WHY do you think as you do about... abortion ... by Bob Nelson

RED RULES apply:

- Be polite. No insults whatsoever. No insults to particular people, to groups of people, to ideas, ... None!

- Be smart. Contribute substantive thought. Facts and/or reasoning. One-line zingers and bumper-sticker mantras are by definition off-topic.

In order to determine "why" someone takes a position on abortion, surely one must consider when "life" is deemed to commence.  There are those who feel it could be as early as the sperm penetrating the egg, or the meeting and combining of two amoeba. Others would go so far as saying life does not start until the newborn infant takes its first breath. There are so many possibilities in between those two extremes depending on the stages of development. 

So although my personal belief is that life commences at some point between the two extremes, WHY do I feel abortion before that point when life begins can be justified? In that case, as I believe there is not yet life, then ending that development is not ending a life, only a possibility of a life. However, there are always exceptions to everything.  I consider that if the mother's life is endangered by continuing the pregnancy, it is justifiable at any time to abort.  I also believe that with the techniques and equipment doctors now have to determine the condition of the fetus, if it will be monstrous, abortion is justified IMO at any time.

I'm not sure if I am answering the directive of WHY I feel the way I do. I feel that in most cases the mother should make the decision - it is her body and what her body is creating.  So I guess I fall within the pro-choice category.  I say most cases because in the case where the mother's life is endangered, a medical decision may be necessary. I guess what my answer boils down to is that I believe that once life has started, it is wrong in most cases to end it.

Thank you for responding, Buzz. This isn't an easy exercise. It requires a rare degree of self-examination.

... surely one must consider when "life" is deemed to commence

Why? (That's not snark. What is the pertinence of that moment?)

Life began billions of years ago, and we today are direct descendants in a line of life that is unbroken ever since. Parents are alive, egg and sperm are alive, and offspring is alive... in a chain stretching back billions of years. 

As for a slightly different question (When does a particular individual come into existence?) it seems to me that the answer depends entirely on how we define the term "come into existence". If the answer to a question depends on the definition of terms, then it seems to me that our topic could be expressed as "how do we define a person, and why do we take that definition". Before the ZEF meets the criteria for "person", abortion is OK, afterwards, no.

Your second paragraph is interesting because you indicate that the limits to abortion seem to shift, from case to case. I think that a great many people feel the same way. I'm not sure what conclusion may/should be drawn...  ? ?

Taking human life is murder so the issue is when does human life differentiate itself from the tissue of the mother such that it's protected. The biblical reference is quite basic: Thou shalt not kill. If you think life begins at conception, then the mother cannot treat it like her own tissue and do with it as she chooses. If you think life begins at some other later point, then it's just the mother's tissue until then. The question cannot be definitively answered by science because all science answers is when life is viable not when it begins and religion is based on faith not reason. So, in the end, "reason" on this subject is just an opinion and one opinion is as good as another. 

So, in the end, "reason" on this subject is just an opinion and one opinion is as good as another.

Yes, it is. Unless it is possible to build a line of argument that is entirely fact-based, rather than opinion-based. Finding that line of argument seems to me to be a worthwhile endeavor. It requires drilling pretty deeply through "what" we believe, down into "why" we believe. 

The Biblical argument is very interesting... Why does a person choose it? This is not a snark question. Some people accept Biblical rules, others do not. It seems to me to be interesting to examine why we do or do not follow the Bible.

Does that person equally accept Biblical rules about all aspects of their life? If they do not, then the question becomes why they choose to accept Biblical rules any given subject, but not on others. Why do they follow one Biblical rule but not another?

The Biblical Commandment is not really applicable to the abortion debate. It doesn't really say "Thou shalt not kill." It says "Thou shalt not murder." The Bible recognizes the difference between the two words. To apply the Commandment we have to first decide whether abortion meets the criteria for "murder"... which probably includes defining a "person".

When I spoke of "Biblical justification" in the article, I wasn't thinking of the Commandment. I was thinking more of the "soul".

