30 seconds before this picture was taken, killing this baby would have been legal

some observations from gregory koukl:

Whenever you hear someone say, “I am personally against abortion, but I don’t think you should pass any laws against it,” one question should immediately be on your lips: “Tell me, why are you personally against abortion?” What you’ll almost always hear is, “I’m personally against abortion because I think it kills an innocent human being, but that’s my personal belief. I don’t think I should force this belief on others.”
Follow up with this comment: “Let me see if I understand you correctly. You actually believe that abortion takes the life of an innocent human child, but mothers should still be allowed to do that to their own children.” Then pause and let the logic of his comment sink in.
When I asked this question of one person he quickly responded, “Well, when you put it that way…”
I said, “Put it what way? That’s your view, unless I’ve misunderstood you. Please correct me if I have. As I understand it, that’s precisely what you believe.
This isn’t a trick. It’s not clever ‘spin.’ I merely repeated what he’d just told me. That was his view. It just didn’t sound so good coming back at him.

The bumper sticker says, “If You Can’t Trust Me With A Choice, How Can You Trust Me with a Child?“
There are some choices no one should be “trusted” with in the sense that the decision is up to them. One of them is the choice to kill innocent human beings. Further, no one is “trusting” the mother with a child. She doesn’t need permission to get pregnant. Because of the nature of motherhood, this is properly out of the state’s control. If it were in the control of the state, many would be denied that trust.

If we allowed an abortion [in the case of rape] it would send a terrible message, that when someone reminds you of something extremely painful you can eliminate them. But you can’t kill another human being just because their existence makes your life physically or emotionally burdensome.
If I had a law on my desk that restricted abortion except in the cases of rape or incest I would sign it, even though I don’t think rape and incest ought to be exceptions. I’d just rather save 98% of the children whose lives are taken through abortion rather than none.

If a woman even a teenager, even a minor, even without her parents’ consent has an inalienable right to have an abortion, then how does one argue she can’t do something less violent to her body than such a medical procedure, and less violent to the body of another human being–the unborn child–than smoking? How does one argue this is no longer an acceptable choice?
If the government is willing to say that something as extreme as abortion is a private, personal choice (so much so that even the real father of the girl seeking the abortion can’t interfere), then how do they justify their own paternalism by taking a cigarette out of the hand of a teenager because she just isn’t old enough to decide for herself?

Some observers denounce the use of the word “murder” to describe the destruction of a fetus. Yet this “rhetoric” is completely consistent with California law.
Under the category “Crimes against the Person,” or a fetus, with malice aforethought.” [emphasis mine] After the definition, we find among the exceptions: “This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act which results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply: The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act….The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the mother of the fetus.”
The only difference between legal abortion and punishable homicide in the state of California is the consent of the mother. How does the mere consent of the mother change the innate value of the unborn human inside her?
However one answers this question, the fact is that abortion is legal in California. But this can’t hide a second fact: Apart from the stipulated exceptions, killing the unborn is still homicide. It’s murder. Those who do so are prosecuted.
On the fundamental issue, then–the innate value of unborn human beings–pro-lifers are not extreme, but in concert with the law’s general assessment of the sanctity of the life of the unborn. Pro-lifers are not inconsistent; the law is.

Abortion involves killing and discarding something that’s alive. Whether it’s right or not to take the life of any living being depends entirely upon the answer to one question: What kind of being is it? The answer one gives is pivotal, the deciding element that trumps all other considerations.
Let me put the issue plainly. If the unborn is not a human person, no justification for abortion is necessary. However, if the unborn is a human person, no justification for abortion is adequate.