vi_edit: Yes.
GL: The gist of what I was saying, though I inadvertently omitted this simplicity, is that I don't agree even with very early abortions or with that abortion pill (which, if I understand it correctly, prevents the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall). Basically, life begins at conception. Someone mentioned the brainwave thing above.
The abortion debate is rather pointless actually. The fundamental difference is that while people like myself believe life begins at conception (or at a similar moment early on) and that such life should be held sacred and protected, the "pro-choice" crowd doesn't look at the question in terms of life, but rather in terms of external liberties. There's a disconnect in the approach to the problem, and until the outlooks cross that divide, there is no movement or understanding possible.
I can also define it as a balancing act. I would rather relinquish a portion of liberty for the sanctity of life. If the chance exists that the pro-life crowd is correct, and abortion destroys a life, then what have we lost? A child. If the reverse is true, someone loses a "choice". Child v. choice. I don't see how one can be chosen over another.
Maybe it has something to do with a strong paternal instinct. My wife and I will probably start a family in the next year or two, and I've come to realize that's what I want to do more than anything else. Most of life bores me after awhile, and I see my niece and nephew growing up now by leaps and bounds. What wonderment and joy there is in a child's eyes, and millions have died because of abortion since Roe v. Wade. It's very sad, and I do hope that some day we can look back and realize what a terrible mistake it was.
Moonbeam: You're a loon.