It's the same principle that underlies why most societies consider acts like like rape, forced prostitution, and slavery to be abhorrent. Those acts are not consistent with the notion that human life has intrinsic value, or that every human life should be treated with dignity or respect.
Here's the thing: we know for a fact slavery, rape, and forced prostitution are being done to human beings. Do we know when a fetus is alive? The exact day/month? At what point can it feel pain?
We don't know.
Just because you believe it's a human life doesn't mean it is. Just because I believe it's a human life doesn't mean it is.
As soon as it's proven when a fetus is alive, or when it can feel pain, I'll agree with outlawing abortion after that time. But only then.
I'm not sure if you're arguing that elective abortion is permissible because either (A) the child is not alive, or (B) the child is not human (or both.) I'll attempt to address both of these points, but I won't hold you to making either point if you'd like to clarify further.
Addressing premise (A):
The child is not alive.From the moment of conception, the cells grow and divide at an exponential rate. They build proteins, process and metabolize carbohydrates consuming oxygen and releasing carbon dioxide. In that regard, they are indistinguishable from any other living cell on the planet Earth. At what date/time is it alive? Well, if the cells are doing all this growing and dividing from the moment of conception, then how can you argue they are not alive?
But of course the fetus is alive! Why else would we be performing an abortion other than to stop the unborn child from growing further and reaching full gestation? This unborn child is not like a seed in a packet on the shelf in the gardening section at the store, waiting to be planted and watered and put in appropriate soil to begin the process of setting down roots and shooting up stalks. This child is more like the seedling that has established roots and deployed leaves and will bear fruit if left in place for the season. I fear the only reason elective abortion is held by some as permissible while doing the same to a newborn is considered murder is that they cannot see the unborn child with their actual eyes (yet.)
Addressing premise (B):
The child is not human.What else could the child be? Every human pregnancy that goes to term results in the birth of a human. They've never turned out to be oak trees or banana slugs or even black bears. If you did a chromosomal analysis, you would find all the same DNA as any other human on Earth. Researchers acknowledge this fact by exploring ways to use fetal cells to repair damage or correct diseases in other humans. If they could use the cells from cows or chickens or oak trees, they'd be using those because it'd be far less problematic at many levels.
Or perhaps you are defining unborn children as not human because they will change in size/shape at a later stage in development. But, of course, even after birth many changes occur in size and shape of humans (and other animals.) This doesn't preclude a 2 year-old from being a human being just because he's shorter than an adult or doesn't have his adult teeth yet.
Or perhaps the premise you are asserting here is (B'):
The child is not human because we cannot be sure he/she feels pain.(Or, alternatively, are you arguing that elective abortion would be permissible to perform on a human being as long as it doesn't feel pain?) Who says it's necessary to feel pain to be considered human? Could I stab a boxer after he's been knocked unconscious just because he couldn't feel it? What about someone in a coma? Or a paraplegic? Or someone under anesthesia? Moreover, the point is not to respect human life because they can feel pain but rather to respect human life because it is human life.
Thank you for taking the time to respond with your thoughts/comments.
