Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

It is a question of how much you value a human life. We do not consider it acceptable to kill a rapist, so why would you think it is okay to kill a rapist's child? Do you really value a human life so little?
In my opinion, someone's life is worth suffering a few months of mental agony no matter what.

This is the part where it gets philosophical about when life begins. For many people a few cells that can't survive alone (and can't think or feel) don't really count as life. And if you believe in "life at conception" then you might as well stop showering because you might destroy a few living cells (and many dead ones) and it gets worse when you dry yourself with a towel after that.

But that's besides the point when it comes to the reality of the situation, just look at Texas. They manage to delegalize abortion clinics and google searches for self-induced abortion rose. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/06/opinion/sunday/the-return-of-the-diy-abortion.html

Here's an article about the rise of illegal abortion drugs from Mexico:
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/06/the-rise-of-the-diy-abortion-in-texas/373240/

http://www.businessinsider.de/as-many-as-240000-women-have-tried-diy-abortions-in-texas-2016-5?r=US&IR=T

An article pointing at the general lack of care for pregnant women in Texas:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2101979-us-pregnancy-related-deaths-are-rising-and-have-doubled-in-texas/

Deaths of pregnant women rose (albeit, there seem to be multiple reasons for that, like general lack of heath benefits) so that the mortality rate of pregnant women in Texas rose despite falling everywhere else.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/08/spike-rates-pregnancy-related-deaths-texas-national-embarrassment

Maternal mortality has become a growing public health concern in the United States in recent years, as rates have risen nationally at the same time they have fallen in virtually every other affluent country.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/24/health/maternal-mortality-trends-double-texas/

In the United States, the maternal mortality rate grew by 136% over those 23 years, more than any other country studied.

Some more links (I think they all reference the same study but I don't know how biased the articles are):
https://www.texastribune.org/2016/08/19/texas-sees-unusual-spike-pregnancy-related-deaths-/
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2016/08/17/texas-rate-pregnancy-related-deaths-nearly-doubles-neither-researchers-state-know

Delegalizing abortions or making them hard to get had the same effect as abstinence only sex education or alcohol prohibition. It sounds like a really simple solution for the problem but it results in more deaths that anything else.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 General Annoyance wrote:

Sounds fairly reasonable; what about rape victims though?

I don't think it should be allowed in my opinion. While getting raped is horrible, and I while can't even begin to comprehend the horror women must feel if they get impregnated by a rapist, I feel that it would be very wrong to turn the unborn child into an additional victim of this. The child is blameless, and in my opinion the life of this innocent child is worth the additional suffering of pregnancy that the woman will have to endure for 9 months. Afterwards the child can be taken away to a foster or adoptive family and the mother will never need to see it again if she so wishes.
Again, it is a question of whether you want 1 or 2 victims. The woman already is a victim. Let's not turn the child into another one.

I genuinely can see where you are coming from. However, many people here have rightly said that the embryo that forms in the first weeks of pregnancy has no brain or any other vital organs, and no emotions; it's a small bunch of cells that manufacture everything needed to form the organs that go into a human being. At that point, an abortion would be akin to having your skin removed for a skin graft rather than killing a sentient being.

We also have to keep in mind the emotional bindings that rape would bring - 9 months with a reminder that you were sexually assaulted right by you, and then the rest of your lifetime knowing you have a child out there that you did not intend to have.

 kronk wrote:
Whether I used a condom or not, or my GF was on the pill or not, I just have to say "The condom broke", in this scenario.

That's really not a barrier as you've put it.

In the same way you could claim you were raped if you really wanted an abortion. Perhaps not as morally bankrupt as saying that, but still the same issue. It'd be up to the doctors to determine whether you have a convincing story or not.


This debate over abortion is one that I typically have concern before as I can see myself using abortions if a mistake were to be made and I still hadn't gotten over my peadophobia by that time. I get extremely anxious around kids, and often try to keep my distance as much as possible; I cannot imagine how I'd react if I was told that I'd have to be a dad, whether I'd have a breakdown or just deal with it head on. Point is, being denied an abortion could have a very long term impact on someone like me.

