I'm really not trying to start a conflict here, but I'm just genuinely curious... Somelikely a majorityof you who are disgusted and appalled by this are also probably strong proponents of abortion, and stand for the cause, believing that there is absolutely nothing disgusting and appalling about terminating a healthy, growing embryo or fetus. So what's the difference between this innocent 2 year old girl that we as the public can see in need and suffering, and the termination of a defenseless embryo or fetus that the we are not able to see? Undoubtedly I'm just going to get the answer that "The embryo/fetus is not a viable life form, but the 2 year old girl is"and of course that nit-picky differentiation is an immensely feeble argument in my opinion, because the only reason that you are even alive to advocate for abortion is because your own mother chose to do the oppositebut regardless, what I'm trying to get here is not so much an "airtight" defense of abortion, but rather an explanation of how that we as humans have an intensely negative emotional/moral response to seeing other fellow humans ignore a helpless girl in the street, while contrarily, maintain the opinion that there is absolutely nothing morally reprehensible occurring when a human life-in-development is deliberately terminated.
If the situation with the girl in the street evokes such a strong emotional, generally universal response, it clearly suggests that we ascribe some value to the girl's life, does it not? We know nothing about the girl's family (other than they weren't paying enough attention to keep her safely out of the street), about whether or not she was properly fed or if she was regularly abused at home, but we still feel sorrow at the loss of her life, and anger that no one stopped to help her. But for those in favor of abortion, even if you personally knew a pregnant woman to be a nice person, to have money to support a child, has a family, and perhaps even has a stable relationship with the father...despite knowing these things, if the woman decided to have an abortion out of pure convenience, many of would be in favor of the abortion simply on the principle of the woman's "right to choose", and there would be no sorrow, no anger that the embryo would not be given the chance at life outside the womb.
Can someone try to explain this to me? How can one attribute no value to an embryo/fetus, yet have such drastically different feelings (and thus ascribe value to) the life of the girl in the street? To me there is no difference. Everything that occurs from the point of conception is essential in order for all human life to exist, so it is completely irrelevant if in part of that time, the embryo is dependent on the host and isn't yet viable.
Also, let me say that I am not trying to turn this into a religious discussion, or sneakily hoping that I can corner the secular position and make my own Christian worldview appear superior. In fact, I would rather not get into that discussion at all, because it will be fruitless and I don't have time for it, and furthermore, I don't think that the religious angle is even necessary in order to have this discussion. One doesn't have to employ any kind of religious dogma in order to oppose abortion, although of course in my experience, life in general makes a whole lot more sense when spiritual matters are treated as a serious topic to investigate.
Anyway, I'm genuinely just trying to understand how someone can rationalize this contradiction, because to me it makes no sense at all.
