So, why is it only considered murder after a birth - is it somehow a DIFFERENT life than who it was before birth? Or is it not the very same life that would have been legal to take before birth? WHAT is it, if not a human being at a different stage? Kill little Billy when he's but a small, if yet an incompletely developed human - and well, you've killed Billy the child/adult/old man. And later, the only killing that matters is if it is human that is killed, as society believes it is wrong to take a human life. But why is it wrong to murder a man, but okay to kill an unborn baby? Why is it okay to eat a hamburger, but not okay to be a cannibal? Why is it okay to kill an animal, but not a human, at any point past birth? Is an unborn baby not the very same life that will further develop into continuing to mature human child?
Why would you love your child after being born, but not as much as before? Why is what is considered unthinkable (killing your child) a hideously monstrous thought after birth, but entirely acceptable before his or her birth? WHY???!!!
Few other things:
A baby is NOT just a part of the mother. It has it's own heartbeat, brain and unique DNA and blood.
Yes, a baby has associated costs, time and money, and needs constant care, etc. But often, so does an elderly adult. Why shouldn't we apply the same logic and make taking such a elder's life absolutely legal - based upon the associated inconveniences and costs. It could be done quiet painlessly and solve the associated problems. Really, what is the difference? Is it because of our familiarity with the elderly parent - that we have a history with the old adult vs. the unborn? What? Why?
Finally, I love what Mother Theresa said at a National Prayer Breakfast in 1994, with the Clintons and Gores listening (squirming in their seats):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WLa4jcN-Y8
