Most arguments defending a mother’s right to an an elective abortion rarely center around what it is that’s being aborted. It’s not frivolous as to why either. If the discussion takes a turn toward science or biology, they would be forced to admit abortion takes the life of an innocent human being. That kind of PR doesn’t help their cause. All other defenses employ some reason which disregards the nature of what is being abortion. These include the mother’s bodily autonomy, the child might grow up to be poor or abused, the mother isn’t stable or prepared to care for the child, etc. Whatever the defense, the logical conclusion is rather disturbing.
If abortion is justified using any standard which disregards the humanness of the baby in the womb, then those same arguments also apply to anyone outside the womb.
If it is argued that what is in the womb is irrelevant to whether or not its life may be taken, then it is irrelevant at anytime in its life. You see, what it is never changes. From conception til death it is a living human being. The only change in its life is its degree of maturity. In other words if it is OK to take the life of a pre-birth human being for the reasons used to defend abortion, then one cannot logically argue against taking the life of a post-birth human being for those same reasons and be consistent.