As expressed in a comment and somewhat revised here, the premise behind the typical justificatory arguments for abortion (“respecting individual autonomy and the right to make decisions about one's own body,” “freedom of a women to choose what's best for them,” “negative consequences of health,“ etc.) is that the unborn at any time of abortion is not a human person, even though it will quickly be manifest to be one indeed.

If, as a result of a procreative act, something is growing inside you which possesses uniquely human DNA, and which can be visually identifiable as being human, and which will continue to develop as one, then it is a human being. Which life no one has the right to take, except in rare cases in which a continued pregnancy would actually cost the physical life of the mother.

And in almost all cases of abortion, the partners knew of the risk (since biologically, the sexual union is designed for procreation) and chose to engage in a behavior regardless. Which means that in almost all cases choosing abortion is a refusal to take responsibility for both choices and the moral consequences that such entail. Murdering an innocent human is not the way you take responsibility for actions, and respect life. The sacred nature human life is a fundamental principle behind almost every law.

As for “my body, my right,” even if a needy orphaned child wandered into your home since you life the door open (esp. if you were cooking), simply do not have the right to expel such, much less exterminate that life, regardless of the care you may have to provide.

Likewise, if a woman is going out with a boyfriend who cares very much for his little brother, and despite not wanting distractions, you make plans to go out with him again. And yet, as you feared, due to problems in the child’s home, then he brings his little brother along. You knew the risk, even if you did not clearly consent beforehand.

However, you cannot kick the child out, or refuse to provide needed care. In some states, you cannot even shoot suspected burglars unless they manifestly endanger lives, much less a lost vulnerable child who finds a way into your house since you left the door open.

In both examples, you could either seek to find a suitable home to care for the child, or do so yourself. Not kill it! How much more are you obligated to care for the life and nurture of a child which is (in almost call cases) the result of your choice to engage in an activity, of which the normal result is that of conceiving a child.

And even more unjustifiable is to kill a child resulting from your choice to engage in a behavior which most naturally produces offspring.

And 98% of abortions are due to reasons other than rape, incest:

And a study of approx. 64,000 out of 3,664,000 births in 2021 found that only 1.7% may be due to ectopic pregnancies, and with a total of approx 4% being due to health reasons:

"Risk to the woman’s life or a major bodily function: 0.2%[6]
Other physical health concerns: 2.5%[7]
Abnormality in the unborn baby: 1.3%[8] - Fact Sheet: Reasons for Abortion - Lozier Institute (and accommodating doctors can use "Other physical health concerns" liberally).

So in order to justify the “pro-choice” position - which is denying the subject of extermination any choice in the matter, and is contrary to the normal course of nature - then one must deny that what is inside the womb is a human person

Even “most academic philosophers argue that the fetus should be considered part of the human species, as it shares our genetic code, and, if unimpeded in it’s development, will grow and mature into an adult human being. And indeed a person.

[3]

And a person

Let us evaluate further present controversies. There is no doubt that the embryo and foetus in utero are human individuals prior to birth. The child that is born is the same developing human individual that was in the mother’s womb. Birth alone cannot confer natural personhood or human individuality. This is confirmed by preterm deliveries of babies who are as truly human and almost as viable as those whose gestation goes to full term. All the known evidence support the human foetus being a true ontological human individual and consequently a human person in fact if not in law.

[7]

And thus the pro anti-infant choice promoter must justify their basis for determining that the unborn is not a person, and when it becomes one and why.

Will it be based upon functionality, the unborn’s ability to function on its own, though it rather shortly will be able to? If so, then you had best not be laid up for a while if needing life-sustaining support.

And of course, most aged in nursing homes could thus be turned into sources of protein.

Will it be based upon location, meaning outside the womb killing the infant would be murder, but before that it is open game?

Or will the unborn human life be valued at least as much as protected migratory birds are, for due to the procreating nature of the egg of a protected migratory bird and the value placed upon it, then crushing the life of such is outlawed.

Biblically, nowhere is the product of conception referring to as anything other than a human child.

Isaiah 7:14: "Behold, a virgin shall be with child [G1064-gastēr] and shall bring forth a son."Matthew 1:23: Behold, a virgin [‛almâh, which does sometimes denote a virgin] shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us," quoted in

The Greek for "child" here is almost always used for a child, and never for a non-human:

Mat 1:18 - Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child [G1064] of the Holy Ghost.

Mat 24:19; cf. Mark 13:17 - And woe unto them that are with child, [G1064] and to them that give suck in those days!Lk. 21:23;

1 Thes. 5:3 - For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; [G1064] and they shall not escape.

Revelation 12:2 - And she being with child [G1064] cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

Note also, related to a previous post, that, "The babe that leaped in her womb (Luke 1:41) that the Greek word for "from" is abundantly translated "of."Luke 1:15) was the same that would be shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb," (

While this is not conclusive that the entity was a person from conception, it is never referred to as anything other.

The fact is that, as a 1.6 birth rate testifies, children overall are increasingly not desired nor seen as needed, or at least not if they require much sacrifice, while typically spoiling the one or maybe two children parents have on average, and with children being often replaced by pets, which are seen as more worthy of care and cost. Meanwhile, fornication costs the country greatly.

Biblically, and as a Christian, you either live a celibate, continent life in devotion and service to God and to others, (1 Corinthians 7:32–34)1 Corinthians 9:25; Psalms 128:3–5; Psalms 127:3; Genesis 1:28) or you prayerfully marry an eligible spouse of the opposite sex, for life. And together, in joint devotion to God and His word, you have all the children God will give you, with temperance being the only birth control. (

And in which stable family the children usually have a few siblings, with whom, as with parents, they can learn to share, communicate, resolve conflicts, and delay gratification, and overcome difficulties, thus better preparing them for life in this world.

And for service in which God will reward in the next, by His grace, for those who effectually believe on the Lord of all, in addition to salvation which is a pure gift, on God/Christ’s expense, by His sinless shed blood, and to His glory.

Footnotes