Some debates know no end and can potentially go on and on.
One of them is pro life and pro choice debate.
So, what basically is the basis of pro choice arguments? It is whether or not we are to assign life to a foetus inside a mother's womb. There is absolutely no logic to back the fact up that the fetus has no life because by scientific methods we can easily prove that the foetus does have life by the sonograms that we get to see and also by the bodily progressions we are aware of and so it's not like any polyp of the mother's body. It's a person with full life and hence is entitled to moral value and right.
For people who think that abortions in first trimester are okay, are themselves oblivious of the basis of the line of difference they impose. What ensures life? Is it heart, because many of us live with a pacemaker? Is it lungs because even the lung functions can be mechanised? Is it brain 'cause brain doesn't particularly function in many of us at different stages of life.
Therefore, is it not moral per sè to draw the line of distinction anywhere apart from conception.
It's just absurd to assign life to a born infant, an animal, any other living being and tell killing them is homicide and killing a foetus isn't.
So second aspect which comes into being is, whether or not it's right to stop people from aborting only because we believe otherwise right? Because there is obviously a lot of trauma associated with the mother who opts for abortion.
But there it goes, yes it's none of my business to interfere and yes it may be practically feasible to abort but was that ever a basis of moral laws? Do we not charge someone guilty of murder if he has committed the same? Now you can argue that there are cases where the perpetrator is not punished but that is a separate premise all together.
Here, in the case of abortion, this whole act is not even considered to be like any other murder , when clearly it's so by all logical grounds , to begin with.
Picture Courtesy: @ourmoodydays