I once had occasion to ask an (then-) archbishop about abortion. He explained the teaching as simply NO, except where genuinely necessary to save the mother’s life.
(Which was understood to be a rare situation… not a crate Blanche for millions and millions of “emotional upset” excuses.)
Reasonable people may differ by adding a couple more possible limited exceptions — I can personally understand and respect this.
But the open free abortion policy that what we have had is unacceptable and criminal but any moral standards. Any at all. Demonic, if you will.
Any policy that fails to respect the sanctity of human life is in serious error, imho. And dangerous as all Hell
Saint JP2 and Pope Benedict, as different as they were, both respected the word of God and His basic moral teachings/ values. Say what anyone will, I cannot respect any cleric who doesn’t at least try to follow and teach core Moral principles - especially when human life is at stake.
Praying that the next pope will see his way to some position identifiably inside the field of legitimate moral teachings/ values.
The second the sperm and egg are combined, a unique set of DNA that has never existed nor will ever exist again is created.
A better way to articulate it is: if there is a dire medical situation where the woman's life is in danger and the only way to save her life involves the possibility (or even the probability) of losing the child, then the procedure is permitted. At this point, it ceases to be an abortion (the direct and intentional killing of an unborn human being) but an effort to save the mother's life with the unfortunate risk of losing the child.