Yes, it is. Unless it is possible to build a line of argument that is entirely fact-based, rather than opinion-based. Finding that line of argument seems to me to be a worthwhile endeavor . . .

But religion is based on faith not fact or reason. It is, by its nature, an analytical dead end. Science quickly runs out of any useful facts to which reason can be applied. 

But religion is based on faith not fact or reason.

Yes. I stand corrected. I was thinking of secular argumentation, but I didn't specify the fact.

You are quite right that faith-based argumentation is impervious to science. That said, it is not exempted from reason. If someone says "The Bible tells us..." then they must quote chapter and verse, and be ready to defend their exegesis of that text. In my experience, very few are capable of doing this.

The only completely dissociated argumentation, IMHO, is "I talked to God last night, and She told me that..." There is no way of debating that! I just wish She would talk to me!

In my experience, most faith-based argumentation is passionate, but shallow. People feel very strongly... but don't really know why. I suspect that their "faith" is in fact an expression of our species' instinct to protect the young, much more than really God-based, or a herd movement behind a pastor whom they follow blindly.

You are quite right that faith-based argumentation is impervious to science. That said, it is not exempted from reason. If someone says "The Bible tells us..." then they must quote chapter and verse, and be ready to defend their exegesis of that text. In my experience, very few are capable of doing this.

However, if the Christian religion for example were simply a matter of knowing chapter and verse, then there would be only one denomination because all would agree on what God requires. Except they don't all agree because they have different interpretations of the same passages based on opinion. So we're back to opinion again. 

I agree. 

I have yet to encounter a solid Bible-based argument on this subject. It was of no interest to anyone in Judea two or four thousand years ago, so the Bible doesn't actually say anything at all. 

When you mean "solid", I suppose it means something you agree with.

There is a ruling in the Talmud that gives protection to the mother. The ruling is that if the health of the mother has been compromised by the pregnancy, it should be terminated. This is actually stronger than certain state laws which posit that the LIFE of the mother has been compromised.

The argument can be found in Sanhedrin, 72b.

How's that for ancient religious text?

I was referring to the Christian Bible. I was under the impression that Jews do not use that name for their holy texts. 

In any case, I looked up Sanhedrin 72b. It appears to apply to theft. I don't see anything about abortion. 

I would be very interested in learning any archaic Jewish texts on the subject. I have never encountered any. It would be very cool to learn something completely new! 

Ugh, sorry.

It's in the "Rashi" of Sandhedrin 72b. There's commentary on the commentary. Best way I can explain it.

Talmud is very, very tedious. It takes a reasonable amount of intellect to absorb, but far more time; that is to say you do not have to be a genius. The discussions get very tangential, and as if that wasn't enough, there are commentaries inserted from the top scholars of several hundred years later. You need more stamina than intelligence. I guess that's why so many of us are attorneys (Did I just go racist on myself?).

To make this as brief as possible, Sanhedrin 72b is about theft, as you said. One of the tangential discussions relates to a child being removed from the womb, which is "theft from G-d". The discussion goes into circumstances under which it would be legal, or not. The main takeaway from Rashi (Rav Shlomo Yitzchak, the pre-eminent Jewish scholar of the 11th century) is that if the mother's well being is compromised by the pregnancy, then it should be terminated. That sticks to today. Rashi is one of the all-time badass Jewish scholars.

Thanks for the explanation. I googled and read the sections 72a and b, caught the part about theft from God, while also getting tangled up in all the other points being discussed in the passage. I took courses in Koine Greek and ancient Hebrew, including  second year exegetical way back in college, though never studied the Talmud. I am a bit long in the tooth for sure; but, would love to learn more. I don't even know where to begin. What suggestions would you give Jonathan?

The best way to get your feet wet is at a local synagogue. You have to get a list of their adult Ed. offerings to the congregation. When you see one, you can ask in. It costs money to join the class, so I'm sure they'll have no objections. You know how those Jews are with $$... Also, local colleges may have a course that you can enroll in.

