I'm not going to reason with you on the matter. I would like to ask you, when does life present itself in a baby?
Also, supposing babies aren't people. Would it be fine with you if you killed a baby?
People aren't even people. Humans in general, despite claiming to be a "thinking" species, rarely ever do so.
A baby is meat. An animal, and little more than a chicken or a cow until it has managed to prove itself otherwise. There are many adults who still have yet to manage to prove themselves to be anything better than their base instincts, or even capable of the level of training that a DOG can handle.
Obviously, I would prefer to provide the chance for that individual to attempt to prove themselves. It would be better if we had all the chances in the world to try to let the best and brightest of us succeed!
...But it's not very practical. Nor likely to ever occur. Realistically speaking, thousands of children die every single day anyway. Another dead child that I have no contact with and never knew existed is little more than a statistic, it has no relevance to me, no baring on my life if it lives or dies. I would *PREFER* to hear that it lived, but if I hear "another 1000 babies died today" it means pretty much nothing to me.
To put things in perspective, on 9/11, about 43,000 people died. About 3,000 of those were at the WTC. Less than 10% of the people that died that day had anything even remotely to do with the WTC incident. And yet people still make a big deal out of it.
We are emotionally insecure and attach ourselves far too frequently to matters which really have absolutely no consequence to us. If I had the personal option to kill a baby or not, I may or may not take that chance, depending on the circumstances surrounding it. Would it be more beneficial to kill the baby? If I were on a train with no brakes, and had the option to switch rails, and there were two choices, either I was going to be forced to kill 10 babies, or 10 lawyers... and I couldn't prevent it from happening, I absolutely had to choose a group to kill... I'd kill the babies. The lawyers may very well have had children already, and they've already proven themselves to have at least some resemblance of a mind in their head, the babies are still little more than clay to be sculpted. Were I to let them live, I could have given us the next Einstein. Or the next Hitler. I have no way of knowing whot I'd get from the mix. Maybe the babies are all going to die from illness, considering less than half the babies in the world born every day live beyond childhood, could I really assume it'd be a good idea to trade "probably 4 will live" for "guaranteed 10 ARE alive"?
There's alot more to be considered than just "think of the children!".
There's also the fact that, since I've started writing this response, someone just died horribly in a car accident. Someone starved to death. And a fetus was aborted. Yeu didn't know any of these things had occurred either. Yeu have no personal connection to them. Yeu have no interest in the outcome. Once yeu've had yeur say, yeu will forget and leave, and never think of it again, leaving someone else with yeur decision yeu made for them for the rest of their lives. Really, whot right do yeu have to dictate their decision that yeu have no interest in other than yeur own personal morals?
To answer the question bluntly, though, and to put things in perspective:
I wouldn't actively kill a baby. I also wouldn't actively kill an ant, or even a misquito. I don't kill ANYTHING that does not bother me or harm me in some way. If the ant is in my house, it is dead. If the misquito tries to drink my blood, it's toast. If the baby does NOTHING to bother me in any way shape or form, I will not interfere with it, I shall not harm it, and would attempt to protect it's life. Until such time as it harmed another, and then it is that other's decision to determine the outcome, as my opinion on the matter no longer matters.
When does life present itself as being 'life'? Essentially when it has the ability to survive on its' own. Until such time, it has no rights, but whot it's parents give it. If it's still legally considered under the care and protection of its' parents, then it's still their choice whot to do with it. They obviously have an obligation to do whot they believe is best for it; occasionally, that may not include life. There have actually been quite a few cases where parents have killed their child and been found not guilty of murder or even manslaughter for it.
As a braindead vegitible on life support's family has the right to pull the plug, the fetus, too, is literally on life support. Remove the placenta and it dies.
I would FAR prefer that life be allowed to flourish, and I would not actively kill a child, or a fetus, or whotever myself. But at the same time... I also acknowledge that there are times when whot we want, and whot must be, are two distinctly different things as well.
I don't really feel like being a cannibal either, but if everyone else on the plane is dead, and I'm starving, guess who's having a human buffet tonight?
In the end though, I would *PREFER* that babies not be aborted under the vast majority of situations. I also, however, concede that there are situations where such is a perfectly valid, and sometimes even preferred, option, to the contrary.
If a woman is likely going to die in childbirth for some complication, would it not make more sense to KILL THE CHILD? The mother already is alive, and can just have another baby. Or two. If she dies, she can't have any, and the child, if it even lives, would be short a parent, and yeu'd still have killed someone.
If people refuse to wear condoms, and refuse to abstain or use common sense, and a child is going to be born which they can't support, is it so easy as to just say 'put it up for adoption'? Not always, how many children have grown up moving from one adoption agency to another, never having been the one picked? The more that people consider it to be valid to just put them up for adoption, the more supply, to the same demand. This won't solve anything either, leaving children orphaned without homes or families of their own when it overpopulates because of people not thinking straight. Can we really afford to put all these extra 'throw away children' somewhere by not throwing them away after all?
As much as I value life, I'm also a realist and pragmatic... the ideal position is rarely plausible. We don't live in a perfect world sadly; if we did, we wouldn't even have to ask this question in the first place.
I do agree with abortion in cases where it has valid reasoning behind it.
I don't agree with it occurring when someone just goes "lol oops forgot 2 use teh kondumb lolz". But at the same time, it literally is their body, the fetus literally IS on life support, and it literally could die before birth anyway. I don't agree with it, but neither is it my place to force my moral views upon them either. I can explain my views and try to convince them of my position, but I have no right to force them to conform to my way of thought.
The singular rule I follow is: "Do not force your views upon others". This applies to both sides of the situation in different ways; to the mother, it is HER body, and HER child. It is her obligation to do whot she decides to be best for her child because the child can't decide for itself. This's in every law ever made; a parent has to make decisions for their children that their children can't make themselves. Therefore, they are excluded in this one situation, as their view is not being forced. On the other hand, my views would be forced to make them conform to my beliefs. As such, even though I disagree with them, I can only educate and try to explain, I can not at any point take a gun to their head and tell them to not abort or I'll kill them.
It's a bit convoluted there, but I hope that clears things up some.
