Is Answering To Pro Abortion/choice Poster Taking You Away From What You Need To Do About The Issue Of Abortion

[Voco_proTatiano]

There is a lot of information there but I did not see anything specific about What to do Before the End of Election Day. Do you have a more specific link?

So you all have been advised what to do, and you have al made your own judgements.
The die is cast.
But let us now cast back our minds to another age.
In AD 198, the first Latin Pope died.
He was Victorius Africanus Sanctus.
He was in fact, the first Black Pope.
From Carthage, now Libya.
Before he died, he commissioned a college to create a Latin new testament.
In Rome, he was a Latin speaker, for very few mainland Romans understood the Semitic dialect of Carthage.
It was he who laid thev foundations for the Latin Vulgate, for St Jerome used over 84% of his Gospel texts, unmodified.
Victorius never saw his commission completed, but it stands as his memorial.
Now, in your country, you have raised an African American to be President Elect. Your Chosen one.
He promises much.
He promises a New America.
You stand at a fork in the road: which way will you turn.
Now is a time of hope, and fear.
Hope for those who desire change from what has become rotten, and fear for those who dare not imagine those changes.
The old ones promised to serve Mother Church, but that was a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Promises given in desparation. Promises given in vain hope that, what ever was needed to save themselves, they would give. Promises never given in seriousness, but in utter contempt.
There had been ample time for the promises to be effected, but they were, and still are empty promises.

The People have decided that a promise of change is preferred to more of the same.
The People have decided that promises of religious favour are not appropriate in a secular state.
I warned that what you looked for was not politically viable, and the People have proved this to be true.

What you call for cannot be achieved overnight.
The walls cannot be felled with a single shot.
You have to pick at the walls, and nibble the stones out.
You have to persuade that the walls be not repaired.
Then, in time, the walls will collapse of their own fragility.

First, let us work against what is clearly obscene.
Even the atheists will support this.

Then let us work against that which is cruel,
Any human being will support this.

Then let us, in honesty, accept the undesirable, when it is clearly necessary.

Remember, to the open minded, the future offers hope.
To the closed mind, it offers fear.

 

[JDaniel]

Now is a time of hope, and fear.
Hope for those who desire change from what has become rotten, and fear for those who dare not imagine those changes.
The old ones promised to serve Mother Church, but that was a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Promises given in desparation. Promises given in vain hope that, what ever was needed to save themselves, they would give. Promises never given in seriousness, but in utter contempt.
There had been ample time for the promises to be effected, but they were, and still are empty promises.

The People have decided that a promise of change is preferred to more of the same.
The People have decided that promises of religious favour are not appropriate in a secular state.
I warned that what you looked for was not politically viable, and the People have proved this to be true.

What you call for cannot be achieved overnight.
The walls cannot be felled with a single shot.
You have to pick at the walls, and nibble the stones out.
You have to persuade that the walls be not repaired.
Then, in time, the walls will collapse of their own fragility.

First, let us work against what is clearly obscene.
Even the atheists will support this.

Then let us work against that which is cruel,
Any human being will support this.

Then let us, in honesty, accept the undesirable, when it is clearly necessary.

Remember, to the open minded, the future offers hope.
To the closed mind, it offers fear.

What are you talking about? Your diatribe sounds like sarcasm aimed at those who voted for the conservative ticket.

“Cause and effect; cause and effect; cause and effect.”

You seem to have cited an effect, but, your assumed “cause” is clearly incorrect.

JD

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

What are you talking about? Your diatribe sounds like sarcasm aimed at those who voted for the conservative ticket.

“Cause and effect; cause and effect; cause and effect.”

You seem to have cited an effect, but, your assumed “cause” is clearly incorrect.

JD

There is none so blind as him who WILL NOT see.

 

[wanner47]

There is none so blind as him who WILL NOT see.

Ah, irony at its finest.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Ah, irony at its finest.

The problem with this arguement is that the choice is between chalk and cheese.
One, speaks plainly that reasonable choice will in a SECULAR society, be protected. It is up to you to persuade him what is reasonable,
The other comes from a culture, which though professing to be servants of Our Lord, are in fact loyal servants of MAMMON.
Our Lord tells us:
You cannot serve G_d and MAMMON.

The servants of MAMMON are unrepentant, and dedicated to their master.
Even though their dedication has brought about, not only the ruination of the US economy, but also imperiled the rest of the world.

Given the systematic evil of the old chalk, the accidental evil of the new cheese is less culpable.