I could say to you with confidence that it is impossible to self learn Talmud. Hope this helps.

Fascinating! Thank you. 

I'm not sure how to consider the date, though. 11th century. Halfway between today and Biblical times. (Very LATE Biblical times!) 

It's amusing. Most Christians think of the Torah as being more or less equivalent to their own Old Testament. Therefore older than the Christian New Testament. In fact, Jews have continued to add to their holy texts, so they're actually newer than the Christians'. 

The epoch when a text was written is important because knowledge in medicine and biology more generally grew steadily over the centuries. I'd guess that both medicine and attitudes changed a lot over those thousand years. 

The Talmud was compiled mostly 150-450, C.E. (or as you would say, A.D.). So Rashi came in a good few centuries after.

Jewish law is absolutely derived from the ancient texts, but has been revised countless times. It's true that most people do not understand this. What's in the Torah is not etched in stone, so to speak. As we like to say, Torah "breathes". Applications to the modern day are constant, and we do so in a manner that disturbs the old ways as little as possible. 

Moshe ben Maimon... 

Known to most as Maimonides. Some consider him the greatest Jewish scholar of all time.

Also ruled that abortion is legal if the health of the mother is compromised.

Maimonides is the only great rabbi I have ever heard of... and I have no idea what he wrote. 

It's embarrassing... 

Surprising, considering how well read you are.

I think this goes a very, very long way to understanding the state of religion and atheism in the world today. Here, you have never been exposed to Rashi or Maimonides. These were probably the #1 and #2 giants of Jewish scholarship. They lived in the 11th and 12th centuries, which was 2,000 years after the revelation at Sinai, and almost 1,000 years after the Talmud was compiled. The writings and decisions of these scholars gave modernity to ancient texts. Their decisions changed the way Jews live and observe their faith TODAY, and a great deal of it altered and, in some cases, NEGATED Torah law.

And yet, when people start chewing the fat on religion, they take to the ancient texts, without any regard for what people consider valid religious law TODAY. They blanket all religion as archaic, violent and hateful. And why not? Look at all the evidence that supports their thesis today.

So now, I circle back to the topic, because I don't want to be off-topic again.

My position on abortion is that it should be legal, but we should work to change society's quality of awareness about unwanted pregnancy. We must give greater resource to explain the health risks of an abortion, and to emphasize greater use of birth control, because abortion is NOT birth control. It's something else.

As you can see, this is divergent from the tenets of my faith.

Common sense secular law says don't kill.  If you need confirmation of this from Bronze Age goat herders, then society should keep an eye on you, since you're likely to use the ambiguity of scripture to rationalize just about anything.  Bringing religion  into the abortion conversation just turns the debate into a joke.

IMO, the US has fairly defined the parameters for justifiable abortion with RvW.  Unlike other countries, nobody is forcing anyone to have or not have an abortion.  It's not an easy decision for the mother, and it certainly shouldn't be anyone's decision but hers.  We see instances every day where women have chosen not to terminate, but are too irresponsible and reckless to be a parent, and the children end up suffering, or die, or become a burden on society.  Personally, I'd rather not exist than to be brought into a world that doesn't want me, where I am destined to become part of the penal system in my struggle to survive.

I will comment in reply to the question. If you say I am off topic I am through commenting on your red box articles. 

I think the way I do about abortion because of Carl Sagan. The transcript of a debate he had , in the late 90's I believe

2think

convinced me that the only way abortion can be reasonably approached is through compromise. I believe we have a general consensus now that abortion should be permissible through the second trimester, which is in line with Sagan's conclusions based on his interpretations of the science and biology involved. 

I think the way I do because this is what one of the great minds of the 20th century concluded, and it is persuasive. 

My personal belief is that there should never be abortions of "convenience" , but even that word is open to interpretation.

OK. Interesting post. 

In a way, your position is "faith-based". You recognize person as particularly competent, and follow his lead. 

The next question would be, "Why Carl Sagan?", but you already answered, "one of the great minds of the 20th century".

