Not my intention to be sneery but it's strange to find a church goer so full of dislike for the church and apparent superiority. Most people don't persist with something they're so willing to criticise. There is an absence of any balancing perspective in your posts or acknowledgment that many Christians in Ulster are not anything like as dreadful as you describe-but would still disagree with abortion.
Which would suggest to me at least that while many pro lifers may be as satisfyingly detestable as you describe, others, inconveniently, don't have the hypocritical lovelessness that would invalidate their stance on abortion. What if it really is a conscience issue? Where does that leave you in terms of your attitude to other Christians and your position on this issue? And the teaching of the church specifically on this issue?
It sounds like you are picking and choosing a bit, and using the shortcomings of the church to write off some of their beliefs. But part of the church's function in the world is to highlight things that are wrong.
I get as annoyed as you do when they are clearly in the wrong themselves, but don't think we can use that as an excuse to cherrypick on such a major issue-not when so many Christians hold an opposing position in conscience grounds, many of whom you must respect or there would be absolutely no justification for your faith at all.
Earlier in the thread you said something about having no time for Christan beliefs that negatively evaluated the actions of others. While I agree that our role to support and love is equally, if not more, important, surely the church is also there to guide and provide a moral framework? And surely there is huge emphasis in biblical teaching about how wrong it is to end a life and our responsibility to protect the weak?
I understand the other view and sympathise, but cannot imagine a way in which biblical teaching could be interpreted to support ending the life of a baby. Especially at, say, 20 weeks. Or at any stage in the downs scenario. The Bible has a great deal to say about society's responsibility towards children and women who are without support -it was one of the defining characteristics by which societies were evaluated and sometimes condemned. But it doesn't seem to mention this other right at all, (of bodily autonomy), let alone present it as trumping anything else. Though one could argue that the many passages against oppression could certainly be read as a protection of individual freedoms I suppose...