I have thought about this quite a bit over the years. The wide spread of opinions is incredible, matched only by the passion of the activists on all sides. This is an issue that few people are even able to have a civilized discussion about. Complicating it further is that there are few that hold a black-and-white few of the issue. The majority of people in the US see abortion as a giant grey area with varying degrees of abortion considered acceptable. Very few people hold the position of unlimited abortion access or no abortion under any circumstances. Below is the process I went through to come up with my position on the matter.

First, I asked myself the question at what point does a human being obtain "personhood" and as such gain all the legal and moral protections that status entitles them to? There are some who say that the point of personhood is 28 days AFTER birth, at which point you still should be allowed to abort. In fact, there is a professor of ethics at Princeton University that actively advocates this position. This is the position that spurred “Born Alive” legislation that says if a woman has an abortion and the baby survives, that doctors cannot withhold care and let the baby die on the operating table. Others say up to the point of birth. These folks would hold that partial birth abortion is a reasonable procedure. Or perhaps just before while the mother is in labor. Or 6 months of gestation or 3 months or three weeks. I wrestled with this for a long time.

Then I looked at the issue a different way. Does human life have an imputed value or an intrinsic one? If we say that it is imputed, meaning the value is derived from something else, some outside criteria, then any one of the above positions would be equally valid. We as a society would decide what criteria to select. My problem with this is what criteria do you use? On what basis is a baby at 6 weeks more valuable than a baby at 5 weeks? Is a baby that has not yet developed a heart still a baby? This hit really hard on my wife and I when we lost one of our children. Lynne had a miscarriage a few years ago. When people with strong pro-choice sentiments gave us their condolences, they referred to the fetus as a child, even though she (we named her Grace, even though we do not know for sure if she was a she or a he. It made it easier to explain to the children what happened and easier for Lynne and I to grieve our loss) was at the same gestational point, 9 weeks, that they believed abortion was merely removing some unwanted tissue of the mother. So, the criteria used is whether or not a child is wanted. If that is so, then why?

By similar logic, if the value of human life is imputed, it can also be taken away, depending on what some person or group of persons believe that life is worth. So if you happen to be mentally retarded or black or Jewish, it would be perfectly reasonable for you to be killed off for the good of the community if they believe it. I have a friend who is paralyzed from the neck down. There are some in the world who would look at her and say that she has no quality of life or that the money and effort to support her would be better used on others. They would have her die due to her handicap. But knowing her the way I do I find the notion that she is without a quality of life to be ridiculous on its face. She is a writer, a painter, a social worker, and heads up an international charity. I’d call that a pretty good quality of life. So would her husband who married her years after her accident put her in the wheelchair. Thus, the imputed value logic is shown to me to be completely arbitrary. Following any of the “prior to this point it is not human but at this one on it is” positions is likewise arbitrary and does not answer the question of personhood.

But consider the proposition that human life has an intrinsic value. That it is valuable simply because it is human life and no other reason. No measure or quantification of the value of it, it is and that is enough. It is sort of like gold. Gold is valuable because it is gold, not because we as a society stood up one day and said, “we are going to make gold valuable”. Gold has an intrinsic value as opposed to an imputed value, such as paper currency. Paper currency is worthless in and of itself. It has value only because we say it has a certain value.

This position then would support a clear line between human life and not human life. With this position, you are a human at the point that you have a unique genetic code. In other words, at inception. Prior to inception, there was no “you”. The male and female reproductive components in and of themselves are not a unique genetic code, but merely parts of the donors. It is only when they combine to create new life do “you” begin to be a person.

The notion of intrinsic value also carries forward throughout life. My mother-in-law was on dialysis for several months before diabetes finally took her life. There are many who would have said that she should just die and not burden the rest of us. If those persons held the position that human life has imputed value, I can understand. I however, believe that human life is intrinsically valuable and worth preserving and protecting for as long as possible. Thus, we should protect life at the beginning and at the end and at all points in between.

So, we come full circle back to the question of abortion. Should it be outlawed? My answer, since I believe in the intrinsic value of human life, is that for the most part it should. Why only “for the most part”? Because there are times when you have to weigh the life of two humans and pick one to live and one to die. My sister-in-law faced such a problem once. She got pregnant from her husband and it turned out to be a tubal pregnancy. Had the child been allowed to grow inside of her, it would have killed her before the baby would have been able to survive on its own. Thus, in weighing these two lives, one would have to conclude that the baby would have to die in order to save the mother’s life. What about cases of rape or incest? I have 5 daughters (yes, that was no typo) and the thought of one of them being raped is always lurking in the back of my mind. If one of them should get pregnant as a result, the hard decision would be to let that child live. Pregnancy is not the extremely dangerous event of the past. Rarely do people die from giving birth. Many more die as a result of complications after an abortion. But the bottom line is that the child is innocent of any crime, so why punish it? I’m not saying it is an easy choice and I can certainly sympathize with those who have had to make it. Perhaps they even made the wrong choice. But, God is a loving and forgiving God, who can even forgive the taking of a human life. Which is what abortion is.
References :

Another factor is that often they DO report it only to be made fun of and to have police refuse to take a report.

