Bugsy, you were the one who raised souls and religion. My reasons for my stance are bigger than that. Medically speaking, the foetus is well and truly alive and is therefore worthy of the same considerations given to the mother. You probably interpret that as "they are humans too." Fine.

It doesn't "feel" wrong to ignore the rights of the unborn - it is unjust.

Yes, some arguments are based on religion but others are based on a person's own moral code, wherever that may have come from. No one argues this topic without their own premises or prejudices. Many I have discussed this with are textbook pluralists, though they often deny both that fact or that it influences their thinking. No different to those who come from a religious basis. Everyone is influenced by their beliefs (or whatever name they like to call them).

My wife (previously a midwife) wrote a thesis about abortion some years back. As with any thesis, she read extensively and broadly. There are a lot of opinions out there, each with their own "evidence."

This is my opinion and I stand by it with integrity.

"Medically speaking, the foetus is well and truly alive and is therefore worthy of the same considerations given to the mother. "

This is not adequately explained. Why is it 'worthy of the same considerations'?

When the rights of a foetus are equated with the rights of the woman who has that foetus in her body religious mumbojumbo has triumphed over common sense.

Would it not be reasonable though, rational-debate, to assume that your views are strongly informed by your religion?

>>Yes, some arguments are based on religion but others are based on a person's own moral code<<

I suspect that using the Psalms as "evidence" may have given it away, just a little.

>> Indeed there are passages where God clearly speaks about the unborn (Psalm 22, 139, etc).<<

I had a quick look at Psalm 22, and it is obvious that the author is human. Furthermore, nowhere does he claim that he is channelling God's words. Therefore, it is categorically incorrect to use the phrase "God clearly speaks", when he manifestly does not.

It did give me cause to look a little more closely at the author, though. It does appear that he was a thoroughly despicable character, who despite having eight wives to his credit (possibly not all at once, I suppose) still thought adultery was pretty neat idea. Not to mention organizing his mistress' husband to be killed.

Yet his written work still appears to be the basis of some folks' opinion on abortion, all these years later.

What was that about "a person's own moral code" again?

As stated previously Pericles, I mentioned the Bible passages in response to a question/statement from someone else. They do not overly inform my thoughts on this matter.

Let me ask Pericles and David F whether or not you consider murder wrong. Or stealing, rape, etc. I am going to assume that you do. My question is why? On what basis do you make that call?

Bugsy, I can't make it any clearer. Sorry if that frustrates you.