I think you've drawn the line pretty well when it comes to abortions. My view and yours are pretty much the same.
Now, would you try to impose your view of abortion on the rest of society by force of law, or would you try to limit the number of abortions through education, birth control, persuasion, or whatever?
Personally, I would follow the second path.
It seems to me that the issue of abortion is highly complex, which is what makes it so controversial.
If life begins at conception, then it follows that abortion at any stage of development is tantamount to killing a human being. If the practice is outlawed, however, that merely drives it underground. Some nations that have outlawed abortion have higher rates than we do. How, though, can we justify legalizing the killing of human beings? There is no easy answer to that one, is there?
If life begins at some point during pregnancy, then it follows that any abortion should be performed before that time. So, how do we prove just when life begins? If life begins at conception, then why should an early term abortion be any different from a late term one? If it is different from a legal standpoint, does that reflect science, logic, religion, or simply a political compromise?
And yet, I think most of us would agree that aborting a days old embryo is not the same as partial birth abortion.
Then there is the question of in vitrio fertilization. Does the process kill off all of the embryos that are not implanted, or does it give a chance for life to the one that is? Does that process involve killing human beings? If life really begins at conception, then it must. So, should in vitrio be discouraged as well, even though it provides a chance for otherwise childless couples to have a baby?
