[Matthew Shea]

Thanks for your well-considered reply, Tasaio. Here's my response:

Originally Posted by Tasaio

Because some humans are worth more than others. A productive woman is more valueable than a dependent newborn.

I agree with that statement, but we are talking about an issue of life, here, and in the big scheme of things, all life is important. If a woman chooses to abort a child, she'd better have a good reason.

Birth control could have side effects.

And birth control is not so widespread. Two 14-year-olds can't get their hands on it, so they go without it.

Not widespread? Are you kidding? I can walk into any drug or grocery store in the country and find something to suit this purpose. Also, there are many options available for birth control and if one doesn't suit you, there are always other options, both artificial and natural. A 14 year old can walk into a drug store and buy a box of condoms just like anyone else. At least here, there's no age restriction on buying them.

How could someone prove this in court, though?

I would never require that.

What is this "something" you refer to? Surprise pregnancies, or abortion?

Well, both really.

Don't let it disturb you deeply. It's not your personal problem, is it?

You've put this chip on your own shoulder.

It's not my problem personally, but it's a reflection of the society I live in. I want what's best for everyone, thus my viewpoint on this matter.

Not everyone thinks they're creating a "human life", merely an embryo. The embryo's brain is so primitive that (in my opinion) it cannot be said to contain a soul, much less a consciousness.

I think that's got to change. It may not be conscious during the first stages of pregnancy, but it sure is by the time it's born. I think we should focus on the life being created, not the debate of whether it's conscious or not.

Having never used one, I can only guess that it would be uncomfortable.

For all I know, it could cause irritation or damage.

My wife and I currently use them as our primary means of birth control. It's truly not a big deal, unless you're allergic (which is not a common problem).

This "pissing contest" is a complex debate that has ensued for years.

I used to be pro-life, like you. But then I had an awakening -- perhaps as a result of seeking out education. I became aware of the hypocrisy of "saving" a fetus so that it could be raised in a terrible environment.

Look at the matter logically.

Legally, I consider myself pro-choice, actually, but that doesn't make abortion any less undesirable and we should all understand all the ramnifications of that choice. I agree that saving a baby from a life of despair is a noble idea, but the problem I see with that argument is that the baby has no choice in the matter and the mother is going to have an inherently biased view of the quality of her life. Logic isn't going to work here. We have to rely on moral guidance. Besides, if the mother is truly concerned that she can't properly raise a baby, why can't she do something to change that? Given the desire to change, society today provides all the tools necessary to do that. Wouldn't that be a much more noble choice than terminating the pregnancy? Also, how commonly do women in truly dire situations abort pregancies for that reason? If abortion is one choice, another, better one, is improving your life to enable you to properly care for a child.

As far as I'm concerned, an embryo, soulless or not, is life and is inherently valuable. That should gain it some measure of protection. As I've said before, that choice should be made by the individual, but it has to be taken very seriously.