Why would people be against abortion?

Never understood why people are against abortion especially when it comes to strangers online. It doesnt affect you so why are you bothered about it. People will always make excuses like "dont have sex" or "its killing the baby" but i dont understand why some people act like a POTENTIAL life is more valuable than the mother - who is currently living a life.
People will always say stupid **** like "abortion is only okay if the girl got raped" but honestly i think thats just a stupid statement because a girl should be able to get an abortion because its her body? They have the right to control their bodies and its just annoying to see posts on social media with people spouting nonsense.
Only saying this because my friend thought she was pregnant and she was talking to her family that she will get an abortion. She's not pregnant but her whole family was against the idea but she was dead set on it. Again, why do people car, surely its better to support them? Abortion isnt exactly a walk in the park either.

Never understood why people are against abortion especially when it comes to strangers online. It doesnt affect you so why are you bothered about it. People will always make excuses like "dont have sex" or "its killing the baby" but i dont understand why some people act like a POTENTIAL life is more valuable than the mother - who is currently living a life.
People will always say stupid **** like "abortion is only okay if the girl got raped" but honestly i think thats just a stupid statement because a girl should be able to get an abortion because its her body? They have the right to control their bodies and its just annoying to see posts on social media with people spouting nonsense.
Only saying this because my friend thought she was pregnant and she was talking to her family that she will get an abortion. She's not pregnant but her whole family was against the idea but she was dead set on it. Again, why do people car, surely its better to support them? Abortion isnt exactly a walk in the park either.

I think even pro-choice people would rather that abortions didn't happen but accept that it is a necessary thing in society.
Sometimes it's just that abortion is a better option than forcing an unwilling or unable woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, and then putting the resulting child in the care system. Who on earth (or in heaven) benefits from that?

I'm against abortion in general because I don't view an unborn child (or foetus or whatever you want to call it) as a "potential life", I view it as an actual human life that has already begun; no different from a newborn baby. I've yet to come across any irrefutable reason why the two should necessarily be treated differently in terms of their right to life. So my simple test to decide whether or not I agree with an argument in favour of abortion is to simply say "would this same argument work if we applied it to the termination of a newborn baby's life?"

For example, you've said "It doesn't affect you so why are you bothered about it". True, but a parent who kills their newborn baby could just as easily say the same thing, and none of us would accept that. So I don't see why this argument should become any more acceptable for a child that hasn't been born yet.

Having said that, I do think there are exceptional cases where abortion is the right course of action, in the same way that, in exceptional cases, it might even be appropriate to kill someone who has been born. For example I believe that killing someone else in self defence as a last resort to save your own life is acceptable. Similarly, if pregnancy complications are likely to result in the death of the mother, I would say that an abortion is justified.

I also believe in a person's right to decide whether or not they want to go through with a pregnancy or become a parent. But there are usually other ways to exercise that right without resorting to ending the child's life. Avoiding sex is one of them.

Embryos and early fetuses completely lack minds—due to the absence of a brain and nervous system, later due to these not being sufficiently developed to support consciousness. There studies that show some kind consciousness remains for a short time after a person's heart stops beating and they are considered dead. If people “end” when their consciousness permanently ends, then it seems that people don’t yet exist before there is a consciousness. Rocks aren’t conscious, plants aren’t conscious, and that’s why they lack rights.

[start]Causing harm or taking the life of a newborn is very much illegal. . Once a child is born, it is legally recognized as an individual with rights and protections. Societal and legal norms universally acknowledge the personhood and rights of newborns, establishing a clear distinction between fetuses and infants in terms of legal and moral status.[/start]

So I don't think your argument about how killing a newborn baby and having an abortion lie on the same line. Of course, Cultural, religious, and philosophical beliefs also play a significant role in shaping societal attitudes toward abortion and the moral status attributed to the fetus at different stages of development.

Everyone is going to have different opinions about this topic as it covers a variety of information. As a women, I do think we should be allowed it as i know i would not be in a good position to raise one, let alone birth one. Avoiding sex as a means to prevent abortions is often criticized for its oversimplification of human sexuality, lack of realism etc.

People could go back and forth arguing whether the whole thing is right but with so many paths to go down on, so much information to use - so many opinions could be made. Its so confusing but if you dont agree with it, I dont think we should ne endangering the lives of others.

My issue with this argument is that it's sort of preaching to the choir. If someone view a foetus as only a "potential life" rather than an actual life, then sure, they might find this argument convincing. But that sort of person doesn't even need convincing; they already wouldn't see anything wrong or immoral with abortion in the first place. So of course they'd be fine with an abortion that's intended to avoid adding an extra child to the care system.

