If your position on abortion is that it is the taking of a human life (a person's life) then you will (unless you have no heart at all) be passionately against abortion. That's my position. Of course I am influenced here by my Christian theistic worldview. But non-religiously I am most influenced by the work of Francis Beckwith, who is Prof. of philosophy and jurisprudence at Baylor University. Beckwith's Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice is the book to read for a non-religious, philosophical and legal argument against abortion.
Beckwith's argument is: (See Answering Arguments for Abortion Rights: Part One - The Appeal to Pity)
- Illegal abortions are dangerous (so we must legalize abortion)
- Arguments from economic inequity
- Arguments from population, poverty, and financial burden.
"This is not to minimize the fact that there are tragic circumstances with which our society is all too familiar, such as the poor woman with four small children who has become pregnant by her alcoholic husband. But once again we must ask whether or not the unborn entity is fully human, for hardship does not justify homicide. In such cases, those in the religious and charitable communities should help lend financial and emotional support to the family. And it may be wise — if it is a case of extreme hardship — for the woman to put her baby up for adoption, so that she may give to others the gift of parenthood."
- Argument from the deformed child. Beckwtih writes: "This is not to deny that there are tragedies in life and that having a handicapped child is often a difficult burden to undertake. But I think it is important to realize that if the unborn entity is fully human, homicide cannot be justified simply because it relieves one of a terrible burden. Though it may be hard to accept, I believe the following principle is fundamental to correct moral reasoning: it is better to suffer evil rather than to inflict it. If this moral precept were not true, all so-called moral dilemmas would be easily soluble by simply appealing to one's own relief from suffering. But in such a world the antidote would be worse than the poison, for people would then have a right to inflict suffering on another if it relieved them of their own. This would be morally intolerable."