> So, realize that we're talking about a very, very small percentage of
>abortions.
>Even if we allow them for these extenuating reasons, most pro-life
>advocates would
>probably not get very upset about it.
>
> I personally would support a routine morning-after pill for raped women.
>That
>would solve the problem for cases of rape.
I'll weigh in here and say that I wouldn't fall into the category of
"most pro-life advocates", although I hope that I do. My basis for
opposing abortion is that the baby is alive and therefore does not
deserve to be killed. The circumstances surrounding the conception are
not irrelevant - the sin involved will affect both mother and child, and
requires healing. However, to compound the first sin by killing the baby
doesn't seem appropriate to me.
The argument about "what kind of life would the child have" is
presumptuous and frankly smacks of egotism. I was born with a physical
handicap that has limited my life in some regards, and caused me the
misfortune of spending a portion of my life in a wheelchair. People
(kids mostly), were not always pleasant in that regard. By current
thinking, my quality life at that point in time was not very good.
Fortunately I was born before Roe v. Wade and amniocentesis (sp?, its
Monday). Based on the "quality of life" argument as put forth in the
U.S., most third world babies would need to be aborted because their
quality of life wouldn't reach even minimal standards here in the west.
If the baby isn't alive, then I would have to be pro-choice, simply
because this is the U.S., and we have a certain amount of freedom
regarding our bodies.
Just my US $.02
><-- @
>><Jeffrey Lee: jlee@isisph.com @@ \
>>><Quality Systems Development @@@ \
>>>><Isis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. @@@@ \
>>>>><www.isip.com @@@@@___________\
>>Standard Disclaimers Apply: My views are my own unless they're not.