Hence why I have the view that abortions should be dealt with case by case. It often isn't as simple as one may think regarding the reasons for pregnancy and the potential consequences 9 months later that could affect multiple people, including the child, for years.

G.A

 General Annoyance wrote:
In the same way you could claim you were raped if you really wanted an abortion. Perhaps not as morally bankrupt as saying that, but still the same issue. It'd be up to the doctors to determine whether you have a convincing story or not.

Except it isn't the same at all. A claim of rape involves physical evidence, an accusation against a rapist, etc. A claim of "we tried, but the condom broke" is impossible to prove either way. There's nothing a doctor can do to determine if the story is convincing or not. Either you accept all claims and grant the abortions (making the ban meaningless), or you abandon the idea of making any kind of consistent evidence-based decision and leave it up to the doctor's personal opinions about the situation, including their biases and stereotyping.

 Peregrine wrote:


Except it isn't the same at all. A claim of rape involves physical evidence, an accusation against a rapist, etc. A claim of "we tried, but the condom broke" is impossible to prove either way. There's nothing a doctor can do to determine if the story is convincing or not. Either you accept all claims and grant the abortions (making the ban meaningless), or you abandon the idea of making any kind of consistent evidence-based decision and leave it up to the doctor's personal opinions about the situation, including their biases and stereotyping.

True

I'm one of the belief that doctors typically do what's right by their patients, such as what we've seen recently with some doctors refusing to accept parents who won't allow their children to have important vaccinations. I suppose that is an opinionated decision, but one that I believe to be reasonable and in the interests of moral balance and the patient.

It is a tricky one - seems like any solution will be a compromise in one area or another.

I'm, personally, anti-abortion, but pro-choice. I'd rather people not get pregnant in the first place, and believe we should have a focus on real, effective, sex education and use of contraception.* The less life that has to be destroyed, the better.

On the other hand, it's not my choice to make. The choice to have an abortion is to be decided between the woman and her doctor, no one else. Obviously within acceptable limits, e.i. no aborting long term pregnancies if the woman's life is not at stake (or the fetus is damaged).

Abortions should be clean, safe, readily available, and rare.




*There's always the annoying fact that most of the people who want abortion restricted, also go after real sex ed and contraception, but that's another matter entirely.

 whispered_war wrote:
However, one person's opinions and beliefs shouldn't stop someone else making their own choice. I personally doubt I'd ever want an abortion, regardless of the matter - does that mean I'd tell someone else they weren't allowed one? Of course not!

If you truly believed (either rightly or wrongly) that the unborn baby is a distinct human life with value as any other human life, then you'd be morally obliged to make some stand against it the same way you would against any other crime against humanity.

It's no longer an issue of choice for the mother if you think that life has value. If you don't think that life has value, then it's entirely down to what is best for the mother.

 Frazzled wrote:
Their country, their call.

This times one thousand and one.


The West needs to stay the hell out of it, both the EUSSR and the United States Government. This is an internal Polish matter.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
This law would also only really affect the poorer people of Poland. Those with the income could just travel over the border to Germany or the Czech Repuplic to get an abortion.

IIRC the suggested change would make that illegal too.

I don't see how it could be enforced. Someone takes a pregnancy test which comes back positive then hops in a train, rides it across to Dresden or Berlin and gets the procedure carried out and pays for it themselves. Government had no idea they were pregnant and no idea they had an abortion.

Bad law is bad.

IIRC A girl in Northern Ireland was convicted recently for having an abortion carried out in the UK, but I can't find the details. I don't know how the authorities knew.

nou wrote:
As a Pole, I can give you some insight on what is going on right now: the subject of abortion was a "distraction subject" in polish politics since mid-'90. It is now proceeded in parliament, because of citizen initiative, not goverment action. We had a political shift last fall, so there is huuuuuge agenda by those who have lost the elections to picture Poland in the most bad light possible in the eyes of the international public opinion. We had this recurring abortion hysteria every few years, because citizen initiative requires only a 100k people signing it to be put to vote.

