While yes, most people know the difference between right and wrong where do you draw the line between what's right and wrong. You could ask 50 people and get huge disagreement on where the line is drawn on even the abortion issue. That's where "gray" comes in. Another example; stealing is wrong, but what about stealing to feed a family? If that's "white", exactly where does the line get drawn?
Few people I know would turn down an outlawing of abortion because of an exception for the above.
If you're referring to a law that would outlaw abortion and allow no exception there are many that would oppose it, including myself. This is because yes, rape/incest and life of mother issues are extremely rare, but it would take only one case where someone in that situation died because of an illegal abortion to cause a public outcry against the law leading to more harm than good being done to the pro-life movement. When your goal is to see abortions reduced you have to look at all the implications of your action in order to take the best possible goal.
I don't know a single soul who is pro-life who endorses the morning after pill.
Count me as one that is uncommitted on this issue and yet is against abortion. That is only because of the fact that you have to look at the overall costs/benefits to society for such an action. Is society better off by it or not? For abortion as a whole I would say society is worse off by far. But with just the morning after pill? I'm not as sure.
Here we are, right back at moral relativism. Yes, it is wrong to steal to feed your family. Just as wrong as it is to steal for any other reason.
If you're referring to a law that would outlaw abortion and allow no exception there are many that would oppose it, including myself.
I am sorry, I must not have expressed myself clearly. Let me reiterate: I believe that most on the pro-life side would *not* oppose a law that would outlaw all abortion except where rape, incest, or life of the mother are in evidence.
Many who are opposed even to those conditions are opposed because rape and life of the mother can be stretched beyond the common meaning to mean just about anything...
For instance, a woman comes in during her fourth month and summarily declares the child to be the product of a rape, and wants to have an abortion. If all it takes is that declaration, what real teeth are in the law? Anyone could just declare rape and abortion would go on unhindered.
As another example, a doctor declares that a woman needs to have an abortion because the child-to-be is hindering her mental well-being... It is easy to see that the lawyers could stretch "life of the mother" to cover such a claim, and again, we are back to unhindered abortion, albeit with the collusion of the physician or psychiatrist/psychologist.
So it is the structure of the exception that folks may be opposed to, for the reasons and examples stated above.
No one would deny an abortion where the child is not yet viable and the life of the mother is truly physically at risk. Such an awful decision should be left in the hands of the woman, her husband and their families as to how one might proceed. But every consideration should be given to the life in the womb- If it is possible to deliver the child by any means, those means should be employed to the best of our collective ability.
That is only because of the fact that you have to look at the overall costs/benefits to society for such an action. Is society better off by it or not? For abortion as a whole I would say society is worse off by far. But with just the morning after pill? I'm not as sure.
While I understand your concern, I will strenuously object. The morning after pill is still the murder of a child, and still allows people to rut about with an escape of consequence.
Life is holy, all of it, every bit. The making of human life is also holy, and is specifically to be performed with in the bonds and boundaries of holy matrimony, as set forth by our Maker. Any compromise of that ethic will only hasten our slouching path toward Gomorrah.