If I understand correctly, you are speaking here of "How may we best accommodate everyone's opinions into national policy?" which is a very different question from "Is abortion acceptable?" I wasn't sufficiently precise in setting the topic. The question you and Sagan are addressing is a political/policy decision. I had in mind the moral/ethical question. 

No matter. Your Comment is a very good example of a way of thinking that we do all the time: follow the lead of someone we consider authoritative. None of us know nuclear physics, but we're sure that atoms exist... because authoritative sources tell us so.

You seem to be trying to provoke disagreement. 

Everything we know about anything we learn from another source. Otherwise, the only things we would ever know would be things about our own bodies and minds. 

You have an opinion about personhood. Is your opinion entirely informed by your own internally derived thoughts about the matter?  I doubt it. 

You seem to be trying to provoke disagreement. 

Ummm.... John?

I was agreeing with you:

None of us know nuclear physics, but we're sure that atoms exist... because authoritative sources tell us so.

Following an authoritative person is a perfectly legitimate means for coming to an opinion on a subject for which one does not feel personally competent. We do it all the time, in all aspects of our lives.

You need to be ready to defend Sagan's credentials in the abortion area, of course. He's certainly credible in astronomy, but I don't know about his competence on the subject of abortion law.

I don't think Carl Sagan passed himself off as an expert on abortion law. The laws that have evolved are the result of informal compromise and consensus that I believe are in line with Sagan's argument. 

And I don't accept Sagan's position because he was a voice of authority, but rather because it makes sense to me. His status as one of the most brilliant public figures of the 20th century is icing on the cake. 

I wasn't denigrating appealing to authority. We all do it, all day every day. And I agree that Carl Sagan was both very smart and very level-headed. 

"None of us know nuclear physics..."

Speak for yourself...

What I understand John to be saying is that the question cannot be resolved by reason because we will always have different opinions on ethics/morality. He proposed compromise as a matter of law which, to me, is the only resolution.

John's post was about abortion policy, which probably requires compromise. I agree. 

I believe that the discussion of abortion is a hot button issue, that does not involve any kind of search for a real solution. The fact is that there will always be division on this topic. What cuts to the core is that even proponents of abortion would concede that not getting pregnant in the first place is an attractive alternative to getting an abortion.

That said, there is far, far too much discussion about abortion, and not nearly enough discussion about the real and true problem - unwanted pregnancy.

There will always be unwanted pregnancy, but if this was reduced to a fraction of its current level of incidence, the topic of abortion would no longer receive all of this undeserved attention. We need to give greater focus and resource to the reduction of unwanted pregnancy. This would obviate the need for this topic to come up so often, especially every 4 years, when Presidential candidates are forced to waste their time giving air to this topic at the expense of more pressing issues.

My apologies to you, Bob, if this is technically off topic.

I agree with everything you say, Johnathan... but yes... it's off-topic.

Bob, great article!

Forgive me if I don't leave a more pertinent comment, but today, I'm just not up to being called a whore and an immoral person by some of my friends on the right.  I've discussed this before, and have been called just that by some of our more vociferous members.

So, please, let me just say that I feel it to be the woman's choice.  It is her body.  I was once faced with this decision, at 17 weeks pregnant, when my son was tested for every genetic disorder he could be tested for.  He had a 25% chance of being born as a healthy baby with no genetic problems.  So, yes, we, my husband and I, had to think about what we would do if he was discovered to have a severe genetic problem.  I didn't have to make that choice, thank God.  As an aside, I was suffering from preeclampsia and a host of other problems that were killing me.  The genetic tests showed that he was healthy and not going to suffer from genetic abnormalities-- at least those they could test for...  Somehow, we both survived.

I have had friends who had to face that choice, and make the decision to go through an early induced labor.  I can understand why they made their choice, and can only say what great compassion I have for them.

I have also had friends who terminated an unwanted pregnancy early-- at 6-8 weeks.  I, too, feel only compassion for them.  Sometimes in life, there are no 'good' choices, just the option of picking the least of a bad lot.  My heart goes out to any woman who must make this decision-- for whatever reason.

