ok, now for my opinion, “To give a fetus (not a CHILD, not a PERSON, not a HUMAN) “rights” superior to a pregnant woman in to eradicate the woman’s right to her body”.

I believe abortion should be an informed decision. It is a difficult decision to choose between raising an unwanted child, adoption or abortion. None of these choices come without serious costs to the emotional, psychological, and financial well being of the mother. However, it is up to the mother to make the choice that she can live with.

Of all the choices, I myself would advocate adoption. It is probably the most beneficial choice for the child. No one should have to make the choice between the life of the mother and the life of the child. Perhaps science one day will be able to save those children who put the life/health of the mother at risk.

However, believe it is a personal matter between the parents and their moral conscious. No man/person has the right to interfere.

As to the political interference, the constitution guarantees “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”, are we to infer that women are excluded?

You are an idiot. The fact is that once the sperm meets the egg, a life is formed. Abortion is snuffing out that life. How you can come onto this site and say something but say you don’t want to debate the topic is beyond me. And how many one-week-old babies do you see living on their own? Babies require care and nurturing for YEARS before they can actually do things on their own! The fact of the matter is that abortion is murder no matter when it takes place, 1st trimester or 3rd trimester…

You also write: “Abortion may be technically legal, but it is now becoming practically impossible for many women to obtain one. True, many abortions are still occurring each year, but I believe that mostly women with means are able to get one. (Just like many other things in this country - the “havesâ€Â? can have most anything, while the “have notsâ€Â? cannot).

Lastly, let me point out two things about states having control of this issue: 1) If your state makes it illegal to have an abortion, all the women that want one will just go to a state where it is legal…”

Ah, the New Orlean Argument — they’d have an abortion if they could just get out of town. There is nothing quit a ugly as classism mixed with the gore of abortion mills.

Cutting to the chase with the liberal agenda for the black community: THEY LOVE OUR VOTES, BUT THE DON’T LOVE OUR BABIES.

The government has a legitimate interest to regulate fertility to assure financing the New Deal. Pro-lifers should be big spending Democrats and pro-choicers should want a small government that doesn’t depend on >2.1 TFR to survive the long haul. Of course, the official party positions are exactly backwards.

See, the whole question being begged here is: what constitutes a person, whose life is protected by our system of laws, and why? How does one *rationally* differentiate between a one-day-old baby and a minus-ond-day old baby?

Me, I think one potential answer might be when the organism has a beating heart (i.e., has its own circulatory system functioning) or detectable brain waves (its own nervous system), and is therefore not simply a subset of the mother. The trouble with these points, though, is they are far too early to satisfy pro-choice advocates.

I think a fetus *does* have a right to life, although that right must be balanced against the mother’s other rights. The earlier in its development it is, the weaker its rights are versus the mother’s, and vice versa.

But we cannot even examine these questions, due to our judiciary. It’s all well and good to cite theoretical abortion restrictions which are on the books, but none of them are enforced or enforceable due to litigation. None. All a mother needs to eliminate an unborn child, no matter how far along in development, is a doctor to attest the abortion is necessary for her health (which, or course, included *mental* health, meaning that having or caring for a baby could be traumatic for her), and the child has no rights. Zero.

Yes, I want Roe v. Wade overturned, because I think these are questions our society needs to face, rather than shoving them under the rug. The just and moral answer lies somewhere between “life begins at conception” and a magic conferral of personhood by passage through the birth canal, and while Roe remains unchallenged the dialogue will be dominated by the extremists.

Yes, I do know - but I have no desire to debate the entire pro-choice pro-life argument.

I could get into details here, but I’m sure you’ve seen the details too, and frankly, it’s a pain to enumerate it all for the umpteenth time, regardless of one’s position.

IMHO - it’s because the baby could live on it’s own at one week.

[I]f you let states decide on [the abortion] issue, it won’t be long before they will have to be allowed to decide other things such as gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, legalization of assisted suicide, etc.

Here’s one conservative who is in favor of this. (Depending on the particulars, legalization of marijuana may fall under federal jurisdiction due to the Commerce Clause, I believe.) Outside of certain defined areas, it’s none of my business as a Floridian how California or Mass. or Alabama decide to run their affairs. If I don’t like some of the outcomes, tough. (Hell, I live in Florida and don’t get the outcomes I desire here!) I mean, what’s the point of federalism otherwise?

I used to be pro-life (I was raised Catholic and was shown all kinds of gruesome pictures of aborted fetuses during sex ed), but as I have become an adult, I do not believe that this issue is quite so black and white. I think people on both sides of this issue use certain terms and examples in order to inflame the emotions of people instead of looking at the reality and facts of the situation.

I would say that all this graphic talk about partial-birth and late-term abortions is just one such device. The facts show that these types of abortions are either disallowed or severely regulated in almost all states.

“As of February, 2005, 17 states had bans on post-viability abortions that abortion supporters say do not meet Supreme Court requirements: three states allow late-term abortions only when the mother’s life is in danger, four other states allow late-term abortions only when the mothers physical (but not mental) health is in jeopardy, and 13 states ban all abortions performed after a certain point in pregnancy. Nineteen (plus the District of Columbia) allow them when necessary to preserve the woman’s life, physical health, or mental health.

At least three states (Delaware, Minnesota, and Utah) have no current policy regarding post-viability abortions because the laws in those states are blocked by court order. Most or all of the remaining 47 states, plus the District of Columbia, impose some regulation on late-term abortion.”

- From http://www.answers.com/topic/partial-birth-abortion

I do think if people were asked about their preference on partial-birth abortions, the survey numbers would be different, but so what? And, DosPeros, all of the other survey questions you suggested are areas that are fairly regulated at present. The government will not pay for abortions, many states require parental consent, waiting periods, mandatory counseling, and sometimes spousal (or putative father) consent. The government has placed strict and sometimes ridiculous regulations on clinics that provide abortions, making it nearly impossible for a facility to meet all the standards because of funding and staffing issues. In addition, because of the political issues involved, many health care providers simply don’t want to be involved in providing abortion services. Pro-lifers and conservatives have changed their tactics over the past 30 years. Abortion may be technically legal, but it is now becoming practically impossible for many women to obtain one. True, many abortions are still occurring each year, but I believe that mostly women with means are able to get one. (Just like many other things in this country - the “haves” can have most anything, while the “have nots” cannot).

Lastly, let me point out two things about states having control of this issue: 1) If your state makes it illegal to have an abortion, all the women that want one will just go to a state where it is legal; and 2) if you let states decide on this issue, it won’t be long before they will have to be allowed to decide other things such as gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, legalization of assisted suicide, etc.

If that were the case, and abortion was returned to the states as an issue, I bet that in the SECOND election after it was put to a vote, a lot of previously uninterested voters would show up at the polls!