How do they have rights? Test a baby and tell me they know anything other than being alive. Maybe they have the instinct of staying alive as KSU pointed out, but cognitively they know nothing beyond that. Medically if they can stay alive, I guess they have rights, but biological development to stay alive is not possible before a certain point. What makes that point? This crowd claims they have rights, yet can not prove beyond a reasonable doubt when, only defaulting to conception as the time. Yet science has proved this isn't possible, using empathy as a weapon to convince others of this point is sad in itself.
Respectfully, you haven't thought this through very well. In deciding on when a baby acquires the right to not be killed (I'm speaking of moral rights - not legal rights, mind you, which are an issue of jurisprudence), some people use birth, some people use viability, some people use conception. Only one of these has a moral basis.
Using birth as a dividing line is absurd and monstrous - aside from an umbilical cord and some fluid in the longs, there is no physical difference between a child 30 seconds prior to birth and 30 seconds after.
But there is also no moral basis for "viability" as the dividing line - not to mention that "viability" is ill-defined and keeps getting earlier with technological advances. Neither a 10 week old fetus nor a newborn infant are independent, self-sustaining life forms. Both require constant care and nourishment to survive. A newborn infant is really no more "viable" than the fetus. The fetus, just like the infant, will continue to grow and develop unless he or she dies or is killed. Sometimes fetuses die due to development problems, just the same as infants. There is no moral, logical argument for treating a fetus different from a newborn infant.
Conception it at least premised upon one inescapable scientific fact: this is when human life begins. That is a logical, moral basis for when life should be protected (from the start).
What exactly are you arguing here? Morals in general are not a finite argument, because although some morals may be closely related, there is no set standard. Sure you can say 'common morals' or a mutual belief in a certain concept, but there are no absolutes when driven to technicalities. Just because my morals differ from someone else doesn't automatically assume I am a good or bad person, because they are based on your view of the world.
What are you using as your basis for birth? Does using 'birth' invoke that it must be 9 months after conception, because a fetus that is 9 months along compared to a fetus 7 months along is much different. At that stage development hasn't completed, and in some cases it can be caused by an underlying problem. So are you blaming nature for the insufficient murder of this child based on natural selection? I mean the only way a fetus survives is because of medical involvement.
Conception is one that you obviously think you know a lot about. Genetics, which are a part of your tech improvement arguments applies here. The advances in this area can, in your mind, make every scientist working in this area an abortion murderist. Tweaking and compromising these cells is manipulation before it is human, and even if it is, can be changed to an entirely different species. Let's not get into genetics, that's splitting more hairs than I think you can afford.
Rape and incest should absolutely be a reason for an abortion. As you sit in your ivory tower and look down on these women, they should have prevented this in your eyes. They are at fault for being raped, therefore, they should be made to have that baby. Regardless of whether it was their choice.
No matter what their background, rich, poor, young, and old, they better have that baby. Continue the rapist line so that other young women, maybe even your own daughter, can continue this cycle of birth. It can only help and improve the human race, which is what it is all about right? Let us continue this race and provide our children with a fine crop of rapist and murderer blood. That will ensure our kin will be safe.
Rape is a terrible offenses. For this reason, we punish rape criminally, and harshly. But the baby is innocent of the crime. There is no moral argument for killing a baby who is the product of rape. It is particularly absurd to suggest that a baby should be permitted to be killed up to the moment of birth if conceived by rape.
The "rape exception" is also mostly a red herring thanks to medical advancements. A woman who is raped can now be administered medication at the hospital that prevents her from conceiving. Of course there are still some situations where the rape will not be treated immediately - familial incest being the worst such example - but this is still not a moral reason to kill an innocent human being. It is a benchmark of our civilization and society that we punish the guilty - not the innocent. You can call that "ivory tower" if you like - it's true.
I agree that the baby is innocent of this crime, but the woman is just supposed to deal with it? Are you implying that the woman is a factor in the guilt? If it is a rape, then obviously this wasn't the woman's choice, but we should just oppress their choice anyway? I'm sorry but that kind of reasoning just doesn't make sense and honestly is more disgusting than removing something that wasn't their decision to begin with.
So, let me get this straight, the woman should just walk to the nearest hospital and get a 'morning after pill'. She should suppress her own emotions, and in most cases the most humiliating thing(in her mind) that has ever happened, "just deal with it", and get it done. You sit in your nice house, without the chance of being raped, and gladly tell a woman to suck it up and get that pill, or if she doesn't, she is a murderer. All the while you know nothing of the emotional toll it is to carry a child with your own consent, let along being forcefully raped.