There are very few abortions for 'convenience'.  I'm sure there are some, but for everyone that I know, it was a gut-wrenching, difficult, and impossible choice to make.  One considered very carefully, and one that brought them much sadness.  

Thanks, Bob.  The law is on the side of the women who need this as an option-- whether they can't take on one more mouth to feed, or if their child is going to suffer all their lives.  Or a host of other reasons... 

If I may reformulate... 

Your position on the subject is derived from your own real-life experiences and those of women close to you. Those experiences are why you believe as you do. 

At the same time, I can imagine other women with similar experiences to your, using your happy-ending to justify a ban on abortion: "I had a small chance of no problems... and considered abortion for a moment. But I carried my child to term and all went well. There is no justification for abortion!" 

So... Your experience is the context for developing your position on the subject. But there's something more, somewhere. No? 

I have a very good friend who gave birth to a child with severe birth defects.  SEVERE.  That child has been miserable from day one, and her parents and siblings have had their lives upended-- because the child requires 24 hour a day care.  I go to see my friend, because she can't ever go out and leave her child home, nor can she take the child out.  Nor can I help take care of the child-- it involves a lot of medical issues.  They haven't taken a family vacation in years, nor do they ever get to do much together as a family...  It's so sad, and I'm so sad for them.  

Note:  of course they love their child-- all their children!  But, I listen to her worries and justifiable anxieties about what it has done to the whole family...  I wouldn't wish their life on anyone.

There are other sides to the coin.  It doesn't always end well...  

I'm just thinking that compassion towards one another is a big issue here.  There is no "one size fits all" solution.  I also believe in free birth control for anyone who needs it.  Accidents do happen-- my son was a happy accident, as an example...  But, that is not always the case.

Every one has to decide for themselves, what they see as a moral solution.  I've never known anyone who didn't grieve over the loss of their fetus or their baby.   

Is that the something more you were looking for?

I'm just thinking that compassion towards one another is a big issue here.

I was looking for underlying attitudes that determined how you tilted when the comet hit. "Compassion" would be an excellent explanation. 

Thanks.

To those who earlier branded me as a sinful, immoral, awful whore in our earlier conversations, when I stood up for women making their own decisions about abortion-- I want to ask-- where is your compassion for another human being?

Don't they realize they put women in a Catch 22 situation?  You're damned if you do, and damned if you don't.  If you have an abortion, you're a whore, but if having that child puts you on welfare, then you're a "Welfare Mother" and worthless.

If you want to end all abortion, then quit screwing around.  It takes two to tango.  And remember, condoms are only effective 97% of the time-- ask Ross of Friends...  For that matter, ask Rachel, who said, "No uterus, no opinion".  In an ideal world, this wouldn't be an issue-- it could be dealt with privately, between a woman, her significant other, and her doctor...  But we don't live in an ideal world.

I think it should be handled privately, and quietly.  For all those who sit in judgement-- where is your compassion for the person who is making that decision?  Are you willing to step up to the plate and help the woman?  Nope, most are not about to-- it is easier to point fingers and condemn.  Why is the 'father' never condemned?  Why is it that the man is looked upon as a stud, but the woman looked upon as a whore?  

Mark, this is not meant about you-- I know you were willing and able to step up to the plate, and I'm very sorry that you didn't have a say in your life...  I can only imagine your grief!

D , only a small portion of my life has actually been out of my control where i didn't have choices, its those choices that i made after i became self responsible that are mine to answer for ,  and with out making those particular choices , i wouldn't have had the experiences i had, which led me to where i am , so all those choices that were mine , be they good , bad indifferent are mine , and actually , where i am now  looking back ,  i am better for all of them . I'm fond of telling the kids , they have choices , but they alone either reap the benefits or consequences of their choices what matters is what lessons they learn.

Exactly.

