Abortion

There is a contradiction in your "logic" when you say: 1) Abortion is murder and wrong 2) The right thing to do would be murder an attacker to keep them from murdering his child To clarify the above, let"s take your situation and add a constraint to make it more germane to the discussion. If someone is trying to kill your child, and the ONLY way to stop them is to kill them, any rational person would choose their child's life over the attacker's life. Is that your stance? Because you only have two options in that contrived situation: advocate murdering the attacker or advocate the murder of your child. By doing either, does that mean that you don"t value life? How can your point of view be anything but contradictory of each other? You ask if life is "worth" anything. My response to that is no. There is no monetary price you can put on life. I do not hold with slavery, so I do not agree that human beings have a price tag. If you do believe human have "worth" please tell me what a human is worth? That should be an interesting discussion. Life begins at conception, and no I don"t agree with your view. You present a false dichotomy where there are only two choices, and that"s not the reality. Is it morally "right" to put the child"s life above the mother's? Is it morally "right" to put the mother"s life above the child"s? The answer to both is no, it"s not a decision I have any right to make from a moral standpoint. Bodily integrity has nothing to do with someone attacking your children. Bodily autonomy is what others can do to your body. This is the reason that rationally, you should defend yourself from an attacker, to protect that attacker from violating your body. Your example supports my claim that bodily autonomy is valid. To present you a false dichotomy in return, if you don't agree then you support the "irrational" belief that you should allow the attacker to hurt you because the attackers life has "value". A fetus is part of a woman"s body. This is not in question. It is connected via the umbilical cord which provide nutrients that keep the fetus alive. Without the mother providing those nutrients the fetus dies. It is not a separate human being that can survive on its own even in the most advanced stages of pregnancy. Even if the fetus is allowed to be born, infants still at that point cannot survive on its own, and require assistance to live. But I"ll ignore all that for now, and address this as a helpless man attached by an unbreakable rope. In your thought experiment, you are not in any way required to take care of someone who is helpless. I"ll go back to my original example; You aren"t giving up that lung so others can live (helpless man), because when it comes to your body you don"t want to lose a lung. (so you let him die without your lung) You want to call abortion murder, but that"s not how murder is defined. Just as not wanting to give up your lung doesn"t make you a murderer. We have the freedom to help others, or not help others, that is what freedom is. Choosing to not save someone, does not make you a murder. You don"t want the freedom taken away from you to choose what happens to your lung, nor should you want that freedom taken away from women, but somehow you do. You state don"t feel that the good of society relevant; you just care about birth, not what happens afterwards. That makes you pro-birth, not pro-life.