What about atheists?
Oh ye. That was the assumption we needed, as any religion just per-se basis, w/o even the chance of discussion ends the topic.
The question of abortion comes two sided:
- the mental and physical health of the mother/pregnant one (in case of animals)
- the mental and physical health of the unborned.
--------------
Let's discuss first the less thought through part of the mother:
- pregnancy can be dangerous to health anatomically. Eg. the unborn is not in the womb, pregnancy causes fatal level of blood pressure, or similar healthcare problems.
Face it: not all problem is solvable currently, and not all problem worth solving. Than abortion shall be supported.
- giving birth can be dangerous to health. Of course there is always the medical interaction to circumgo this, but what if someone is eg. anti-bloodtransfusion (a famous religious prejudice!). What if we know giving birth naturally would kill even both the pregnant AND the baby AT the time of earily period of pregnancy?
- what if the pregnant's lifestyle is not fit to have children, wether it is the blame of the pregnant (eg. drug abuse) or not (eg. poor family with already too many in the househuld)?
EVEN if you'd consider an institute for the newborn, you must understand taking away an actual child can be much more harmful for the mental health of the parents than an abortion on something what is not to be considered a living being.
- what if the pregnancy is the result of trauma (eg. rape!)?
-----------
Of course there is the problem of size of population, but let's mention the NATURAL ABORTIONS instead.
A LARGE number of potential pregnancies end in natural abortion, or even the egg not being fertilised. Did you give a thought to this?
If you look at the demographic of the anti-abortioners, seems the supporters for them come from fundamental (majorly christian) sects, and their argument is the same way false-based, like the very same people's anti-gay movement (where they literally support killing people for being gay by quoting the Bible).
---------------
Let's take a look after all on the unborn itself:
- in the early phase it is just some cells, than something without self-awareness, independent of the look (hey, did you too see that airplane into clouds, and the picture of Jesus in the *** of that dog?).
- the to-born thing can be effected by lethal, or seriously troubling defections. Do you want someone make a full pregnancy and birth-giving to a child what died in the very early phase of pregnancy? Rly?
Or you really want to be carried out "children" with no head, no bones, intestines being inside-out?
Or you really not at all(!) consider what life would wait on a person with dog-like IQ, no ability to move, 24/7 need of care of others?
----------------
Finally talk about the result of carrying out
all pregnancy to the human evolution!
There are attributes that passes by genes and hinder you. That is no question. Some hundreds, or at least thousands years ago someone with the need of glasses would be eaten soon, or die of starvation, but preserving people with bad eyes did cost low, and provided a lot of minds and workforce with no particular drawback inside the society. I mean who cares if you can't hunt if we have another hundred hunter, but lack someone who makes clay pots, or can make a microscope, or come up with blueprints for a nuclear plant?
NOW imagine that we keep in life every child-to-born who by genetics do not have a functional heart? Oh, we can do an organ-transplant, but this trait gets inherited. If there is other is no factor what'd prevent them passing out this trait to their offsprings one will produce let's say 2 for the next generation. 4 for the next after. And so on, until there'll be no child who'll born with a functional heart. And we don't have so many organs for transplant to save them all. So you'd choose to abort a fetus - or kill a child?