Well done, well said, and well acted upon, Mark.  

the question in the title is fairly simple for me to answer , and has pretty much been answered by those that have already posted.

 since this is about why I think one way or another , it has to do with a number of things .

One would be social, what is socially acceptable , another would be moral whether is based on religious teaching( for some) or teachings( upbringing). then there is the legal aspect what the laws allow or disallow, and finally experience.

My position on the subject has changed over the years, as everything above has changed, and continues to change.

 I was born in 1962 , to a 19 year old regular army member ( my mother) who was unwed, the army scheduled a D&C , which my mother went awol to avoid and refused to have, and stayed AWOL until it was too late,  so she was discharged, back then being an unwed mother had an entirely different stigma attatched to it , and for the first year and a half of my life , I was my fathers( who was full time national guard) Bastard child, another stigma back then .

so that has a factor in what my beliefs were, I was raised an irish catholic in Boston , need I say more about that?

 so in my youth ( after I came of age and mom and dad were no longer responsible for me, I was vehemently pro life ( the irony of neither side wishes to be called anti, be it life or choice is not lost on me either). my formative years I was a typical irish catholic boy very heavily into puberty) to borrow from Mr. Carlin, very much to the consternation of a very loving paternal grandmother who wanted me to be a priest ( wasn't gonna happen , sorry granma).

 I held the pro life views right straight through my 30s( incidently that's the same time frame that I had gotten married , and started having children of my own) though , some realities had set in and my stance softened about when an abortion would be acceptable , such as a health danger to the mother , deformity of the fetus , things along those lines .

I did literally live the Tim McGraw song , "don't take the girl", and for me that was a hard thing to face , loose the love of my life at the time or the unborn child, thankfully , I got to keep both, and really don't know how I would have reacted if I had lost either. but that wasn't the last formative experience .

the next came when the same woman tried to self abort later on using an old poultice method to bring on a misscarrige , and her family retarded my progression to the pro choice side of the argument by stating it was her body , her choice , and I was only the sperm donor and had absolutely no say in the matter. and I wont go into detail of the thoughts that brought about.

 the next instance came when my then unwed daughter, came to me to tell me that she herself was pregnant all I could ask her was what she wanted to do, because I had already came to the conclusion , within a matter of seconds , that this was her choice , and my role as her father was to actually be there for whatever she chose when she said she was going to have the baby , all I said was we will make it work.

So yes , I count myself on the pro choice side of this issue, but I still have limitations myself , I don't believe it should be used as a form of BC or convienience , nor should it be done in late term , unless there is a danger to the mother , but those parameters are set by law already. and like many think that it will have to be as it is , a compromise .

I had just finished my answer to Dowser when your Comment appeared. Your Comment reads like a male version of Dowser's. Both are beautifully human. 

I have the same question for you as for her: I can imagine other men, with the same experiences, drawing very different conclusions. Why did you evolve as you did? What were the "moral imperatives" that drove your choices? 

the short and simple answer? take all the things I said contributed , social , religious , educational teachings as well as experience , factor in that all of those continually change , thus change the outcome when re evaluated .

 but the biggest factor for change was experience and what I went through to get that experience, for it is that that changes how one looks at things , and those things can be changed by other experiences , I'm no longer a catholic of any kind , actually I claim no religion at all, but I think of myself as spiritual because I have experienced things that logic alone cant explain either.

 and that's why I feel the answer to why people think the way they do not only about this subject , but any they are faced with , and that answer is going to be completely individual.

why did my conclusion evolve the way it did? most likely what I did go through had the greatest impact , though some might say I should have gone in the opposite direction .

 As it is , because of other things that happened , figuratively , I don't have a horse in the race.

 after the birth of the child she tried to abort , she came to me and said she didn't want any more children , she didn't like the pill , it messed with her  hormones she said as well as other things she didn't like ,  condoms were not to her liking so those were out , that left one of us getting our tubes tied , or celibacy. I'm still an irish boy heavily into puberty even at 54.

