Again, applying the Golden Rule, I give the other life the benefit of the doubt, rather than gamble their temporal and/or eternal values on my own behalf.
And again, the other side doesn't think the principle of benefit of the doubt is flawed. The difference is when to start doubting (and in the case of conflicts, in which direction), not whether the benefit of the doubt should be given to life.
Obviously, had my mom aborted me, not only would I have suffered the pain of execution, but the loss of all of the blessings of life.
Not if she had aborted you before you had developed a neural system sufficient to feel pain - but I was just trying to remind you that the Golden Rule can be applied by two people and still come to different moral conclusions. You can share fundamental moral agreements with someone, but still disagree enough to be in different 'camps' on fairly big social issues.
My understanding is the the consensus is that the babe in the womb has some awareness of life.
The most contentious part of the abortion debate is discussion about blastocysts of 70cells which are not biologically aware. That they have a soul that is aware is not really at concensus status on both sides of this argument.
But once again - I was trying to show how the disagreements are not a case of a failure of those you disagree with to apply fundamental moral principles such as the Golden Rule and that the Golden Rule is where you are actually likely to find the most agreement with those on the other side. Don't use the Golden Rule to divide yourself from those that disagree with you - use it to find common ground!
™ Version 4.2