There is no perfect solution.

There is only a least worst solution.

That hope should vanquish fear, is the best news the world has had for many years.

 

[JDaniel]

There is none so blind as him who WILL NOT see.

Ah. You’re so clever!

JD

 

[JDaniel]

The problem with this arguement is that the choice is between chalk and cheese.
One, speaks plainly that reasonable choice will in a SECULAR society, be protected. It is up to you to persuade him what is reasonable,
The other comes from a culture, which though professing to be servants of Our Lord, are in fact loyal servants of MAMMON.
Our Lord tells us:
You cannot serve G_d and MAMMON.

The servants of MAMMON are unrepentant, and dedicated to their master.
Even though their dedication has brought about, not only the ruination of the US economy, but also imperiled the rest of the world.

Given the systematic evil of the old chalk, the accidental evil of the new cheese is less culpable.

There is no perfect solution.

There is only a least worst solution.

That hope should vanquish fear, is the best news the world has had for many years.

Voco:

We’re nearly on the same side EXCEPT for your rather juvenile understanding of our economy and the world economy. It is beyond strange that you throw stones at the American economy - the economy that FEEDS almost all of the rest of the world. And, those few who refuse our help let the gentry starve to death. PERIOD. Even among the few first world countries on this planet, there is simply not enough GDP to help as we do.

So, we serve MAMMON.

Also, President Bush almost singlehandedly, with no substantial help from the Dems, kept America from being attacked again. Do you think this might be important to those hungry people dependent upon us? If we did not serve MAMMON, in moderation, we could stand there with most of the rest of the world and watch thousands and thousands just wither and die. Talk of “systematic evil”.

Further, you either don’t know, or, refuse to understand that the so called “mortgage crisis” here was NOT under some sort of direct control of President Bush. In fact, it was most assuredly set in motion by the Dems with our new Pres-elect receiving a nice annual stipend for his participation.

And you speak to me about an unwillingness to see? Please, don’t be moronic. You’re so much smarter than that.

JD

 

[averheyen]

Dear Friend,
It grieves me that you have a severe burden to bear, but I was not talking of disabilities that could be with a little effort, lived with.
I was talking of utter disability:
Deaf/blind comes to mind, or worse, combined with paralysis.
There is, as the trek to Switzerland proves, a goodly number of people who honestly believe that there are many things worse than death.
As I said: Let him who denies me the right to die with dignity, PAY for the loving care that he insists that I have. And further, let him be responsible for the abuse of power which all too often takes place in asylums for the incompetent.
Know that your principles have a cost, and that cost is YOUR responsibility.

Are you on crack?

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Voco:

We’re nearly on the same side EXCEPT for your rather juvenile understanding of our economy and the world economy. It is beyond strange that you throw stones at the American economy - the economy that FEEDS almost all of the rest of the world. And, those few who refuse our help let the gentry starve to death. PERIOD. Even among the few first world countries on this planet, there is simply not enough GDP to help as we do.

I do understand that is how you see it, but others see your GDP to be mainly a result of your parasitic preying on 3rd world countries. If they grew maize in stead of tobacco or coffee, then they would not be starving.

So, we serve MAMMON.

Also, President Bush almost singlehandedly, with no substantial help from the Dems, kept America from being attacked again. Do you think this might be important to those hungry people dependent upon us? If we did not serve MAMMON, in moderation, we could stand there with most of the rest of the world and watch thousands and thousands just wither and die. Talk of “systematic evil”.

No. MAMMON should be your slave.
Mammon needs to be in chains.
Mammon is like a nuclear reactor, uncontrolled, it either shuts down, or makes an unholy hole in the ground.

Further, you either don’t know, or, refuse to understand that the so called “mortgage crisis” here was NOT under some sort of direct control of President Bush.

No! read again the above.
The fault with serving Mammon, is that Mammon is given a free hand. There are no controls. Greed is given its evil head. The reactor goes super-critical, or shuts down.

In fact, it was most assuredly set in motion by the Dems with our new Pres-elect receiving a nice annual stipend for his participation.

And you speak to me about an unwillingness to see? Please, don’t be moronic. You’re so much smarter than that.

JD

Any honest person who reads the Gospels, cannot come away with the idea that allowing the economy to free-run without any controls, relying upon the theory of greed to drive for maximum growth, is in Our Lord’s words, is to serve Mammon, and to be an enemy of G_d.
You can be a capitalist without being a monetarist.
Capitalism is not necessarily evil.
Christian capitalism understands Mammon, and uses him, but always as a slave.
Monetarism allows Mammon a free hand, and is the slave of Mammon.
The real problem is that Mammon is not completely understood.
Thus both sides can make innocent mistakes.
The monetarists in their hubris, however do not consider these to be mistakes.

