The argument that a woman has a ‘right’ to abort her child because she has a right to control her body is a false argument — period! This is a violation of Natural Law on several points. It is past time we understand this, and understand that those who refuse to do so are lawless.
First, by definition, the un-born child is a separate person. The life being ended is not the mother, nor is it part of the mother’s body. It is a person all unto itself. The un-born child has it’s own DNA and its own free will. Therefore, it is a unique person which, by definition, makes abortion murder — period!
Furthermore, the claim that the mother has a ‘right’ to murder the un-born is a violation of Natural Law. No one has a ‘right’ to end a life — not even their own! The ending of a life is an attack on that person’s free will. Even if it is that person taking their own life, it is still an attack on their own will. Therefore, there can be no ‘right’ to murder another. It is a violation of Natural Law to even make such a claim.
Finally, under Natural Law, the mother has a duty to the un-born child. The moment she has sex, she has accepted any and all responsibility for the result. If she is not willing to accept the possibility of pregnancy, she should not have sex. This duty to any possible child is inherent in Natural Law. When we commit others to a course of action without their consent, we have a duty to them. Since the child has no ability to consent to its own creation, this imparts a duty to protect any child created to the mother who created it (father too).
This responsibility to the un-born supersedes the argument of abortion in case of the mother’s life being threatened. The willful engagement in the act of sex binds the mother to her duty to the un-born child. This extends to the point of — if possible — sacrificing one’s own life to preserve the un-born. The only time there is even a possibility of making a case for aborting an unborn is if the mother will certainly die before the un-born matures to a stage where it can survive outside the womb. Such conditions are extremely rare, and it still leaves us with the fact that we are trying to justify the killing of an innocent person and abandonment of personal responsibility.
The only possible exception to this is pregnancy as the result of rape. In this case, both the mother and child are innocent victims. However, no matter what argument we make to justify abortion of a child conceived out of rape, the un-born child remains an innocent party, in which case, abortion is murder.
There is one last aspect to this issue: the responsibility of the father. A father is equally as responsible for the care of the un-born as the mother. He accepts this responsibility when he willingly engages in the act of sex with the mother. There is no way to separate the parents from their duty to their child. It is inherent under Natural law in that they created a new life without its consent. Thus, they are responsible for the care of that child until such time as the child can totally care for itself.
THE ROAD TO CONCORD 
Where can find a copy of this ‘Natural Law’ you’re referring to? Who wrote it?
Natural Law is a universal principle. There are two views. Our founding fathers took the view of John Locke, as embodied in Locke’s first and second treatise on law/government. This is the view that states man is born with rights granted by the Creator and that, because of this, government is constrained in the extent of its authority.
The other view is that of Thomas Hobbs, as detailed in his book, “Leviathan.” Hobbs basically said man has no rights other than those granted by the government. In short, for Hobbs, might-makes-right.
I have shown how Locke’s view can be derived. Start with the first post under the heading “NATURAL LAW” at the top of this page.
Without prejudice, one must read everything in context; natural law is merely divine law physically expressed; from the state of nature we can find examples of life and therein find reason; for example, every creature has the right to self-defence;
Now, man in his fallible reasoning can turn anything into a dogma; the cabal claim to be top of the pyramid by “survival of the fittest”; they justify pain and misery to the 99%;
Now, when there is not enough food in nature, a mother abandons the babies she cannot feed; their are natural abortificants in nature too; this means that according to Divine Law, it is possible as a remedy; one will likely find many survival mechanisms involving abortion if one looked for them;
We are not condoning abortion; however, it is a private family affair; it has nothing to do with the public whatsoever; just as a mother is the “creator”, she has the natural right to also be the “destroyer”;
And, we are all sinners; there is not one who is in a position to judge anyone else; in peace
You contradict yourself. You correctly state that Natural Law is Divine Law physically expressed, and that every person has a right to self-defense, but then you say that people have a ‘private right’ to murder their children.
UZA, you do not understand Natural Law at all. One cannot have a right to murder — ever! And protecting the innocent from murder IS a public affair. It is one of the primary reasons governments are formed at all!
Your same founding fathers stated that you cannot interfere with another’s right to privacy, not even for the whole nation;
You made a good presentation on natural law, only if you left your judgement out of it; one cannot be a judge and jury; already 2 jury members are not convinced by your argument; it just does not feel right;
we say it is a private natural right and for women alone;
Remember, a jury runs on emotion; with a good women’s lib attorney, she will fleece you before a jury; just saying; without malice; have a blessed day further; in peace
UNLESS THAT RIGHT TO PRIVACY IS BEING USED TO HARM ANOTHER PERSON!
This is the part you are intentionally leaving out. If we accept your argument, then no one can ever be held accountable for anything they claim to have done “in private.” All they would have to do is wait until you were alone with them, then kill or rob you and you would have no claim against them because they did it “in private.”
You see, I did not introduce “my judgment:” I defended Natural Law. YOU are the one trying to introduce your opinion into the Law. You even admit it when you say, “it just does not feel right.” By that argument, people can claim innocence of any crime by saying your law “just doesn’t feel right.” “Feel” is a term of OPINION, not the Law.
I am glad you ended with the illustration of a ‘women’s lib” attorney and appeal to emotion — because that is all the “women’s lib” movement rests on: emotion. They are NOT based in reason of the law. And the only reason that “women’s lib” is advanced in our courts is because they appeal to emotion and juries are swayed by that. HOWEVER, if we stuck to the Law and principles of Natural law, not only would your “women’s lib” attorney never get to court, but your argument would be seen for what it is: a fallacious appeal to emotion.