I'm not really bothered whether you accept it or not Waldo - yes this is an emotive subject and yes there will be emotive terms. We do not talk about the murder of adult beings as termination so I see no reason to alter the terminology simpy to ease various consciences. In fact, I see no need to inject the term termination into the debate. Call it what you like - it remains murder to those who have not merely factored in other issues. Even if I felt the woman was justified in having the abortion in a particular scenario, it would still be murder, I don't believe in shirking the moral pain such decisions should cause by adopting a more distanced and clinical term.
In answer to your next point, no I don't. The adoption of a woman's right to abortion above the right to life of a potentially independant human being to me indicates a lack of empathy with their condition simply due to a deficient attributation, for whatever reason, of their humanity. Argue the toss if you like, but the fact that this is your order of priorities reveals much.
Finally - oh bravo, very productive / witty, chalk one up one on the board for Waldo etc etc . . .
Noxlumos/Pippa
I agree that in an idea world this debate would not even be happening, and I wish we did not have to enter into this discussion. Of course I realise that you have a different viewpoint to mine, and I fully respect that, as I mentioned this is an emotive issue. It just seems to me that we shouldn't be compromising on a philosophical ideal because of 'life', if that makes sense. Shouldn't we be focusing on how to help these children, not on killing them before they enter this world. If even one child born into the conditions you describe goes on to live a full, happy and productive life, can we ever be sure it's for their benefit? Life sucks, but I fully believe every human being deserves a chance of living it and doing it their way.