However, all this is grossly off topic.
I was merely iolluminating that thogh you might not like vthe Dems, the Reds are far from innocent.

Remember, Our Lord was gentle in his condemnation of sexual matters, but damning in his condemnation of Mammon.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Are you on crack?

Quis es tu?
No, I am not a crackhead.
Your Ad hominem does you no credit.

That I can see what you seem not to see, perhaps shows that my spectacles came from a better store than yours.

 

[yellowbicycle]

I’m confused about this whole ‘not a person until quickening’
You know that many women NEVER feel the baby move, right?
Never.
So, the DAY before they deliver, that baby STILL isn’t a person?
Adn what if my baby only kicks at night and I didn’t feel it? My husband was always shocked in the morning when I was pregnant that, though HE could feel the babies kicking in me, I was sound asleep, didn’t feel a thing. For nearly three days, HE could feel the babies kick and I couldn’t. Were they still not people?

And if we’re not sure when life begins, how come when we study organisms’ life cycles in biology class (frogs, birds, whatever) it ALWAYS starts with ‘The egg is fertilized’?
Even when we study human biology, the life cycle chapter always starts with the fertilized egg. What happened to science in all of this?

biologyreference.com/La-Ma/Life-Cycle-Human.html
sciencemuseum.org.uk/on-line/lifecycle/

And…in pictures…
gtchild.co.uk/content/images/stories/human_body/lifecycle.jpg

 

[neat62]

The best thing this site has EVER done was to suspend that bitter, angry, and nasty woman Marietta. I hope it is permanent, my prayers for her are exhausting and seemingly futile. I did my best for her. Adios, I hope.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

I’m confused about this whole ‘not a person until quickening’
You know that many women NEVER feel the baby move, right?
Never.

No, No, No!
That is NOT what I said.
My words were precise, and repeated many times.
The foetus is not PROVED to be an individual person until the quickening.
Prior to that, its status is unknown.
At some time prior to the quickening, maybe as early as 8 weeks, the CNS is quite highly developed. It may even be quite functional in its components, however, only after the quickening, do we have proof that it is functioning as an integrated system.[sign]
So, the DAY before they deliver, that baby STILL isn’t a person?
Adn what if my baby only kicks at night and I didn’t feel it? My husband was always shocked in the morning when I was pregnant that, though HE could feel the babies kicking in me, I was sound asleep, didn’t feel a thing. For nearly three days, HE could feel the babies kick and I couldn’t. Were they still not people?[/sign]
Do you still, in view of the above, require an answer to this point?[sign]And if we’re not sure when life begins, how come when we study organisms’ life cycles in biology class (frogs, birds, whatever) it ALWAYS starts with ‘The egg is fertilized’?
Even when we study human biology, the life cycle chapter always starts with the fertilized egg. What happened to science in all of this? [/sign]
Well, the day begins at midnight.
But we all know that this is an arbitrary point.
Some cultures said sunset, some sunrise, some at the end of twilight.
Science does not say that LIFE begins with conception, only that the newly defined DNA sequence begins with conception.
You said yourself “life cycle” implying that you understand, in the back of your mind, that, like day following day, life is cyclical, and so the actual start point in the story is arbitrary.
You see, both the sperm and the oocite are in themselves alive, and so are living forms of humanity. You might like to think of them as spores of humanity, or even a larval form of humanity.
These larval forms mate by combining, one, with the other.
This is a form of mating, still found in some single celled creatures.
We do not consider that a new life is formed at this instant, only that a new and different pathway has been taken in the reproductive pathway. The commonest form of reproduction, even found among those that undergo this primitive form of mating, is still vegetative binary fission.[sign]
biologyreference.com/La-Ma/Life-Cycle-Human.html
sciencemuseum.org.uk/on-line/lifecycle/

And…in pictures…
gtchild.co.uk/content/images/stories/human_body/lifecycle.jpg[/sign]
This very interesting data is only relevant if the assumption is made that neither sperm, nor oocite are in themselves alive.

The point I am making here is that the newly defined DNA form does not require a new animal soul to enliven it, for the animal soul that enlivened the oocite and the sperm, present at conception, are still present in the embryo.

