I am, for the most part, pro-life. It's quite hard to put it all in one neat paragraph so I'll discuss my views from point-to-point, starting with why I believe in pro-life:

A popular argument is that in some cases (such as teen pregnancy or where substance misuse is involved) the parent(s) are simply not ready or suitable to take on the responsibility. However many people [i]are[/i] ready and suitable, and may be looking to adopt. Surely it is better to let the child live and give it away? You might argue that they may end up in a home or in a bad family, but surely its still better than having never lived at all? I think that its worth me also pointing out that I consider myself to be fairly liberal and social orientated, and I believe that there should also be welfare and social services in place to help parents and their children, and to ensure that in certain cases that everything is done to protect the child including removing them from their parents (albeit as a last resort). 

Some also argue that the circumstances surrounding the conception are rightful causes to have an abortion. The biggest example being rape. Some feminists arguments tie in here, for example the argument that humans have a right to control their own body, and that being forced to have a child is unethical and inhumane (much in the same way as rape). Whilst I am sympathetic to this point of view, preventing such breach of rights should be done through [i]proactive[/i] measures (ie. stopping the rape in the first place) whereas an abortion is a [i]reactive[/i] measure which does nothing to stop the breach from occurring. Again, I have the stance that it's better to give the baby away if the mother does not want the baby herself. It also attributes a level of blame and culpability onto the unborn child, which I believe is ethically wrong. There are some exceptions to this view however! For example if the baby was conceived through incest, and there would be potential physical and psychological problems for the child or parent; in these cases it might be more humane to have an abortion (this is more tied into the health point that I'll make in a moment). 

To quickly break the seriousness of the topic there's also this point. I'm not religious myself, but [url=http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ikUo4HvtPMo/TsXMzzZ9ubI/AAAAAAAAELg/Eoky241h_E0/s1600/prolife.png]Cyanide and Happiness illustrate an interesting point[/url]. 

Whilst I appreciate that in terms of rights, abortion affects the mother's far more. It's her body. It's her pain. It's her life. I think that it is wrong to completely ignore the parental rights of the father. I think that in cases where the mother and father both consented, especially where there exists a strong relationship, that the father should have some right to argue against abortion. This is especially true of cases where a late-abortion is sought (20+ weeks), as the father may have already developed a loving attachment and because at this point there is a chance the baby could survive outside of the mother. Admittedly in some cases, like in rape cases, they morally loose any legitimate rights to parenthood. 

And lastly because, especially in teenage cases, the mother might not be aware of the psychological issues that come with having an abortion. The feelings of guilt, depression and regret may be quite powerful, and may have very detrimental effects. In some cases would-be mothers might wish that someone had convinced them to keep the child, or that they had been more experienced/wiser/mature to make a better decision themselves. 

Now! Other things I consider, including exceptions: 

I do believe that in cases where the mother's health (physically) and/or the child's health (mentally or physically) is at high risk that an abortion should be an option. 

I am not religious, and I do not believe that [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk&feature=kp]every sperm is sacred[/url]. However like I mentioned earlier I believe that whilst proactive measures are right (e.g. contraception), reactive measures are wrong. As an extension of this, I do believe that some people are clearly unsuitable to be parents and so [i]proactive[/i] measures should be taken to avoid pregnancy in some cases. I'm not so austere or bigoted to say that certain people should be stopped entirely, just that their lives should ideally meet a certain standard. For example, if Mary and John were both drug users I would argue they shouldn't have children and should use contraception, however if Mary and John were to later be rehabilitated and live stable lives then they should have the right to have children.