But if you're talking to someone who views a foetus as an actual human being with a right to life on par with you and me, to them this will translate to "we should kill children before they end up suffering a worse fate in the care system". The obvious follow-up question to that will be "well if death is better than being in the care system, why don't you kill the children who are already in the care system?".

You're clearly assuming that killing an unborn child is not as bad as killing an already-born one. But that's the very thing that pro-lifers are waiting to be convinced of. It requires an actual explanation rather than just an assumption.

Never understood why people are against abortion especially when it comes to strangers online. It doesnt affect you so why are you bothered about it. People will always make excuses like "dont have sex" or "its killing the baby" but i dont understand why some people act like a POTENTIAL life is more valuable than the mother - who is currently living a life.
People will always say stupid **** like "abortion is only okay if the girl got raped" but honestly i think thats just a stupid statement because a girl should be able to get an abortion because its her body? They have the right to control their bodies and its just annoying to see posts on social media with people spouting nonsense.
Only saying this because my friend thought she was pregnant and she was talking to her family that she will get an abortion. She's not pregnant but her whole family was against the idea but she was dead set on it. Again, why do people car, surely its better to support them? Abortion isnt exactly a walk in the park either.

But life isn't totally black and white like you say here. If you think that an unwanted embryo must always be born, even if it destroys other lives (including the child born from the embryo), then you are just being selfish and making others suffer for your unrealistic beliefs. Not very Christian (or maybe it is ). We have to consider all the benefits and harm to everyone involved, not just a bunch of cells that can't think or feel.

I haven’t suggested that an embryo must always be born “even if it destroys other lives”. For example I believe that it is better to have an abortion than for the mother to die as a result of the pregnancy.

The principle I’ve used is “would this argument in favour of abortion also be valid if used to argue in favour of killing someone who has already born?” In this case, yes it would. Killing human beings is considered immoral in general, but if it’s done as a last resort to save the lives of others e.g. (i.e. self defence, police shooting a terrorist) then it’s generally considered acceptable. So I say the same about unborn children too.

What I cannot agree with is the argument that “abortion is fine if the child will otherwise end up in the care system”. As I said, if death is better than being in the care system then why wouldn’t we kill all the kids who are already in the care system? There’s an inconsistency there that has yet to be explained.

If you insist that a bunch of cells with no ability to think or feel is the same or has the same value as child or adult, then you are just being silly for arguments sake. No sensible person really thinks that.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

No, I'm not "being silly for arguments sake"; I'm pointing out that if you're claiming that they have different value, then you need to be able to provide an iron-clad justification for that. It's not something that can just be taken as given in a debate on abortion when it's the very crux of what both sides disagree on. One doesn't win a debate on a highly controversial issue simply by saying "oh well any sensible person would agree with me".

Have you considered the implications of the idea that it's fine to kill a bunch of cells which can't think or feel (at present)? For example, the fact that this would also make it fine to kill someone who is temporarily under general anaesthetic or in a coma? These sorts of examples tell me that the ability to think and feel aren't usually considered to be requirements for someone to have the right to survive.

And indeed, that's if we're even certain at all that the unborn child / foetus can't think or feel. As recently as the 1980's we also thought that babies couldn't feel pain and routinely performed surgery on them with no anaesthetic; we now know what a terrible idea that was. Furthermore, brain and nervous activity becomes detectable after only 6 weeks of gestation, which is already far earlier than the 24 week abortion limit.

What is the iron clad justification that they have equal value?

It isn't needed. If we already agree that in general it is wrong to kill other members of the human species, it is the exception that requires justification rather than the rule.

That isn't necessarily something everyone agrees.

You could, for example, disagree that an embryo or fetus constitutes as part of the human species (at least in the same sense that a baby, child or adult constitutes as part of the human species).

Alternatively, we could agree that an embryo or fetus are both part of the human species but that simply being a member of the human species is not enough to warrant the level of care we would give to a baby, child or adult.

I have read dozens of discussions about abortion and I have never seen any iron clad justification for why they should be considered as equal. When you boil it down, questions on when life begins, what constitutes human life, etc, are ultimately subjective.

What other species would a human fetus or embryo belong to?

Yes you could believe that being a member of the human species doesn't warrant the right to life that is afforded to a baby, child or adult. But that's the same thing as believing that humans in general have the right to life, but a foetus is an exception. The exception still needs to be justified.

In general we consider human life of equal value unless there's a reason not to; not the other way round. What if someone asked "What is the iron clad reason why a baby / black person / homosexual / member of any other group" deserves the same right to life as anyone else? The natural response would simply be "why wouldn't they?"

Your position also needs to be justified, I don't see a reason why it should be treated as the default especially since the notions you are proposing are being contested (as such notions often are in abortion debates).

You haven't defined what does and does not qualify as human life, nor a reason why all human life (by that definition) should be considered as equal. Let alone a definition and reasons which are iron clad.