As for the divine, immortal, rational soul: when and how that arises, is still an open question.
Whether that is cogent to this thread is another question.

 

[JDaniel]

I do understand that is how you see it, but others see your GDP to be mainly a result of your parasitic preying on 3rd world countries. If they grew maize in stead of tobacco or coffee, then they would not be starving.

In other words, we need them for survival? We produce so little that we could not exist without preying on 3rd-world countries? While it is true that America has worked to expand our production to other countries, even 3rd world ones, I can assure you, sir, greed is not the cause or purpose.

No. MAMMON should be your slave.

And it is.

No! read again the above.
The fault with serving Mammon, is that Mammon is given a free hand. There are no controls. Greed is given its evil head. The reactor goes super-critical, or shuts down.

Where do you get this stuff from?

Do you not have any idea how we’ve have brought MAMMON under our complete control? You have no idea of what we do in order to obtain the results we obtain. You See with eyes tainted with hatred of America.

Any honest person who reads the Gospels, cannot come away with the idea that allowing the economy to free-run without any controls, relying upon the theory of greed to drive for maximum growth, is in Our Lord’s words, is to serve Mammon, and to be an enemy of G_d.

Who does this? Are you pointing at America? You, sir, must be on crack! No, forget I said that. You are a communist.

You can be a capitalist without being a monetarist.
Capitalism is not necessarily evil.

I don’t believe you just said that.

Monetarism allows Mammon a free hand, and is the slave of Mammon.

I might probably agree with you here if our definitions were similar and our world-view a little sharper.

You are labeling us “monitarists!” This means you have no idea of us except through the hate of someone else.

We are really not much different from everyone else on this planet.

Except, we allow our citizens the free hand to try to produce a thing that will return value. That value might be as simple as feeding, clothing, and housing the owner’s family. It’s, therefore, hand-in-hand a part of survival.

Or, that value might be the production of huge amounts of foods so they can be “given” to others. Including, I might add, others in 3rd world countries that would without doubt starve to death.

The real problem is that Mammon is not completely understood.

There are some Americans that fit this.

Thus both sides can make innocent mistakes.

Something you might think about a little bit more.

The monetarists in their hubris, however do not consider these to be mistakes.

True.

However, all this is grossly off topic.
I was merely iolluminating that thogh you might not like vthe Dems, the Reds are far from innocent.

Please let me try to explain how our economy works. By allowing our citizens to have free hands to produce, we are, you could say, “stocking the pond”. Why do we stock such a huge pond? Because, only a very few build effective rafts.

The capitalist (and, sometimes, a monitarist or two) is the person under the raft. Not only did he create the raft, but also, he is now swimming for his life to keep it afloat. Why? Because on its top are many people that would otherwise drown.

If, perchance, he encounters something that makes him go under, he sinks under the weight and the people on top swim quickly off to another raft. If we get too much weight on the remaining rafts, they too will sink. Then, we have catastrophe.

Believe me, what we do is not fun. It is pure survival. If we are fortunate enough to over-produce, we self-encourage giving it away. At least, most of us do.

Remember, Our Lord was gentle in his condemnation of sexual matters, but damning in his condemnation of Mammon.

This is off-topic.

JD

 

[JDaniel]

I’m confused about this whole ‘not a person until quickening’
You know that many women NEVER feel the baby move, right?
Never.
So, the DAY before they deliver, that baby STILL isn’t a person?
Adn what if my baby only kicks at night and I didn’t feel it? My husband was always shocked in the morning when I was pregnant that, though HE could feel the babies kicking in me, I was sound asleep, didn’t feel a thing. For nearly three days, HE could feel the babies kick and I couldn’t. Were they still not people?

And if we’re not sure when life begins, how come when we study organisms’ life cycles in biology class (frogs, birds, whatever) it ALWAYS starts with ‘The egg is fertilized’?
Even when we study human biology, the life cycle chapter always starts with the fertilized egg. What happened to science in all of this?

biologyreference.com/La-Ma/Life-Cycle-Human.html
sciencemuseum.org.uk/on-line/lifecycle/

And…in pictures…
gtchild.co.uk/content/images/stories/human_body/lifecycle.jpg

I do too. It seems rather self-agrandizing.

JD

 

[JDaniel]

I’m confused about this whole ‘not a person until quickening’
You know that many women NEVER feel the baby move, right?
Never.
So, the DAY before they deliver, that baby STILL isn’t a person?
Adn what if my baby only kicks at night and I didn’t feel it? My husband was always shocked in the morning when I was pregnant that, though HE could feel the babies kicking in me, I was sound asleep, didn’t feel a thing. For nearly three days, HE could feel the babies kick and I couldn’t. Were they still not people?

