[Zivasmate]

When (very rarely these days) a choice must be made, the surgeon may kill the baby only as an inintended and unavoidable side effect of protecting the life of the mother. In a wholly symmetrical case he should save the baby.


Do you not see a contradiction in what you're suggesting? Why should the surgeon in an unavoidable circumstance sacrifice the life of the fetus for the sake of the mother? If, as you say, the mother has both lived and sinned, why should she be spared in favor of the "wholly innocent never-having sinned fetus?

[annalex]

You are misreading my post. The baby's life takes precedence. Do I need to rephrase #23?

[Ciexyz]

No one is saying that terrorism in NOT a great evil. We can all agree that life is precious and should be protected. Innocent citizens must be protected from terrorism, and innocent children in the womb must be protected against unjustifiable termination of their lives.

Of course there are grievous situations where the life of the mother is in danger. Whatever decision is made in those cases (to save the mother or to save the baby), must be heart-wrenching for everyone involved. But in any case, that argument does not negate my assertion, that abortion is the Number One Evil in the world. We have all been given the right to life. Why should we deny it to an innocent child, just for the mother's or father's convenience?