro-life are pro-lifers? Given how many are religious, I'm going to guess that many consider global warming, which is a huge threat to life globally and in all kingdoms, a hoax, which they believe it by faith, since the evidence contradicts them. What was the typical pro-lifer's stance on bombing Iraq on false pretenses? Pro-life doesn't sound like the right name for somebody whose chief interest in life is forcijng more babies to be born.
