I think the point here is that they’re willing to “sacrifice” a few 10-year-olds if it means saving tens of thousands of other children aborted yearly for what they see as lesser reasons.
Though I don’t agree with their view, if a religious person genuinely believes that life begins at conception and sees no difference between ending the life of a 10-day-old embryo and a 10-year-old child - because they believe both lives are equally valuable - then I can’t entirely fault their reasoning. In this case, the issue lies with their false, unscientific religious beliefs, not necessarily their stance on abortion. If you truly believe that life starts at conception, being against abortion is a perfectly logical position to take.
Eh, not really. In a vacuum, sure, but if a 10-year-old becomes pregnant, then that life is surely suffering, and probably also in danger from the pregnancy. If the pregnancy were to go awry, that could end both lives. If the pregnancy went off without a hitch, then another life has been introduced into a place of suffering.
But the wellbeing of this particular 10-year-old or their child isn’t the point here. If someone believes that life begins at conception and that all life is sacred, then being anti-abortion is a perfectly logical stance. Otherwise, they’d effectively be okay with the act of murdering unwanted children.
A person with this belief might still acknowledge that there are situations where abortion could be justified. However, they may fear that allowing it, even in narrow cases, creates a slippery slope that could lead to thousands of unnecessary abortions.
I think the point here is that they’re willing to “sacrifice” a few 10-year-olds if it means saving tens of thousands of other children aborted yearly for what they see as lesser reasons.
Though I don’t agree with their view, if a religious person genuinely believes that life begins at conception and sees no difference between ending the life of a 10-day-old embryo and a 10-year-old child - because they believe both lives are equally valuable - then I can’t entirely fault their reasoning. In this case, the issue lies with their false, unscientific religious beliefs, not necessarily their stance on abortion. If you truly believe that life starts at conception, being against abortion is a perfectly logical position to take.
Eh, not really. In a vacuum, sure, but if a 10-year-old becomes pregnant, then that life is surely suffering, and probably also in danger from the pregnancy. If the pregnancy were to go awry, that could end both lives. If the pregnancy went off without a hitch, then another life has been introduced into a place of suffering.
But the wellbeing of this particular 10-year-old or their child isn’t the point here. If someone believes that life begins at conception and that all life is sacred, then being anti-abortion is a perfectly logical stance. Otherwise, they’d effectively be okay with the act of murdering unwanted children.
A person with this belief might still acknowledge that there are situations where abortion could be justified. However, they may fear that allowing it, even in narrow cases, creates a slippery slope that could lead to thousands of unnecessary abortions.
Religious people literally worship suffering, you won’t convince them with this argument.
Specifically, Christians. There are plenty of religions that have no problem with abortion (and are against suffering).
Yes, I suppose I should have been specific…