And if we’re not sure when life begins, how come when we study organisms’ life cycles in biology class (frogs, birds, whatever) it ALWAYS starts with ‘The egg is fertilized’?
Even when we study human biology, the life cycle chapter always starts with the fertilized egg. What happened to science in all of this?

biologyreference.com/La-Ma/Life-Cycle-Human.html
sciencemuseum.org.uk/on-line/lifecycle/

And…in pictures…
gtchild.co.uk/content/images/stories/human_body/lifecycle.jpg

The only possible refutation of Voco proTatiano is to simply deny his assertion. He proves nothing. He postulates only, in defense of his opinion.

The fact that there is a time of “quickening” and that it at one time was considered the point at which body and soul were fused, is irrelevant. There was also a time when it was considered that the earth was flat.

The Church, Aristotle, St. Thomas, et al, have concluded that he is wrong. All the way up to the present day.

JD

 

[HappyRevert]

Voco Pro Tatiano,

I have so many questions that I don’t know where to begin. So I’ll just start with the ones that come to mind.

1. I don’t understand your argument that spermatazoa and oocytes are small human beings. They do not contain the genetic material to grow into a human. After they fuse, they contain the correct number of chromosomes to now become a separate human distinct from both the mother, father and any non-identical siblings. As soon as they fuse, barring problems, they will grow into a human and not a rhinoceros or giraffe. However, a spermatozoa is not capable of that, nor is an oocyte. An identical twin is also created at this time - they just separate at some point during their growth to become separate individuals, but certainly fertilization is where that begins. Please explain to me again, your logic because I am completely missing it.
2. You state that the best guess for the time a soul is around quickening at 16 weeks, but I believe in a later post you say 8 weeks. However, they have placed cameras in the womb significantly before those times and show the developing child moving and when being aborted, climbing away from the suction (I particularly gag at this). Where are you getting those figures?
3. I also would like to ask what if you are wrong? What if indeed life begins at conception as many of us believe. I have a cousin who was born at just about 1 lb. and is now 5 years old. She could have been an abortion. The only thing standing between her life and being an abortion was her parent’s love for her. Her mother’s life (and hers) was at risk so she had to be delivered early. Even then, didn’t she deserve a chance at life instead of being thrown into a bin somewhere to suffocate. There are awful cases where children need to be delivered early, or horrible cases of deformity, but don’t they deserve a chance at life? Science can do wonderful things, so don’t they at least deserve a chance? To pretend that a fetus is not a helpless child (helpless outside the womb) seems heartless. I would like to hear your thoughts on this.
4. My last question is a practical one. The UN has published studies that show that in countries that ban abortion the maternal and infant mortality rate is lower than those countries that perform abortions both in highly developed and less developed countries lifenews.com/int776.html, un.org/esa/population/publications/worldmortality/WMR2005.pdf. Doesn’t that point to the economic and medical reasons why abortions shouldn’t be performed?

I would like to hear your logic on this since I can’t rationally understand how someone could say that abortion is correct - even with some arguments about when life begins…

 

[averheyen]

Quis es tu?
No, I am not a crackhead.
Your Ad hominem does you no credit.

That I can see what you seem not to see, perhaps shows that my spectacles came from a better store than yours.

Ok, well what you are saying is so far off the beaten track, I’m honestly left with no other conclusion. Seriously now, are you on drugs? Because if you actually believe what you are saying, then that is messed right up.

I’ll pray for you./

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Voco Pro Tatiano,

I have so many questions that I don’t know where to begin. So I’ll just start with the ones that come to mind.

1. I don’t understand your argument that spermatazoa and oocytes are small human beings. They do not contain the genetic material to grow into a human. After they fuse, they contain the correct number of chromosomes to now become a separate human distinct from both the mother, father and any non-identical siblings. As soon as they fuse, barring problems, they will grow into a human and not a rhinoceros or giraffe. However, a spermatozoa is not capable of that, nor is an oocyte. An identical twin is also created at this time - they just separate at some point during their growth to become separate individuals, but certainly fertilization is where that begins. Please explain to me again, your logic because I am completely missing it.

