It's the woman's body, which means it's her choice.
Anything else would be a gross violation of her rights.
We generally try to stop people from harming themselves (or from harming their children who are already born). So if you are going to claim it is her right, then you need explain why it is her right. You need to explain why is it not a mental illness on her part nor an abandonment of her responsibilities.
No, it's not the woman's body. The foetus is a genetically unique organism. It may depend on the woman; be parasitical to the woman, but it's a different organism.
I see your point, but there is no business of selling foetal parts. Leftover tissue from surgery, blood draws, abortions, &c is either incinerated or sold, at cost, to research organizations or medical groups that can use them to save other lives. Nobody makes a profit.are if it's aborted. It has no desire to exist
Murdered? That's a loaded word, as is 'children'.
A foetus is an insentient cell mass, with no self-awareness, no anticipation of futurity, no self-interest. A foetus doesn't care whether it's aborted. It's not aware that it even exists.
This, by the way, is not the case with cows and chickens, yet we have no compunction against killing them.
I fail to see what principles are at play here.
The fact that our children (the ones that have already been born) are different organisms doesn't justify abandoning our parental obligations to them (letting them starve to death, throwing them off cliffs, leaving them to the wolves, etc). Why is it different when they are unborn?
It's not okay to kill people as long as they are sleeping (or 'unaware'), if indeed they are unaware. I do not accept your claim that fetuses are insentient and I would say that fetuses, generally, have a natural desire to be born. I would argue that the apparent purpose of the activities occurring within a fetus in the womb is to be born.
Why would the foetus' history affect it's moral status? Does a foetus conceived by rape have less right to life than a foetus conceived in marriage?
Whom does abortion sin against? What makes it a sin if it's morality varies so?
It's the moral status of the mother that's in question here (not the fetus).
Clarification: Sin is a transgression against divine law. So if abortion is a sin (not saying it is a sin, but if it were a sin), then it would be the mother transgressing against divine law and not the mother transgressing against the fetus.
The mother is making a decision and the question will be: did she betray her obligations? What obligation does she have towards the fetus, if any? And, if she is married, then her obligations may include an obligation to her husband (an obligation she does not have to a rapist).
I disagree with it. Having sex always buts a woman at risk of being pregnant. It's almost like not taking responsibility you put yourself in risk of having.
I understand why a woman would have an abortion say, for the health of a child or unintentional pregnancy. I understand why it's justified; but, justification doesn't make it moral.
What makes it moral or immoral?
Do you think a person has the right to use the body of another as life-support against their will/ without their consent? Do you think consent is a concept we can simply toss out when it comes to pregnancy?
The obligation of the parents to the fetus is the issue here as opposed to the right of the fetus to be supported by the mother's body. It's sounds the same, but it's a very significant subtle difference. If the mother's body is unable to sustain the fetus for some reason (not taken as a deliberate action), the fetus is not being denied a right to the mother's body. Similarly, babies that are born prematurely are not being denied a right to their mother's body. The question is not the rights of the fetus, but rather the obligations of the parents.
TL;DR
Adulthood brings responsibility, that is my opinion.
