The rhetoric on abortion continues to embattle and confuse "pro-choice" and "pro-life", "liberals" and "conservatives" alike. Many "liberals" complain that it is irrational and brutal to expect a woman to die so that her unborn child may live. Abortion should be permitted basically on demand, certainly in cases where the health and life of the woman are at risk, and even in cases of incest or rape Besides, they remind us, it is legal. In contrast, many "conservatives" argue that abortion can never be rationalized or permitted, as it is fundamentally immoral to kill an unborn child who is an innocent human being, no matter what the circumstances or the law - regardless of the woman's health, life, incest or rape. At times it seems that the advocates of either position are "talking past" each other, oblivious to the possibility of any moral legitimacy in each's position. Further, there seems as yet to be no structured or principled means by which to circumvent this highly politicized stand-off or to address these tragic moral dilemmas which after serious consideration are commonly acceptable to both "camps".

My point is that just because something is immoral we dont have a right to make it illegal.

The common moral principle often used in these difficult situations is that found in the time-honored theory of natural person - known as the principle of double effect. Properly understood, the principle of double effect evolved in order to address just these types of difficult moral dilemmas - in this case where both of the lives of those affected are innocent, and yet something must be done or will happen which inevitably will endanger one of these two innocent lives. The obvious application for our purposes here is when a woman, who is herself an innocent human being, whose human life is precious and must be respected, is pregnant with an unborn child, who is likewise an innocent human being (from fertilization onwards), and whose life is also precious and must be respected. Since, as natural law theory holds, one may never directly intend to kill an innocent human being, under what circumstances and conditions is it morally permissible: (1) for a woman to undergo an abortion procedure; or, (2) for a physician to help one of these innocents to live, by means of other and different morally legitimate medical actions, and yet permit or allow the other, unfortunately, to die?

My point is no human can prove he alone has the absolute unequivocal answer to that dilemma.

Is abortion moral? An equaly valid question could be wheter it is morally defensible to bring an innocent child into this horrible, pain-filled world. Some people are simply not fit to be parents.

I dont believe that abortion is wrong as such. It could even be argued that abortion is perfectly natural - all creatures that raise their young will abondon them if they cannot raise them properly. Indeed, all females will have have miscarriage if the fetus is unable to live, or reabsorb it if they cannot spare the nutrients.

Another point of thought is - a baby cannot think, even to the level of knowing that it exists, or demonstrate even an instinctual layer of selfpreservation. Ethically, murder is wrong because it robs a person of their right to exspress their preference to continue to live. A neonate has no such preference, being intellectually incapable, and thus no right to life.

Pro life central point is that abortion is wrong not only because its murderous, but because adoption is a viable alternative. This is not entirely the case! While many families are waiting for children, this is because of two factors. First, most of those families are not yet officially waiting, as they have to be approved by the stringent safeguards against adoption by those deemed unsuitable.

Secondly, these families insist on adopting only the youngest babies, which leaves a lot of children as wards of the state. It is untrue to imply, as they often do, that children put up for adoption all find happy homes. Is it not kinder to abort fetus, without fear or understanding of death, than to risk (and the odds are high) that child being abandoned to live alone, unloved and in poverty.