My original post on this thread wasn't an attack on Adam's stance on abortion, but an objection to his characterisation of the pro-life lobby as unconcerend for the welfare of the embryo. Over on Onward Christian Soldiers, I didn't know Adam's position.

I am just as concerned with the woman, indeed if there is a choice between the two lives I would preserve hers.

Second, you say you are more concerned with a current embryo than a future baby. Which isn't terribly surprising, considering that you've already made clear that you're more concerned with a current embryo than a current woman. But you seem to be going back and forth with this; first you claim that the future state of the embryo as a human being (that was you, wasn't it?) justifies forcing a woman to carry the pregnancy, and now you're claiming that you're concerned with the here and now, not the future. Why is it that it's the future that matters when it comes to abortion, but the future is irrelevant in the case of severe birth defects, etc?

Of course, one could just exterminate the whole third world population and have done with it.

Andrea there is a very real difference between imprisoning a woman in a camp and not giving her access to the surgical techniques necessary for an abortion (which do not qualify as medical 'care'). The first requires postive action, the second merely requires inaction. The various substances you list do not kill the embryo: it is killing I wish to prevent. I am more concerned with the embryo in the womb today than with the potential baby out of the womb in the future: this obeys a normal moral priniciple which directs your attention to the present situation rather than what may or may not happen in the hereafter.

And SpeirM, I do know quite a few Christians. I *was* a Christian till I was oh, about 14. I still go home and see people in the community. That's why I said "in my experience" and not "all". Your experience may indeed differ. But don't discount mine just because it doesn't mesh with yours.

For that reason, I absolutely hate it when I see commercials for sponsor-a-child charities. For only 80 cents a day, you can give this child food, water, and an education. Okay, but if this child is going to need a sponsor from the ages of, say, 6 to 18, you're looking at about $3500 to prevent one human from suffering. (Then, with the dire conditions still in place, that child will likely have more children, and the problem repeats itself, only with more mouths to feed.)

But, what if we take that $3500 and spend it on birth control? Given that one can buy a 12-pack of condoms at the local 99-cent store where I live, and estimating that one in 100 condoms will prevent an unwanted birth, that same $3500 could prevent over 400 children from being born into poverty and suffering, and requiring food, water, shelter, and clothing from charities in the future.

So really, birth control is only an "odd priority" if you're looking solely at the extreme short-term. If these places are ever to become self-sufficient, they need to get their population under control first. When they're able to feed most everyone, then they can acquire new technologies to increase output, and their population can grow comfortably. Food and water without birth control will merely assure that those areas will remain in poverty for years and years to come.

And I wonder if abortion clinics will get into lobbying also.