This abortion law has very low probability of being passed, as even most conservative individuals in ruling party (like Gowin for example) are aware, that changing the current law ("the tough compromise" as it is called here) will upset the public opinion more than it does now. We have a near 50-50 split of pro- and anti- aborion minded people here, so in the very unlikely outcome of this new ban passing, the current "compromise" will be restored as soon as the governing party changes.

As I see it (and as many, many others here see it) it is used now as a smokescreen for CETA approval and as a vent for social unrest after last years elections. So realy no need to panic, that we will be a modern Romania with 100% ban on abortion... But of course, there is a slight chance, that this law will pass, as we have indeed a very conservative society, which was forcefully "modernized" over the last decade, with a strong focus on deconstructing any and all patriotic and conservatice sentiments and create a "european society". And the shift after last years elections shows, that (as usual in Poland) this notion had an exactly oposite outcome...

And as a sidenote: this "~90% roman catholic" thing is not true - this is a number of baptised citizens in Poland, an official number used by our catholic church to justify it's influence. Not an actual number of people living by the word of god... We probably have less "faith devoted people" here than UK or US. It's just that we are mono-religious society, so it is customary to baptize children as roman catholics...

Thank you for a very interesting information from an "insider". Like most people I don't take much notice of internal politics in most countries.

Italy is similar in being strongly Roman Catholic in name, while actually they use a lot of condoms.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
We're having the same debate here in Northern Ireland. The liberal in me says that abortion should always be on offer, and I was baptised as a catholic. It should be left to the individual to decide if it's right for them. Besides, it's useless to ban it anyway because there's too many ways around it. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather it was never needed but exceptions have to be made.

History shows that when abortion is illegal, women find ways of getting illegal, dangerous abortions anyway. Thus it is better to handle abortion within a relatively liberal legal framework that prevents the horrors of the back street, the orphanages filled with unwanted bastard children to be abused by nuns, and so on, while not making abortion a "drive thru" process.

That is my opinion.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
In my opinion, and I know I am conservative in this, abortion should only be allowed if it is neccessary to save the life of the mother. I think the proposed ban in Poland is a great idea except for the part where it is also banned if the mother's life is threatened. If the mother dies you will lose 2 lives. If you execute an abortion you will lose only 1, which is bad but still preferable to losing 2 lives.

Problem with that being it punishes womens for having sex. Basically "never have sex unless you want child". That's "bit" strict.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 General Annoyance wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
In my opinion, and I know I am conservative in this, abortion should only be allowed if it is neccessary to save the life of the mother. I think the proposed ban in Poland is a great idea except for the part where it is also banned if the mother's life is threatened. If the mother dies you will lose 2 lives. If you execute an abortion you will lose only 1, which is bad but still preferable to losing 2 lives.

Sounds fairly reasonable; what about rape victims though?

I don't think it should be allowed in my opinion. While getting raped is horrible, and I while can't even begin to comprehend the horror women must feel if they get impregnated by a rapist, I feel that it would be very wrong to turn the unborn child into an additional victim of this. The child is blameless, and in my opinion the life of this innocent child is worth the additional suffering of pregnancy that the woman will have to endure for 9 months. Afterwards the child can be taken away to a foster or adoptive family and the mother will never need to see it again if she so wishes.
Again, it is a question of whether you want 1 or 2 victims. The woman already is a victim. Let's not turn the child into another one.

Generally non-wanted childs even when given away tend to have worse life than wanted kids. Also pregnancy is instant danger to mothers health. There's no such thing as quaranteed safe birth so by being forced to carry it to full term raped women has to put his life at risk. Fair? For what's only bunch of cells that don't have brain activity and only POTENTIAL to become living human.

Not to mention this law could be bypassed anyway with goverment none the wiser. Law you cannot really enforce is stupid law to boot...

edit: And this is what happens because of such anti-abortion laws:

In desperation, women submit to unsterile procedures. They drink bleach or turpentine, perforate themselves with sticks and coat hangers, and even jump off roofs. Worldwide, unsafe abortion procedures cause the deaths of about 67,000 women per year, mostly in nations in which abortion is illegal.

So blanket laws to protect unborn childs results in around 67,000 human life(plus the unborn child inside) lost per year.

