Here is what I believe.

Regarding others, generally:

If you don't believe in abortion, then don't get one.

If you believe that a developing child is human life, then don't get one.


Regarding myself;

I believe that a developing child is human life, from the moment of conception. I believe that it is potentially viable once it implants.

The only reasons I find abortion acceptable are if the child is developing in such a manner that it cannot live after birth, or if the mother's life is truly in danger for carrying or birthing the child.

I may be mistaken, but I believe there are very few of the latter. If someone has some statistical information I would enjoy them sharing it. That same ex father-in-law delivered over 3,000 children and told me this was rare.

I may be villified for believing that the child's life, wanted or not, is more important than the circumstances of conception. Killing the child does not erase a rape, for example. But that is what I believe.


I worked too long with Special Olympics to not appreciate and value kids who are born with challenges.

Those two questions above demonstrate the problem. There's a continuum in the development of a human life. There's no logically, medically, ethically or even scripturally clear "point" at which a human life begins.

On the one hand, aborting a baby in the last month of pregnancy would surely be murder (except in those rare cases).

On the other hand, say (it's just a thought experiment) you were asked to choose between the lives of a three-year-old and a six-year-old. That would be a cruel dilemma. However, suppose you were choosing between a two-year-old and a week-old fetus? Also a dilemma, but could anyone pretend it was exactly the same dilemma?

At one end of the process (sometime after eyes meet across a crowded room) there's a potential for life and at the other end (sometime before birth) there's a life .

There isn't an easy answer to the availability of and criteria for abortions, and politically, most countries have settled on compromises of one kind or another. Any politician who pretends it's a black-and-white choice is a fool or a liar.

That's a good point, though, Coldfuse, about the Special Olympics. In my previous career, I worked with people who had a variety of physical and mental challenges. Strange - terrifying - to think that, in different circumstances, some of those lives might have been snuffed out without a chance. Abortion cannot be justified on the grounds of the fetus (baby) failing to clear some arbitrary bar of 'normality'.

"Mercy killing"

Also "mercy killing".

quote:

If you don't believe in abortion, then don't get one.

If you believe that a developing child is human life, then don't get one.

I'd say: If you don't believe in abortion, avoid pregnancy. Practice birth control. Is that alternative to abortion also against your code?

quote:

I worked too long with Special Olympics to not appreciate and value kids who are born with challenges.

If I can be blunt, Fuse, getting warm and fuzzy feelings over helping with the Special Olympics is not the same as struggling day after day to raise a severely disabled child, that wouldn't be able to participate in such a competition anyway.

Good for those parents that decided they were physically, emotionally and financially equipped to raise such children. Finances play a huge part in raising a disabled child. But some parents can't take this strain, and I believe the option to end the pregnancy should not be taken away from them.
Now I too may be heavily criticised for saying this, but in my opinion, the decision to have an abortion is the woman's alone....and as I said before, that decision is made in consultation with medical professionals.
Sure, ideally both parents will talk the issue through, and make a decision that is best for their potential child, and for them as a couple.
However, that said, if a man disagrees with abortion, then he better make sure that every time he has sex, he uses contraception, because once that baby is conceived he loses all rights to participate in the decision on whether to continue with the pregnancy.

The explanation, in other words, is consistent: more contraception means less abortion.　There is also a clear relationship between sex education and falling rates of unintended pregnancy.

'Pro-life' should include 'pro-contraception' and 'pro-sex education'? How would that play with the voters?

On this issue, I believe people should just take a look at China. There are so many people in China (over a Billion), that they are suffering from over-population in the extreme. Is that what these so-called "pro-life" people would like to see the world over? Remember, the higher the population, the more pressure there is on resources, and the less of and more expensive everything becomes. China's way of dealing with the problem was to limit the number of babies each married couple could have. Which, I believe, is two. (I don't even know how it works for the unmarried) Any more than that, and the newborn is put to death. Talk about horrific. And, people here whine about ending pregnancies in the first trimester, calling it murder. Please. They truly have no clue. And, if anyone doubts whether we could ever become as over-populated as China, just look at the world-wide population increase since 1960. Every 12 years since 1960, there are another Billion people in the world. Outlawing abortion would be like throwing gas on the fire.

Outlawing abortion only endangers women because women who need abortions will still get them -only they will have to seek out back-alley abortion providers who may not have the right experience, training or equipment.
Education and prevention are the real keys, absolutely. Teach propel how to protect themselves, arm them with accurate information and the abortion rates go down.
Check out the
Guttemacher Institute for studies they’ve done.

quote:

Originally posted by newnickname:
"Mercy killing"

Also "mercy killing".

When you posted these links, NNN, I have to say, I wondered what point you were trying to make in a thread on abortion. Could you explain?
Anyway, Robert Latimer, the person discussed in your first link, received parole today.
Robert Latimer to be released on day parole

I guess it was a kind of "slippery slope" point. We need to be careful about how we would justify the need for an abortion - some would apply those same criteria to the living (or the 'born', if you like).