The abortion paradox

[genkaus]

Your Op is a complete non-starter.

Christians who think abortion is a sin do so because the unborn life is sacred. Therefore there is no such thing as an unborn child who is so unwanted that their murder is acceptable....to Christians...to Christians who think abortion must be banned...because unborn babies are innocent human beings...etc etc.

And so you're right back where you started this false dilemma. There's no such thing as an unwanted baby if you are an opponent of abortion.

One thing for certain in Biblical Christianity, is that the love of money does not take priority over the life of an unborn baby
making such babies an unwanted inconvenience.

Can anyone see the fallacy committed here? Anyone?

First you say that to those Christians, no babies are "so unwanted to warrant their death". From that, you conclude, no babies are unwarranted. That's an invalid conclusion. The babies can still be unwanted enough to be abandoned, to be given away or to be resented every day of their life for the missed opportunities. The opposition to contraception is still not justified.

In Bibical Christianity, a monogamous, loving, committed, heterosexual marriage, sanctified by God, is less likely to end in infidelity, extra-marital promiscuity, family breakdown, unwanted babies, single-mothers, custody battles, family law litigation, unhappy childhoods, gender identity confusion, and the long term social pathologies which tax payers have to provide for years later after the initial damage is done.

So its weird that so many of them do end exactly that way.

---

And a child is just a potential adult...whatever you choose to call it fetus, unborn baby, whatever, it is still a human, a very very young and vulnerable one. We all have a moral obligations to human life even in its earliest stages. Failures to implant occur naturally and are very different from actively removing an otherwise viable embryo. It's like comparing a heart attack to a gun shot wound.

Actually, its not human. That's the whole point. It's just a potential human and therefore does not incur any moral obligations.

The only contradiction is in the hearts of people who need to convince themselves that abortion is not evil so they can continue having guilt free sex and avoid any real responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

Except, healthy consensual sex should be guilt-free and it shouldn't incur any real responsibilities that both parties do not want to take on.

---

What if the unborn child is unloved, and the mother isn't willing to stop drinking and doing drugs while she's pregnant? Are you willing to take care of and love born people whose parents are unwilling?

Of course. Aren't you? Or are you saying that because you don't want to love and care for the unwanted children, they should be killed?

You are? So must have literally hundred of adopted children that you love and take care of. Do you?

Unless we have a moral obligation to very very young and vulnerable human beings.

We don't. Not unless we chose to.

Therefore your solution is to kill all the problem children. The person who aborts to cut expenses greedily places a higher value on their own comfort that the life of another human being. Greed drives them to kill.

By allowing children to die in Africa while you live in comfort, you are greedily placing a higher value on your comfort than on the life of other human beings. Greed is driving you to kill.