Replies

Actually - its all very easy.

The "hard cases" make up a fraction of a percentage of all abortions, and there is only a religious reason (as opposed to any utilitarian reason) to oppose those. It isn't that difficult to persuade the populace on the rest of them, and to come up with adequate plans to assist young women in those sorts of pregnancies, so long as you recognize the exceptions.

Unfortunately, the "all or nothing" group insists on their definitions - and generates intense opposition.

If God is truly all knowing and all powerful, He can make it right regarding those earliest abortions of nonsentient tissue, as well as things like the abortion of the 9 year old. We have one trip around this mortal coil, and somehow, I suspect that having women spend a full percent of their lives carrying to term the genetic offspring of their attackers isn't something a decent god would require.

If your position is that the pro-life movement should make tactical compromises in order to save more lives sooner, then I agree with you. This is clearly happening as we can see with the movement to first ban partial birth abortion.

But I'm going to take exception to your concluding statement.

You, Chancellor Palpatine wrote:
If God is truly all knowing and all powerful, He can make it right regarding those earliest abortions of nonsentient tissue, as well as things like the abortion of the 9 year old. We have one trip around this mortal coil, and somehow, I suspect that having women spend a full percent of their lives carrying to term the genetic offspring of their attackers isn't something a decent god would require.

I'm not clear on whether this statement is your view on God's "requirements" vis-a-vis suffering on this earth as a believer or your view as a non-believer trying to handcuff the devout with your conclusions.

So, I'll just take a moment to reject out-of-hand your conclusions as to how God's nature would/should be expressed with respect to a woman unwillingly carrying the child of a rapist.

God plainly allows suffering in this world, whether it is a result of one's own choices or a result of other's violent acts to which we are a victim.

Futhermore, your statement suggests that a condition of "sentience" be required for a human being to have legal and moral protection. Assuming you adopt the view that sentience is awareness and response to stimuli, then I would expect that you similarly would allow the termination of the lives of those in comas, or maybe those under anaesthesia!