You know, in human history it has not been uncommon to perform abortions. It has been done for ages in many different cultures. But before modern medicine, it was not done as a procedure in an outpatient clinic, and it was often what you might call a "full-birth abortion". In China it was not uncommon for parents to take an unwanted child (usually female) and drown her in a rice paddy or similar. Many other cultures would simply leave unwanted children to the animals in the wild.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide
I guess you could argue that abortion is at least less barbaric, but what we really see when we read about this is that for millennia we haven't put much value on human life if it was deemed detrimental to the group. The difference IMO is that in historical times they engaged in infanticide when the family was poor and the child would put taking care of the rest of the family at risk, or when generally higher population was detrimental to the society as a whole. I am sure it was also done for reasons of convenience, and we know, horrifyingly, it was done for religious reasons (child sacrifice, etc.), but mostly it was viewed as a survival issue.
But therein lies the rub. It seems to me in our modern society we have made that switch. We now have the technology and the means as a society to support children. Abortion, or infanticide, with the obvious exceptions of risk to the mother, now is a matter of convenience, not survival. I can almost understand when a tribe or whatever felt like they couldn't feed everyone so it was smarter to kill an unwanted newborn than to risk a productive member of the group. But just because the kid might get in the way of mommy's lifestyle seems a poor excuse to me. So after all these advancements we have made as a society we still do not value life any more than neanderthals who simply left unwanted newborns out in the wild to die. Kind of sad really.
It seems we lose sight of other advancements they didn't have historically, like birth control, or sterilization procedures. With these things at our disposal we still do not view human life with any more value than they did during the middle ages. Wow.
Also, to clarify dutch's perspective a bit, there was this piece:
Judaism[edit]
Judaism prohibits infanticide, and has for some time, dating back to at least early Common Era. Roman historians wrote about the ideas and customs of other peoples, which often diverged from their own. Tacitus recorded that the Jews "regard it as a crime to kill any late-born children."[39] Josephus, whose works give an important insight into 1st-century Judaism, wrote that God "forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten, or to destroy it afterward."[40]
That is a much stronger stance than even Christianity.
Christianity[edit]
Christianity rejects infanticide. The Teachings of the Apostles or Didache said "You shall not kill that which is born."[43] The Epistle of Barnabas stated an identical command.[44] Apologists Tertullian, Athenagoras, Minucius Felix, Justin Martyr and Lactantius also maintained that exposing a baby to death was a wicked act.[7] In 318 AD, Constantine I considered infanticide a crime, and in 374 AD, Valentinian I mandated the rearing of all children (exposing babies, especially girls, was still common). The Council of Constantinople declared that infanticide was homicide, and in 589 AD, the Third Council of Toledo took measures against the custom of killing their own children.[38]
So for many people, just because the process is now clinical does not make it any less barbaric.
What is the difference between an embryo and a newborn? About 7 months.