She never expected me to do the deed , but I looked at it practically, cost efficiently and decided since my getting snipped was cheaper , and less invasive as well as less problems medically , that I would be the one to do the in out , okey dokey done, where as her procedure would have meant an in patient treatment at a higher cost and a life time of hormonal treatments.

 I was home within the hour of the procedure , with a frozen beer resting in my lap for swelling whilst I drank a beer on the couch and just swapped out beers for the discomfort as they dechilled.

 so even that has a bearing on my choice of being pro choice, right now there is no way I can get a woman pregnant , so, is it really my right to have any say? and being I'm a guy , I'm not going to be getting pregnant myself.

 funny thing? the dr wouldn't do the snip snip until SHE  gave HER permission, because I was under 35 and married.

why did my conclusion evolve the way it did? 

This is the question I'm asking. Dowser cited "compassion" as her driving force. 

 and the best I can answer that is,"right now there is no way I can get a woman pregnant , so, is it really my right to have any say? and being I'm a guy , I'm not going to be getting pregnant myself." so even though I have an opinion and a belief, its a procedure , that I wont have to endure.

Bedtime... 

Half past midnight, here. See you all tomorrow. 

Thanks for a very interesting conversation. 

My beliefs and “why” I hold them were framed by my mother and my life experiences.  Part of both had a religious element.  My mother was a staunch Roman Catholic up until she wasn’t which was around the time she met my stepfather and remarried.  Then we were Lutheran.  We went to church every Sunday and I did the choir thing and the church camps and….well you get the point.  Then something happened.  Some say it was a miracle but I say “nope” it was just life.  My mother became disillusioned with the Church.  Maybe it had something to do with the Pastor bonking a handful of the women church goers.  Whatever the reason, it was a way out and an end to the hands on religious learning.  So my position on premarital sex, marriage and abortion were firmly set.  I was a good girl and it didn’t occur to me to be anything other than that.  My older sisters had no such constraints – hahaha.  For me, life began the moment I learned I was pregnant.  It was incredibly humbling.  I was scared to death I would do something to put the baby at risk but I also had experienced three miscarriages and my doc told me my problem wasn't conceiving but with carrying.  So, that's why I believe what I believe and here's what I believe:  I think abortion is a last resort.  It should not be used as a form of birth control.  I believe it is a woman’s choice but I believe the man should be heard.  If he was someone you would lay with then I would hope he is someone you value enough to hear his opinion.  Ultimately, I think it is the woman’s choice but I would hope she would weigh the choice carefully.

Very eloquent. You write well: there's order and levity at the same time. ("bonking"    ) 

Basically, (if I may reformulate) you were imprinted by your mother and the church, while still very young. Since you haven't met a traumatic experience to change what you were taught, it remains. 

IMNAAHO, lots of (most?) people are in your situation. But I don't think many of them are as lucid about it. A person who knows the origin of an opinion is in a position to think objectively about that opinion.

You are correct.  But I will go on the record to say that although I was raised with strong religious beliefs I consider myself agnostic.  I've seen how religion can do too much damage and I find that many followers are the worst sinners who are filled with hate, contempt and jealousy.  I can't believe a God would have these types of people represent him.  For me the bible is nothing more than stories to guilt and scare people into behaving a certain way.  Plus, I recently found that I have Jewish roots so I'm interested in learning a little more about that part of where I come from.  I'm off to Israel in November for about 2 weeks.  That should be an interesting adventure..........knowing how I feel about a certain prime minster.  

I hope you saw Johnathan's Comments about the Talmud. Very interesting. 

... although I was raised with strong religious beliefs I consider myself agnostic.

That's significant. Adhesion to a church implies at least some intellectual engagement, so an adult may change her position by a voluntary act. A child's "moral/ethical" imprinting is visceral. 

That's why your introspection is impressive. 

I hope you saw Johnathan's Comments about the Talmud

Yes, I did.  I'm adding it to my long list.  I've been doing a little research and reading up on the history of the Jews.  Heartbreaking but inspiring at the same time.