Earlier today, I came across this comment on a post over at blogsforterri.com from "Vanessa":

This is relatively unrelated, but since abortion was mentioned it triggered something that's puzzled me for good while in understanding anti-abortion sentiment and usually not too many people comment on posts like this anyway.

I think I understand why someone would be opposed to it after conception takes place. It's a potential life and it's sacred and hence shouldn't be ended. What I have more problems in understanding is where and also how you draw the line.

I don't mean to offend anyone but I have a hard time understanding. If abortion is wrong, then so is any form of birth control? If it is then why, and if it isn't why not?

I also have problems with the enigma of artificial conception. It's meant to help a couple create life but since only one cell cluster eventually qualifies and the others are destroyed, it's wrong?

I don't mean to rattle any cages but I'm having a really hard time wrapping my mind around the objections. Preferably, if anyone wants to share their thoughts, I'd like to hear from other women, because no objection to men, but pregnancy isn't about your bodies.

I responded, despite Vanessa's request for only women to respond. I find it incredibly inappropriate that men should be left out of a discussion such as this, especially when my own mother was once a young pregnant girl who was seriously considering an abortion. If she had gone through with it, there would be no me, so I have as much authority as anyone else to enter a discussion on the matter.

Here is my response:

Well, no offense to you, either, Vanessa, but pregnancy isn't about any woman's body, either. It's about the body that is growing inside her. Ask any woman who's had a baby. It is undeniable that that is not the same person.

As a human being, I have the same right to speak on the matter as you do, as I suffered the same opportunity to be a victim of this barbaric practice as you and everyone else on this earth who has and has not fallen victim to it.

The line I draw in my discussions of the matter of abortion is this: Once conception has occurred, we are talking about a human child whose right to life should be protected.

Cases of rape and incest may be a different matter. I will make a concession on the following basis: If you have consented to the act which created the life, you have consented to the pregnancy and the responsibility of protecting the life and health of the child as long as he/she is your responsibility.

I believe that forms of birth control that prevent above-mentioned conception from occurring are fine. Let the church piss on me for saying it, but if you prevent conception, you have prevented the life from being created. Of course, no birth control method is foolproof, and if it fails and a human life is created, there is an obligation to protect it.

I have been mulling over the "artificial conception" concept for several years now. On one hand, you are going out of your way to create life, but other lives do wind up being destroyed in the process. Friends and relatives of mine have conceived (or tried to conceive) this way. Fortuantely, for the time being, none of the children have been destroyed.

Cases in fact:

* D., a friend from college, and his wife B., had problems conceiving. No attempts at "arificial conception" were successful. This is very sad because they are wonderful people, and passing on those genes would have been a benefit to the world. Last I heard, they were working on adopting.

* B. and A., both friends from college (who met there, of course), had problems conceiving and used "artificial conception" to have their first child, a son. He is healthy and doing very well. They will be using the remaining embryos, which have been frozen, to attempt another pregnancy in the near future.

* J., my wife's cousin, and his wife T., had problems conceiving and used "artificial conception" to have their first child, a daughter who is also healthy and doing well. A second attempt to become pregnant in this fashion was unsuccessful, and all the remaining embryos were used in the process.

We must make a distinction, of course, between the intentional destruction of the embryos, and the occurrence of an unsuccessful implantation or a miscarriage, as these are not intentional occurrences. Like I said before, I have not formed a complete opinion on this part of the discussion because of the dilemma which exists. Should a couple who is willing to go out of their way to bring a life into the world be forced to choose between having no biological children at all, or being treated as murderers? This is the dilemma with regard to this. Perhaps a viable opportunity to donate embryos to couples who have problems creating them could be a good solution. And let's not forget adoption. That is always a good choice.

This position is pretty much the same as my wife's and other pro-life women that I know, just so you know.

RWR

I felt that this response was probably the most clear-cut version of the typical pro-life position. I also thought it was pretty well-written (patting myself on the back). I don't understand what could possibly be so difficult to understand about this.

RWR