If these are valid before birth, why not after birth too?
1. A baby conceived outside of wedlock, can be killed.
2. A baby with Parents incapable of caring for baby, can be killed.
3. A baby who will have an inferior quality of life, can be killed.
4. A baby not able to survive outside body of mother by itself, can be killed.
5. A baby conceived of a raped mother, can be killed.
6. A baby with physical incapacities, can be killed.
...............................................
The whole idea of killing these little defenseless boys and girls is preposterous.
I won’t argue at length with you out of respect for the social conservative views of FR, but I will say that it is a mistake to turn the discussion into ‘killing innocents’ and ‘murdering babies’. Ending the developing life of a baby human being is not equivalent to murdering a born innocent person. If the issue was so clear cut morally, there would be near unanimity on the issue. Instead, the moral ambiguity of the issue is reflected by the lack of unanimity. The central issue is when does ‘personhood’ begin? If it begins at conception, then birth control should be outlawed. If it begins when one meets certain self-recognition thresholds, then infanticide or worse would be allowed. So, a quasi-arbitrary threshold has to be defined, and birth provides a more grounded and logical threshold than any other between these two extremes. It has to be a civil definition first, such as the definition of a citizen.