On the contrary, it is the conservative position that is advanced on emotion, tugging at our natural emotional response to children. As conservatives often argue, no person has a right to the services of another. Healthcare, for example, is not a right because it requires a doctor’s services. The doctor is free to charge for his work or to refuse service. In similar fashion, it can be argued that you do not have a right to be born, because it requires work on part of your mother. Later, you would also become a financial burden on her when she will be required to feed you and pay for your education and medical care. Naturally, most of us welcome these things because we want to have children and because we love them, but it would not be moral to force a woman to give birth to and raise a child she does not want.
Abortion removes the child from the womb; it does not have to kill it. Death just happens because the child can not survive independently. Does this automatically mean that the child has a claim on the mother’s body, that she is somehow morally obligated to carry him to term because he needs it? The socialist argument is yes; you must always work for those who need you. The conservative argument is yes, because God creates all life in his image and all life is therefore sacred and must be preserved at all cost, even if it means forced labor. The liberal (classical liberal, anyway) argument is that forced labor of any kind is slavery and is never justified, so it is preferrable to allow the child to die than to force its care upon the mother.
Each of these views is perfectly logical and follows naturally from the core moral principles. Those would be altruism for socialists, the sanctity of life for christians, and the rejection of forced servitude for the rest.
I get it. But the part about abortion “not killing” the baby but merely removing it from the womb to die is absurd.
You’ve thrown a lot of words and phrases together in an almost coherent pattern, enough to convince the lesser among the readers that you may be smart. In fact, you’ve placed yourself in the running to be the poster boy for a one-child policy, or even better, a no child policy. Any atrocity can be rationalized in the manner you’ve chosen if one’s vocabulary is just large enough. Why, you can even convince yourself that birth itself is an atrocity.
You use the word emotion to mean sentiment. Yes, it is useful to invoke our sentimental attachment to children, but the primary objection to abortion is that it is is an act of violence against a child by its own mother, or, usually, by an indifferent third party. You say that carry ing the child to term is involuntary servitude . But if the child is unwanted, then what is rearing that child but the same? Suppose she decides she wants rid herself of the burden and takes it to a vet and pays him to put down the baby as he would a dog she does not want? What is the difference between this act and an induced abortion except the stage of development and the illegality of the first action? Really only the lack of sentimental attachment to an unformed child that we have for the fully formed one.