DuracellEnergizer said:
Basically, I feel that existence on this world is one of suffering, that when one brings a child into this world, they not only bring more misery into this overpopulated, dying world, but they heap misery upon the child they've brought into this world, however unwittingly. I have felt, more often than not, that it is better not to ever be born into this world. I have felt that if there is an afterlife, it is best to skip right over this one and go straight to the end of the road to become one with God. That is why I've supported a person's right to have an abortion.
However, about a week ago, while I was lying in bed waiting to fall asleep, I began to wonder if perhaps aborting an unborn child doesn't spare them from the misery of this world. I began to wonder if God wanted people to be born into this world as some part of Its master plan -- I began to wonder if God incarnated souls into this material world so that they could live a life of physical suffering before finally graduating, so to speak, and passing on through into the spirit world. I began to wonder if abortion didn't just force the souls of the unborn to be reincarnated into another body, prolonging their suffering in this corrupted universe.

This is sort of the Jainist, Buddhist, and largely Hindu take on life/death/rebirth and the hope of a liberation from the cycle. Only in the case of Buddhists all life, including any Gods that might exist are all bound to the same wheel and Jainist (and Hindus) would consider the act of abortion to taint the spirit of the abortionist rather than damage the spiritual future of the unborn.

Seeing as souls, gods, reincarnation, Buddha consciousness etc can not be deduced or proven from the sort of evidence one would bring to a law court having them addressed in the sort of laws that would be brought into a law court doesn't make sense.

The 'sin' of adultery against a god shouldn't be brought to a court, the breach of civil contract can be and frequently is because you can prove someone signed it and you can prove someone broke the terms of that contract.

If you follow a religion you can voice disapproval of a religiously sanctioned act within the context of that religion but criminal law has to deal within legally definable vectors.

So if a state were to make abortion at some stage illegal it has to define what that means and define what the consequences of breaching that sanction are for a court to decide guilt or no guilt and for a judge to set a sentence if necessary.

It wouldn't be able to bring the soul of the baby or the wishes of a God to the attention of the court because there is no way of proving these things exist in any way beyond the minds of those who believe in such things.

Morality and Ethics a bit like religious beliefs are more a matter of personal conscience than a court room but the do come to bear in the law making process. By law makers considering them and voters voting for people who support policies that chime with their personal ethics and morals (but not their beliefs alone).