Congratulations Kate,I find it refreshing that a person with such religious conviction can think and reason for themselves despite the dogma of the ethicists.
I too see through the hypocricy of so called 'pro-life'exponents who
are not outraged by the senseless killing of the 'already born'in Iraq and adhere to ethical edicts against contraception even in countries ravaged by HIV AIDS.

Abortion is killing a life there is no question about that. How ever which way you think about it is killing life. Why not adopt? Why not endure the 9 months give life and bless a family who cannot conceive?

Walderman, you state "we should try to stop this senseless killing..."
No - WE should not do anything except ensure that women are given as much support and information as possible to ensure that any decision made regarding termination of a pregnancy will be in the best interest of the future of the woman and her unborn child. Not in your interest - not in my interest - and not in the interest of church or state. Sometime it may be more senseless to continue with the pregnancy.

Broughton, there is no dualism in Mother and baby - the baby cannot exist without the body of the mother.

To suggest that there should be some campaign to populate the country by stopping abortion is obscene to say the least. Why not disallow marriages between childless (but able to have children) couples. Yep give them 5 years to reproduce and lock them up if they don't! Sounds ridiculous dosn't it? Of course it does, but no more ridiculous then other people deciding that a women has to continue with a pregnancy.

"But when do you hear the pro-life activist protesting against the murder of little Iraqi children by Australian bombs? When do you see them agitating for increased resources to avoid the scandalously high mortality rates amongst Aboriginal infants?"

We have no idea what else people who are pro-life are involved in supporting/protesting. So this statement shouldn't lend any credibility to the arguement. That is unless you have some statistical data which supports your hypothesis that pro-life people don't bother to actively support human life in other areas.

By the way, I don't think that comparing abortion to genocide is particularly helpful to your arguement.

"As my first girl grows into a young woman so wonderful and surprising only God could have imagined her, I know in my heart she is as she is BECAUSE I WANTED HER SO MUCH."
AND
"Without the joyful and unequivocal commitment of his mother, a child's spirit saddens, withers and becomes poisonous to itself and to others."

I understand what you are trying to say. However it is a generalisation, and when you apply this prejudice (i.e. Loving Parents = Good Kid, Bad Parenting = Evil Kid) to everyone, it leads to a fallicious arguement based on a militant stereotype. I would ask everyone who reads this to ask themselves, has this generalisation applied 100% in your lives or others? I would think everyone would have numerous examples of friends, family members etc. who have evaded this rule.

Therefore the pattern of arguement that says: "Because Kids who grow up in bad homes have terrible lives (The Prejudice in Question), Therefore we should just abort them in the 1st place" is terrible dangerous.

As a side note, I believe that in the end, this arguement comes down to one of selfishness vs. selflessness. If a parent's 1st thought is 'Treat others as you would like to be treated', they will let the wonderful gift (or right!) of life for the child they've been entrusted with to win out over the possible inconvieniences of an unplanned pregnancy.

justin86, you might know people who have grown up in unhappy homes and turned out OK, but the overwhelming trend is that the more unwanted the child the greater the likelihood they will have behavioural, social and economic problems later in life. There's even a link between the increased availability of abortion and a decrease in crime, due to a smaller number of "unwanted" children being born. It's not why I'd advocate a woman's right to choose, but it's one perspective:

http://www.nber.org/papers/w8004

Adoption is of course one of the options a woman considers when she has an unwanted pregnancy. For many women though, the social stigma attached to adopting out overwhelms her desire not to have an abortion. A friend who carried her pregnancy to term and then adopted out the child faced such social and professional disgust that she suicided. A woman who completes her pregnancy but then adopts the child out is treated like a monster - obviously unwomanly and selfish. A woman who has a quiet abortion doesn't have to go through any of that. Perhaps people like Francis should put more effort into removing the stigma attached to giving a child up for adoption and less into branding women brutal and cowardly. After the experience of my friend, if I was ever in the same situation I know I'd rather overcome the personal lifelong grief of an abortion than the public humiliation of adopting out.

Brougham “If this debate is about "choice" then the only choice that counts is that of the child.”

WHY?

Justin86 “As a side note, I believe that in the end, this arguement comes down to one of selfishness vs. selflessness.”

Whose selfishness, the woman involved who decides to act according to her own judgement, knowledge of her motives and circumstances or your selfishness in judging her conduct without knowledge to her motives and circumstances?

Oh and discussion regarding adoption are fallacious. The issue is not just about to abort or not abort. The "real" and underlying issue is sovereignty of the individual and the right of people to make choices in respect to their own bodies.