Don't see why it wouldn't be better to work on ensuring unwanted pregnancies happens as little as possible and then decide whether to carry to full term or not case by case basis considering all the factors. Safety of mother, likely scenario of baby's future etc...

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 General Annoyance wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
In my opinion, and I know I am conservative in this, abortion should only be allowed if it is neccessary to save the life of the mother. I think the proposed ban in Poland is a great idea except for the part where it is also banned if the mother's life is threatened. If the mother dies you will lose 2 lives. If you execute an abortion you will lose only 1, which is bad but still preferable to losing 2 lives.

Sounds fairly reasonable; what about rape victims though?

I don't think it should be allowed in my opinion. While getting raped is horrible, and I while can't even begin to comprehend the horror women must feel if they get impregnated by a rapist, I feel that it would be very wrong to turn the unborn child into an additional victim of this. The child is blameless, and in my opinion the life of this innocent child is worth the additional suffering of pregnancy that the woman will have to endure for 9 months. Afterwards the child can be taken away to a foster or adoptive family and the mother will never need to see it again if she so wishes.
Again, it is a question of whether you want 1 or 2 victims. The woman already is a victim. Let's not turn the child into another one.

Sorry, but you try carrying someone who raped you's child for nine months...

It is a question of how much you value a human life. We do not consider it acceptable to kill a rapist, so why would you think it is okay to kill a rapist's child? Do you really value a human life so little?
In my opinion, someone's life is worth suffering a few months of mental agony no matter what.

Is that a trick question?

Though I refer you to my original point, you try it and get back to me on that. People are good at imposing their views on others whilst they don't have to deal with the consequences themselves.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
. People are good at imposing their views on others whilst they don't have to deal with the consequences themselves.

And that is why I stay out of abortion debates. As any opinion I have is completely unqualified, uninformed, and inexperienced, since I am neither a woman nor a deity.

As for Poland, they need to address their own laws their own way. We can condemn or cheer them, but that's really their business.

 General Annoyance wrote:

 kronk wrote:
Whether I used a condom or not, or my GF was on the pill or not, I just have to say "The condom broke", in this scenario.

That's really not a barrier as you've put it.

In the same way you could claim you were raped if you really wanted an abortion. Perhaps not as morally bankrupt as saying that, but still the same issue. It'd be up to the doctors to determine whether you have a convincing story or not.

The bold part I have issue with. If it's legal, you do your job or you stop being an abortion doctor. You don't get to play Morality police.

If you're a government clerk and your job is to give out marriage certificates, and the law of the land states that you have to give them to same gendered or multi-racial couples, you give them out regardless of your beliefs or you quit your job. You don't get to play morality police.

If you're a pharmacist and your job is to fill birth control prescriptions, then you do so, regardless of your beliefs on them or you quit your job. You don't get to play morality police.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I'm in the same camp as G.A. A full ban is bad for those who could die during childbirth and rape victims. It makes it even worse for those who have already endured so much hardship. But as a form of birth control...they should do whatever they feel is appropriate.

This. I believe in pro-choice. I also believe in individual accountability. There are so many forms of birth control out there that using abortion as a form of birth control seems really fethed up. However I would never begrudge a woman the right to choose up to a certain point. I mean abortion at the 7month time frame could equate to actually destroying human life, but 6 weeks in I would rather a woman have access to a real doctor and a sterile environment where treatment would be a real thing, not a back alley abortion as they were called here in the 60s. Blanket laws hurt more people than they help.

 kronk wrote:


The bold part I have issue with. If it's legal, you do your job or you stop being an abortion doctor. You don't get to play Morality police.

If you're a government clerk and your job is to give out marriage certificates, and the law of the land states that you have to give them to same gendered or multi-racial couples, you give them out regardless of your beliefs or you quit your job. You don't get to play morality police.

If you're a pharmacist and your job is to fill birth control prescriptions, then you do so, regardless of your beliefs on them or you quit your job. You don't get to play morality police.