In the simplest of terms, the spermatazoa and oocites are: in their own time-scale, which is, actually, quite a normal time scale for a unicelular organism, independant living organisms or beings, and as they are entirely human, they are ergo, human beings.
That they have only a haploid set of DNA is of no great importance, as the DNA comes in twinned copies, one copy of each gene in the diploid set is in any case inhibited, thus the absense of the duplicate copy is of no functional significance.

1. You state that the best guess for the time a soul is around quickening at 16 weeks, but I believe in a later post you say 8 weeks. However, they have placed cameras in the womb significantly before those times and show the developing child moving and when being aborted, climbing away from the suction (I particularly gag at this). Where are you getting those figures?

The quickening is traditionally set at ABOUT twenty weeks, however, some mothers experience the quickening two or three weeks earlier, and intrauterine camera work indicates that it could start earlier still. 16 weeks is my best estimate based upon publications on the subject.
I do not state absolutely that the quickening is the beginning of personhood, only that it is the first proof.
Some seemingly organised movement has been detected as early aqs 8 weeks, but the organisation of this movement is not universally convincing, whereas the quickening is.
I have no hesitation in condemning late abortion, that is, post quickening, as cruel, hence inhumane, and abortion of near term pregnancies as obscene.
End of part one

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Voco Pro Tatiano,

I have so many questions that I don’t know where to begin. So I’ll just start with the ones that come to mind.

Part two

1. I also would like to ask what if you are wrong? What if indeed life begins at conception as many of us believe. I have a cousin who was born at just about 1 lb. and is now 5 years old. She could have been an abortion.

The fact that your cousin’s infant was born alive, and has survive, indicates, that in today’s science, she was delivered after at least 22 weeks. This put her well past quickening, and into what I consider the cruel, hence inhumane zone.

The only thing standing between her life and being an abortion was her parent’s love for her. Her mother’s life (and hers) was at risk so she had to be delivered early. Even then, didn’t she deserve a chance at life instead of being thrown into a bin somewhere to suffocate. There are awful cases where children need to be delivered early, or horrible cases of deformity, but don’t they deserve a chance at life? Science can do wonderful things, so don’t they at least deserve a chance? To pretend that a fetus is not a helpless child (helpless outside the womb) seems heartless. I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

The abortion of a foetus, on the grounds that it is deformed to the point of non-viability, is a form of involuntary euthanasia.
Mother Church does not accept voluntary euthanasia, so I can understand her attitude to non voluntary euthanasia.
My personal attitude is that, as long as the pregnancy does not endanger the mother, nor any siblings of a co-pregnancy, the pregnancy should be allowed to come to term, and the born infant given a proper assessment as a born infant.
Yes, science has made huge steps, but I still believe that if the foetus is to be deemed as unviable, or that its life is condemned to be that of a cabbage, then it should be allowed to slip peacefully away. Yes, this is involuntary euthanasia, and it is a terrible judgement.
It is a judgement I have been forced to make with two of my dogs.
In both cases the judgement was a torture, and in both cases it broke my heart.
It was a judgement I did not take lightly, even for a humble dog.
How much more so for a human being, which had the promise of the next generation.

1. My last question is a practical one. The UN has published studies that show that in countries that ban abortion the maternal and infant mortality rate is lower than those countries that perform abortions both in highly developed and less developed countries lifenews.com/int776.html, un.org/esa/population/publications/worldmortality/WMR2005.pdf. Doesn’t that point to the economic and medical reasons why abortions shouldn’t be performed?

I cannot judge this data.
Such information as is freely available, indicates that in the third world, perinatal mortality is very high, with up to 20% of pregnancies resulting in the death of mother or child, or both.
However, even in the most primitive of societies, the knowledge of abortant drugs is well known.

I would like to hear your logic on this since I can’t rationally understand how someone could say that abortion is correct - even with some arguments about when life begins…

Actually, my position on when an abortion should be permitted is very tight.
1/ After 16 weeks, there should be no abortions except under the most pressing circumstances involving real and present threat to the life of the mother, and even in these cases, it should be treated as a premature emergency delivery, and every effort should be made to save the infant alive.
2/ Before 16 weeks, abortion should be allowed if:
…a/ the foetus is clearly grossly deformed,
…b/ the foetus presents a hazard to siblings of a co-pregnancy,
…c/ the foetus presents a hazard to the mother, eg, it is ectopic.

Under no circumstances do I accept as reasonable, the use of abortion as a means of contraception, except in the case of the ‘morning after’ pill, used in the case of rape.

So, you see, I am a long way down your road.
I just believe you weaken your hand by overplaying it.