I know of one man who did report an attempted stabbing by his girlfriend and police did arrest her. When she was taken to jail, a female deputy noticed a bruise on her forearm and when she asked how she got it, she was told the boyfriend grabbed her arm. This woman was released and the boyfriend arrested. It did not matter that he grabbed her arm to keep her from ramming a knife into his chest.

Most also know that because of the media bias in reporting, many still believe the myths put out by gender feminist that 95% of all abuse victims are women and thus they do not think anyone will believe them. Shortly after starting Shattered Men and getting our website on most of the major search engines, I did have a man contact me who was suicidial and stated that "finally someone will believe me."

In reality unbiased research shows at least half of the abuse victims are men. It even shows that when only one person is doing the hitting, most of the time, it is the women.
References :
http://www.shatterdmen.com

http://www.shatterdmen.com/pagetwo.htm

http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/42/15/31-a

http://mediaradar.org/

http://www.shatterdmen.com/VAWA%20too.htm

Pastors have been arrested and accused of misconduct by women who "needed to talk to the Pastor alone" for what ever reason either she did not like the answer she got, or she had a thing for the Pastor.

I always make sure that my wife is with me if a woman asks for a meeting,
if done the right way the Pastor and his wife is a ministry team,
the wife of a Pastor (if she is part of the team) is there for the women and children to feel comfortable and for the protection of her husband.
but everyone knows and understands that my door is open 24 hours a day, but if you are a woman or a child they are told up front that my wife (Asawa), "Sister Cathy" will be in the meeting also.

A Christian never places themselves in a place of temptation or allows themselves to be placed where temptation (or lies) might occure.

As for the rest of your statements, a Christian woman and Christian man, knows and understands that each has a place and job, in the orginization set up of God.

Angels have their jobs, women have theirs and men have theirs.
References :

Your boyfriend will most likely not be charged with statutory rape, but most likely something along the lines of sexual misconduct with a minor. It does not matter what the age is or if he is or is not of legal consent. Time and time again underage boys that have sex with underage girls get charged with sex crimes. It does not matter if you both are not of legal consent, he still can be charged.

In addition, he will most likely have to serve prison time and register as a sex offender.

In regards to getting an abortion, you are under age and thus can not make that decision. You would need parental consent in order for the abortion to take place.

Therefore this is true.
References :

Satan uses Bible verses out of context too, like in Matthew 4:6 he had the nerve to tempt Jesus with using the Bible.

It’s interesting how people can find Bible verses for other people and don’t see the ones that are talking to them. Matthew 7:3 "Why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye but fail to notice the beam in your own eye?

It’s good to look at the whole passage:
Colossians 3:17-19 And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him. (18) Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. (19) Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them.

If women are treated harshly and told to submit, they might quote the rest of the passage to help keep him in check.

As far as not being alone with a pastor, I can kind of see the reasoning. I have helped out in Christian youth camps and stuff and I was advised not to be alone with a girl. The reason given was that if they accused me of something, it’s my word against hers.

I haven’t heard pastors say that, "women are nothing but objects that bring men down to temptation". If yours does, maybe it’s time to find a different church, because I don’t see that in my Bible.
References :

The age of consent in Texas is 17, BUT there is an exception if the younger party is 14 or older and the older party is less than three years older. Your relationship, while unwise, is not illegal.

He’s giving you a bunch of bull to pressure you into having an abortion. This, alone, is MORE than enough reason to kick him to the curb.

Richard

§ 21.11. INDECENCY WITH A CHILD. (a) A person commits an offense if, with a child younger than 17 years and not the person’s spouse, whether the child is of the same or opposite sex, the person:
(1) engages in sexual contact with the child or causes the child to engage in sexual contact; or
(2) with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person:
(A) exposes the person’s anus or any part of the person’s genitals, knowing the child is present; or
(B) causes the child to expose the child’s anus or any part of the child’s genitals.
(b) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the actor:
(1) was not more than three years older than the victim and of the opposite sex;
(2) did not use duress, force, or a threat against the victim at the time of the offense; and
(3) at the time of the offense:
(A) was not required under Chapter 62, Code of Criminal Procedure, to register for life as a sex offender; or
(B) was not a person who under Chapter 62 had a reportable conviction or adjudication for an offense under this section.
References :

It seems to be a self feeding thing. The abused person feels inadequate and keeps returning. The abuser sees this as acceptance of their cruel behavior.

I would agree that the best thing anyone can do is get out of this type of relationship fast. It is unlikely to change.
References :