Controversial Topic Discussion

First, as to your comments towards your church's vigil at an abortion clinic, I am completely in favor of free speech and the right of a church or any other group to peacefully assemble as a show of protest. I also think the ethical decision is to protest in a way that does not take one's opposition of a particular subject and project it against individuals, especially when the individuals are likely in a highly vulnerable emotional state. For instance, I would never argue against a churches right to peacefully protest at an abortion clinic. I do, however, find it unethical to subject those who have reached a most probably very emotional decision to such a protest. As for the pro-choice advocates, the fact is they would not be at an abortion clinic had the pro-lifers not first decided to protest there. To place the blame on them for showing up to protest a pro-life protest is to misplace the blame.

Abortion is a social issue that should be addressed through the appropriate avenues,. at the appropriate times and the appropriate places. An abortion clinic is neither the time nor the place.

As to abortion itself, it is a complex issue and one I have difficulty with. I will leave issues of rape aside as I can see no reasonable argument for requiring a rape victim to carry to term the product of a violation of her most personal rights. Other situations where one might choose abortion are equally deserving of their own voice. For instance, situations where the child will be born to an existence that might be considered inhumane, or even one that might place an unreasonable burden upon the parents. Should we require that such un-forseeable events require the parents to relinquish so many of their rights.

Even abortions due to accidental pregnancy have their supporting rationales. To say that no one should ever have sex unless they wish to create a life is simply not realistic as it ignores some aspects of what sex actually is. Sex has evolved to be more than the means by which animals create new life. In social animals it helps to re-enforce important social bonds that strengthen social and family units. We see sex used in this manner throughout nature amongst social species. To require a woman to carry to term an accidental pregnancy seems somewhat invasive given this.

On the other hand, there does need to be a non-arbitrary point at which one acquires a right to life. This point is not so easily defined. There are a few different arguable delineation points for what we could call life including the genetic one you mention, self-sustainability (biological not environmental), birth, and possibly others.

Another problem is that, even given undeniable status as a living member of society, the right to life isn't even necessarily set in stone. If a child needs a kidney to survive, should we require the mother to supply the kidney? Of course most parents would willingly do so, but it seems unreasonable to require them to. Again it is a conflict between an individual's right to life weighed against an individuals rights to their own person, but in this case I imagine even most pro-lifers would agree that it is unreasonable to place such a burden upon the parent by law.

Anyway, like I said, I find it a difficult issue. Good thing I'm not on the Supreme Court (in more ways than one).