There's been a stir recently where quite a few practitioners have refused parents who have refused to allow their children to have vaccinations, or have tried to convince them that vaccinations in children are crucial to avoid deadly diseases such as polio. I think doctors both have an obligation to treat patients as best as they can, while also doing what's right by them. I don't think that's like playing morality police, nor is the situation of abortion the same as refusing to supply birth control or refusing to provide marriage certificates to multi racial couples; the decision would be based on whether the pregnancy was an accident or just carelessness, not their actual view on abortion. However, as Peregrine noted, providing or finding evidence of accidental pregnancy is almost impossible.

I am unsure how exactly you would deal with each case, but I guess you could do it in a similar way Customs Officers deal with cases in an immigration department; they have to apply what they know with what they can gather on their meeting with the person to determine whether to allow someone into a country or not. You could accuse that as playing the morality police, but that is their job to an extent, although a lot of their guidelines would be written down somewhere.

And why should it be down to a doctor's decision based on circumstances at all?

Can we have a statistic for the ration of abortions vs children put up for adoption at birth? I'd imagine both are a extreme minority of births per year. The whole matter comes across as moral guardians trying to impose their view on a slither of the population.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
And why should it be down to a doctor's decision based on circumstances at all?

Why should it be a Custom Officer's decision to let you into a country or not? It's a similar concept to an extent, although this is a lot more complex.

I'm having problems explaining my point it seems, so I think it's best if I step back from this before I say something completely irrational.

Well I'd note that a custom's official is there to guard the state. A doctor or clerk etc would be there only on the grounds of mental stability (which is a shaky notion considering that isn't a concern elsewhere, or with other surgeries) or the possibility that the procedure may endanger the mother, unless of course the state owns the people who live within it (and we're going there that then entails they could get away with a lot of other invasive procedures ...if someone wanted to lawyer the matter)?

 Wyrmalla wrote:
And why should it be down to a doctor's decision based on circumstances at all?

Can we have a statistic for the ration of abortions vs children put up for adoption at birth? I'd imagine both are a extreme minority of births per year. The whole matter comes across as moral guardians trying to impose their view on a slither of the population.

In what country? Some countries have pretty high abortion rates.

Poland has a very small amount of reported abortions, dunno what the unreported rate is...

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-poland.html

In the USA, the number is much larger. around 700,000 a year, or roughly a 1:5 ratio abortions to live births. The 80's and early 90's in the US had a high rate, around 1:3 ratio to live births or 1.4 million per year at its peak. So in the 30 years from 1982 through to 2012 there were 33.4 million abortions in the USA, at a guess that's gotta average out to something like 1 in every 3 to 5 women of child bearing age?

I don't really like to get embroiled in abortion debates because I'm not well researched on the topic and it's not something I want to argue from a position of ignorance, BUT, if someone believes the unborn baby has as much value as it does once it's born for whatever reason (religious, scientific) then I fully respect them for standing up for their beliefs. At that point it ceases being about whether or not the mother should have a choice and comes to how much value you place on the unborn life.

I've heard some people argue from the perspective that an unborn baby has no rights, because until it's a member of society it has no value or rights within society. I personally can't really get behind that idea because I don't think being a member of society places your life in any higher standing than anyone else (say a hermit who has no family or friends and lives off the land away from society). I also find it hard to get behind people who think for religious reasons life begins at conception because from my understanding even if allowed to progress normally there's a high chance of not making it from conception to birth without a miscarriage.

And well at this stage, is this a discussion about this act in Poland, or rather just the yearly abortion thread (TM)?

 Wyrmalla wrote:
And well at this stage, is this a discussion about this act in Poland, or rather just the yearly abortion thread (TM)?

Well it's important to frame discussions in the appropriate context. You asked for stats, I showed Poland's *reported* stats but judging by Poland's current laws and the high proportion of people claiming to be Roman Catholic, I think there's a good chance many go under the radar, hence bringing up a country like the USA where I figure many (most?) abortions will probably go reported.

Personally I think Poland's current laws are fine, I'm against abortion but I realise the reality that one way or another it's going to happen, so I want to see laws that discourage it without driving it underground.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Their country, their call.

This times one thousand and one.

The West needs to stay the hell out of it, both the EUSSR and the United States Government. This is an internal Polish matter.

Well, not exactly.

Poland is an EU member. As such, they are supposed to abide to certain standards.

