I will be interested to hear what medical condition requires the termination of a viable pregnancy.
Though not addressed to me, I'd like to add my two cents on this question, considering that my wife and I have actually been (or almost been, depending on your POV) in such a situation. My wife was born with heart defects; she has had a hole in her heart patched twice in her life, and has also had two artificial valves since she was an infant. She has always been on blood thinners, and (for obvious reasons) has led a fairly sedentary life, leaving her weaker than the average girl her age. We were told this time around (our 2nd pregnancy) that she had somewhere approaching a 5% chance of dying. Not an awfully high percentage by itself... until you actually grapple with the potential of losing the most important person in your life. That is one reason that I agreed with the statement about being "leary when men bat this issue around from a purely moral standpoint." I'm equally leary of women who treat the issue with clumsiness, of course.
I cannot speak for my wife, but as for myself, as a non-Christian/religionist I did not have some God to take orders from, telling me what was moral, telling me what percentage was "high enough" to justify terminating the pregnancy. My wife had a 1 in 20 or maybe 1 in 25 change of dying. Is that dangerous enough? If life begins at conception, is there any percentage at which you can justify terminating the pregnancy? Unfortunately I didn't have the comfort of prayer, or "leaving it in God's hands". We had an ultrasound done around the 8th or 9th week, to verify that the baby was indeed alive. After that, we had to decide what to do.
Again, I cannot speak for my wife, but in the end I (for my part) decided against an abortion, partly because the percentage was small enough (a subjective judgment), and partly because I thought that we had created the lifeform and as long as it had the potential
to be a human life, that we owed it the chance to live. Had my wife had, say, a 50% chance of dying, however, I don't know that I could have made the same decision. I don't know that it'd be as high as 50%, but the doctors have been very clear that any future pregnancies would have much greater risks. That, to me, is an example of a viable pregnancy which might be terminated to save the mother's life.
Why do you believe that men must be silent when it comes to protecting unborn humans?
I think I took the statement a bit differently than others might have. For me, the key terms were the ones boldened here: "I kind of become leary when men bat this issue around
from a purely
moral standpoint." I took the statement to be criticizing people (or in this case, men) who sit around in their computer chairs and try to make judgments about something they've never faced themselves, and probably haven't put much thought into how various factors might change situations. I should also say at this point that my questions for Matthew were not an attempt to defend a specific position, I was just trying to explore certain positions, and why those positions are held. Basically, if you believe that life begins at conception, and that all life is important, I wanted to explore what the logical consequences of those beliefs would be (if someone was consistent).