> The one thing about the abortion issue (which I do not believe is the most important issue in the election)...

The proper time frame for responding to this seems to be long past, and so when a response first formulated in my head during my commute, I figured I wouldn't bother. The thing is, the thoughts have kept churning in my head, demanding expression. And so I'm going to give them that.

The following post is NOT a discussion of pro-life vs. pro-choice. Please do not make it one.

After reading the quoted line above, I was quick to agree. There are problems more important that are facing our nation today. But then I started to think, is there? After some more thought, I came to the conclusion that someone who is pro-choice may or may not feel that it is the most important issue facing our nation today, but someone who is pro-life such as myself, at least by the line of reasoning that gets me there, MUST consider it the most important problem facing our nation today.

If you're pro-choice, the only rational reason I can see for justifying that point of view is that you do not believe an unborn baby to be fully human. From that premise, the acceptability of abortion becomes open to question. Arguments like "a woman's body is her own" become relevant, because, lacking a human life at stake, personal freedom is not overriden by a more urgent moral directive. If you're pro-choice for these reasons, I can see how you might adopt a wide range of priorities with which you might apply to the issue. Maybe you consider the legislation about abortion to be symbolic of the government's intervention in our lives, and therefore apply great importance to preserving that freedom. On the other hand, maybe you also concede that abortion is not a preferable choice even if you maintain that it's a choice that is acceptable to leave up to the individual to make, in which case you might not find it an issue with a great deal of relative importance to others facing the nation.

On the other side of the coin, the usual reason pro-lifers are pro-lifers is that they believe that an unborn baby is a complete human life with complete natural rights afforded all human beings. By this logic, abortion is murder, and it MUST be a matter of quintessential importance.

Consider the following scenario. A law is passed in the United States making it legal for a mother and father to decide that they may freely execute their children, as long as they do it prior to ten years of age. For whatever reason. For the country's legal system to condone this would clearly be a calamity of epic proportions. It would be a mark in our nation's history even more foul and reprehensible than the institution of slavery. Well, if you're a pro-choice person and do not believe an unborn baby is "as human" as a ten year old, the analogy does not carry over, but if you're a pro-life person on the grounds that an unborn baby is every bit as human, it is not logical to see the legalization of abortion as any less severe. So how *can* it be considered less important than any other issue facing our nation today? Or ever?

The above is what I primarily wanted to say. I hesitate to continue, for fear of distracting from the main purpose of this post, but I suspect the following will also nag me if I don't get it out. By the same line of reasoning, I also find the fairly common viewpoint of "pro-life except in cases of rape and incest" to be illogical also. Unless the person is pro-life by an unusual line of reasoning that is apart from the "abortion is murder" stance, it does not make sense to make an exception. Abortion is taking a life, so it's wrong, but it's ok to take the life when the mother is abused or traumatized by the impregnation? This used to be my own position on abortion, until I realized that it was not the natural conclusion for the premises I was coming from. The one logical "exception" to abortion I can see is in cases where the mother's life is endangered, and, after everything else is tried, it is determined that either the mother or the baby have to go. When it comes to choosing between losing one life or losing two, the choice is clear. When it comes to choosing between losing one life or the other, heck if I'm going to cast blame on anyone for making a decision either way.

For the record, so there not be doubt about where I stand, although I am indeed pro-life by the lines of reasoning stated above, and, as I have just discovered, must, therefore, consider it an issue with importance beyond even that of the institution of slavery, I'm not a psycho out there bombing abortion clinics and hiring assassins and so forth. Those hypocritical freaks are guilty of the crimes they're protesting and lack the excuses. They're far more of a danger to society than women who do not realize (pro-life view) or believe (pro-choice view) that an unborn baby is a wholly human life.

The other thing I would like to make perfect clear is that although I do equate abortion with murder, this is not to say I do not, as always, separate the sin and the sinner. Hate the first, love the last. Although I (obviously) have not had an abortion, that does not make me any more fit to cast the first stone.

I got sidetracked, but I felt it was important to represent myself properly, because a lot of assumptions are sometimes made about "extreme" pro-lifers that, it is hopefully understandable, I want to distance myself from as much as I can. The representation of my views in the first place is not really what I wanted to do here, but it was an effect of what I was trying to talk about in the first place. The main purpose of this post is to work through the usual premises for and against abortion through to their natural conclusions, and to explore what these natural conclusions imply about the importance with which we treat the issue.