Yeah, Danzig or a ban on abortion, not both!

Yep, that's right. Not to derail things but no EU member is a sovereign country. So I'm left wondering how exactly they're going to ban abortion when they not allowed to. Either it's not going to happen or it'll become a big point of contrition between them and the EU.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Yep, that's right. Not to derail things but no EU member is a sovereign country. So I'm left wondering how exactly they're going to ban abortion when they not allowed to. Either it's not going to happen or it'll become a big point of contrition between them and the EU.

Countries within the EU do have a lot of leeway, its not the dictatorship you islanders would like it to be.

Malta is part of the EU and doesn't have abortion, so I doubt they will have any real problems beyond being looked at like they are some kind of barbarians at international meetings.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Yep, that's right. Not to derail things but no EU member is a sovereign country. ...

Well, except that they all are sovereign countries who have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights as a condition of membership. IDK what status abortion has within this.

Congrats to Poland, I hope you are given the strength to see this through. Stand against the tide of modernism. Soli Deo Gloria

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
if someone believes the unborn baby has as much value as it does once it's born for whatever reason (religious, scientific) then I fully respect them for standing up for their beliefs.

But very few people actually believe this. There are two things that give it away:

1) Many people who claim to believe that the fetus is a full person favor an exception to abortion bans in the case of rape. But in no other situation are you allowed to murder an uninvolved person because it will make you feel better about being the victim of a crime. If you allow an exception for rape you are acknowledging that the fetus isn't really a full person, so killing it to make the victim feel better is ok.

2) Very, very few anti-abortion people care about miscarriages. The indisputable fact is that miscarriages are common, often happening without the woman even knowing she was pregnant. And if every one of those miscarriages is the end of a life with the same value as any other person this should be a massive crisis, arguably the single biggest problem in the world. We should be spending all of our resources on finding a way to prevent miscarriages from happening and save those lives. But instead it's treated as a very sad thing for the individual women who lose a child they wanted, but not an event with any larger significance. This is a concession that, while it really sucks as a hopeful-parent, it isn't really the same as a real person dying.

Now, it's possible that there are anti-abortion people who have consistent beliefs on these two things. But for most of them it's very clear that their opposition to abortion is based on (usually religious) rules about not having sex and beliefs that women who do should pay the price for it, not sincere desire to protect innocent lives.

I've heard some people argue from the perspective that an unborn baby has no rights, because until it's a member of society it has no value or rights within society.

I don't think I've ever seen this argument, so it can't be all that common. The much more common argument is about the fetus' mental capacity, not its physical presence in society. A fetus, at the stage of development where most abortions (and the vast majority of voluntary abortions) happen does not yet have a functioning brain. It can't have any of the higher level brain functions (sense of self, ability to feel and understand pain, etc) that make us "human". In terms of mental functioning it ranks lower on the scale than the cockroach that you would squish without hesitation if it was in your house. So if it's ok to kill an insect with greater brain-function value for the sake of convenience then it's ok to kill a blob of cells that happens to have some human DNA.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Knockagh wrote:
Congrats to Poland, I hope you are given the strength to see this through. Stand against the tide of modernism. Soli Deo Gloria

Yeah, go Poland! Get back to the 15th century, refuse to join the modern world! Burn society to the ground and become hunter-gatherers again!

 Peregrine wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
so why would you think it is okay to kill a rapist's child?

Because it is not a child. It is a blob of cells with less capacity for thought/feeling pain/etc than the cockroach that you would squish without hesitation. Or the blob of cancer cells that you would have removed from yourself without hesitation, despite the fact that they are clearly "human life".

I disagree. It is a human being. Being a human being is not defined by the capacity to feel pain. Some people suffer a very serious serious disorder where they can't feel pain. Do you think it is okay to just kill those people too, since they can't feel pain?

I don't know anybody opposed to abortion who would allow it for rape......I also know many many people who have had miscarriages and view it 100% a death, many people carry metal scars and trauma as a result of miscarriage.

Opposing modernism is about modern values of intolerance, individualism and self centred lives. It's about promoting corporate societies and family centred lives, about living for others not just ourselves.