> > > > As you can see, I am confused a little myself. While I think it is wrong in most cases,
> > >
> > > But why do you feel it's wrong in most cases? That's what I'm trying to understand.
> > >
> > > Stephen
> >
> > Don't try to understand until you have made up your mind about the "when life begins" question. After that, it will be perfectly clear to you, one way or the other.
>
> I think the point here is that he's trying to understand why *you* think it's wrong, yet don't feel it should be regulated by law.
>
> I have to admit, I share Stephen's confusion about your position. My own view is that if abortion is wrong, it is wrong because it is destroying human life and should therefore be prohibited by law. But if abortion is not essentially the destroying of human life, then it is not even morally wrong, let alone something that the law should prohibit.
>
> So how, pray tell, could abortion be "wrong" and yet also wrong to prohibit by law?


The best argument that I've heard for this position is that people will try to have abortions whether it's legal or not. If it's illegal, it will go back to being a secret, unsterile, and often harmful or fatal process (for the mother). Ideally, of course, women would be more careful about preventing conception in the first place, and having conceived would decide to accept it and go through with it at least till after birth, but as someone said this is not an ideal world. So inevitably some women will panic, will be desperate, and will resort to horribly unsafe and unsterile procedures that endanger her own life. Much as I hate abortion (and I do), it's hard to stomach going back to that system.

Sam and Stephen are right, though, in that that objection sidesteps the fundamental question: when does life begin? Because of my beliefs on that, I think abortion should not be legal. Even there, though, I'm not entirely sure where the line should be drawn. Many of my friends are convinced that life begins the instant an egg is fertilized, and for that reason are against most birth-control pills, which are designed to prevent conception but as a last resort thin the walls of the uterus (I think that's right) so that even if an egg is fertilized, it doesn't take hold in the uterus and is "spontaneously aborted." I disagree with this extreme a position, mostly for reasons that are tangential to this discussion. But there's also another question: if the reason for believing life begins at conception is founded in religious faith, which it usually (not always) is, is it right to legislate from that point of view without secular (i.e. scientific) evidence? I'm unequivocally in favor of outlawing third-trimester abortions, because it seems to me there's pretty clear evidence that the fetus at that point is fully alive. At earlier points, particularly very early in the pregnancy, I haven't decided yet where I stand in relation to the legal issue (I still believe it's wrong, but I don't know if it should be outlawed because my reasons for believing it's wrong are based primarily in faith.)

Lire"could say a lot more, but won't"lyn