NNS,
I know better than to try to influence you on this issue, but there is no need to get hot under the collar. This is a discussion, and my interest is only to explain my position, perhaps in hope that you may better understand it.

I believe I am fair and reasonable, and I think I understand your position - that all human life is sacred, and therefore to be protected by all means available - with particular reference to the unborn, 'innocent' potential human (child of God).

In your view, the interests of the unborn outweigh many other erstwhile legitimate interests.

However, does your concern apply to all humanity, or only certain populations?
How do you feel, for example, about children living their whole lives on a rubbish dump?
Or societies with extremely high rates of child mortality and deaths in childbirth?
And, what may be your view on overall world population?
Could you possibly consider that Western Developed cultures must endeavour to out-breed ‘other cultures’, lest ‘we’ be overwhelmed?

Not all humans turn out to be wonderful constructive contributors to society, and, even in the best societies there continue to be retrograde individuals and divergent social and cultural viewpoints.

You discount 'circumstance', as you contend that adoption can take care of this (following only the slight inconvenience of gestation and labour for the 'mother') - and of course irrespective of her situation, for better or worse, during this period of relatively ‘minor’ incapacity.

Surely that is a harsh approach, significantly lacking in empathy?

I was mistaken in my previous post, when I stated in closing, 'all the myriad variant forms of such (life) construction must be held to be intentional, beautiful, and of equal worth.'
This was really a shot at those who reject all non-straight, nonbelievers.

NNS, you posted on another thread on this issue:

>>Instead what I see for abortion is blind support in spite of what is accurate information. There is a cultural push for abortion that blindly accepts and supports it.<<

Surely this is rather ‘calling the kettle black'.

Dear NNS,

Yuo write;

"You're likely right that we won't agree. However hear my peace as well. My fixation is not just on the unborn, it's on life in general."

I am interested to hear your take on capital punishment.

'Believe me, Runner, you are not a baby.'

Believe me Banjo your thinking is very much childish. Your atrocious attempts to justify butchering unborn babies fails miserably.

How many antiabortionists remember being a 3 month old foetus, which I think would be a more realistic stretch of time to allow for abortion.

Nobody on earth has any memory of being in the womb, so they wouldn’t ever know they had been aborted.

Without vaccination, antibiotics and Penicillion. Human life expectancy would go back
to what it used to be in the natural world about 100 years ago.
The old cemeteries are filled with the graves of young babies and children and adults who never made it much past twenty or thirty.
A scratch could become infected, and the resulting blood poisoning would have killed many before penicillin and antibiotics were discovered.

Human life doesn’t seem so special when left to the natural laws of the universe.
I don’t like abortion, but I think a compromise of allowing more time like 3months, 4months in special circumstances, is a better law than 6 weeks.

The right to life side need to compromise a little, by allowing a few weeks longer or this ruling will always be fiercely fought.

.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

.

You indicate that you would prefer women to give birth to unwanted babies and adopt them out rather than have an abortion.

Theoretically, that would seem to be a valid option. It may be in some cases, but if it were practiced on a large scale, it would probably not be the panacea you imagine.

The idea is not new. For a long period spanning many centuries, there was a cosy, consensual relationship between Church and State that outlawed abortions because of religious dogma. It resulted in a number of major scandals of which I am sure you are aware.

Church institutions were set-up to receive babies born out of wedlock. They received thousands every year. It resulted in the creation of a baby market, baby trafficking, child abuse, atrociously high mortality rates for childbirths in religious institutions, as well as the ostracism and severe, lifetime traumatism of “fallen women” who had become pregnant outside of marriage.

News of those scandals has ushered-in a change of attitude to forced adoption in the West but, as we have witnessed recently in the United States, the pro-life movement remains strong and will inevitably have adverse consequences on the current safe, professional, medically-performed abortions – which does not augur well for the future.

There is abundant literature on child adoption scandals on the internet. Here is a brief selection :

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/oct/27/forced-adoption-mother-and-child-reunited

http://www.smh.com.au/world/mass-grave-of-babies-found-at-former-irish-orphanage-20170304-guqlok.html

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/nov/03/catholic-church-apologises-for-role-in-forced-adoptions-over-30-year-period

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_international_adoption_scandals

.

.

Dear Runner,

.

You wrote :

« Your atrocious attempts to justify butchering unborn babies fails miserably »

Whatever the subject, if there is one thing I’m sure we both agree on, Runner, it’s that that is of no importance whatsoever.

Another thing I am sure of – and look forward to – is discussing the same subject with you, whatever it may be (or not be), as long as we are both willing and able.

.