Thoughts from a neutral observer...

What I find particularly interesting regarding abortion is the idea that pro-choice is essentially an appeal to eschew responsibility. Pro-choice vs pro-life often looks at the more ethical standard of whether or not it is right or wrong to abort a fetus. The other variable to consider, however, is what pro-choice means, at least when it's applied to the current earthly zeitgeist.

Pro-choice, in a sense, is an appeal to the physical--care-free sex that feels good, with minimal consequences. It is anti-religious not only because religious texts say that having children is pious, but because excess with regards to the material will in turn degrade the spiritual.

Whether or not it's moral to abort a fetus is irrelevant, at least for the overwhelming majority of the population, because morality has long been discarded as a social construct designed to control a people. In a world where individualism and the internal locus of control prevails, any appeal to morality or ethics is considered a chain that binds and inhibits progress.

When morality becomes an abstract concept, appeals to the physical or tangible become the cult. This is what we're seeing now. The corporate lifestyle has replaced religion. Instead of prayer, worship is done through sacrifice and overtime at the office. Where before attending a house of worship was meant to enrich the soul, the workplace enriches a person's wallet.

So the question is, why can't we have a golden mean between material well-being and moral cohesion? When did morality become a taboo subject? It would seem that being a good person is considered a bad trait today because people will use you to further their material endeavors.

Just some food for thought.