Every abortion stops a beating heart. What if someone said "I am not pro slavery but still think it should be legal?" Abortion kills an unborn human being that has done nothing wrong. please see http://www.l4l.org - the anti-abortion case from a libertarian and rational perspective.

how do you regulate it? I simply think that they should make it legal within the first trimester, and keep the government out of it. Beyond that, is a different matter - that gets into the range of what could be regulated...

http://www.abortionno.org to see pics of first trimester abortions. Abortion kills, whether first trimester or third

Yes, zygots are terminated. This seems perfectly consistent in a society that supports death penalty punishment and pre-emptive military actions based on collective human decision in the absence of a scientific certainty of guilt. As a practical matter, the human race in not faced with imminent extinction. Indeed, humans are currently about as scarce as rodents and fruit flies.

Absent certain sectarian religious arguments, the case against dissolves into vapor. One glaring inconsistency in the religious argument is that many of the same groups that oppose abortion also oppose family planning that would obviate much of the demand for abortion, and that would help prevent spread of HIV-AIDS suffering.

While one is free to subscribe to 12th century religious thought, demanding that the balance of society, that believes otherwise, should be subject to your particular beliefs is illogic of the sort that results in terrorism in the name of religion and religious theocracies. Whether the issue is doctor assisted suicide or legal abortion, people should live according to their own beliefs, and exercise some tolerance for those that believe otherwise.

oc

oc,

Let me start by saying I am not a religious person, and I consider myself to some degree pro-choice. That aside, your arguments are misleading and not logically convincing. Your analogies to the death penalty and pre-emptive military action are completely flawed. I have never known a fetus to commit a crime, much less receive a jury by his peers. Nor have I ever known a fetus accused of threatening our national security. As a practical matter, if the human race is so overpopulated, (to use your argument) why don’t we start by killing those who contribute least to society, rather than those who have the potential to do so much more. These arguments are nonsense and completely sidestep the real question.

The central issue in the abortion debate is not whether or not a woman has the right to choose, it’s whether and when an unborn child in this country attains the unalienable rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Personally, I feel no more loss at the killing of a zygote then I do the precious brain cells I waste away with every sip of scotch. At the other end, I believe, as do most people in this country, that terminating a healthy, nine-month pregnancy is an act of murder. Somewhere for me there exists a dividing line (or more honestly, two lines enclosing an area of gray).

When does an embryo become human? This debate is not predicated on “sectarian religious arguments”. Your assertion that the “glaring inconsistency in the religious argument is that many of the same groups that oppose abortion also oppose family planning” is also false, given that both are completely consistent with the religious beliefs of these groups.

While we are not bound in this country by the religious beliefs of others, we are bound by the laws we have chosen to put into place. “Demanding that the balance of society, that believes otherwise, should be subject to your particular beliefs” is hardly a tenet of 12th century religious thought; it is a basic principle of civilization. If you don’t like it, either you change the culture, or you live in Antarctica, your choice.

Bottom line. This is not a religious issue, nor is it a woman’s issue, this is a societal issue and one that is obviously in need of additional debate.

I am pro choice.

It is simple.

No one can walk in another persons shoes.
No one knows the pain or anguish of a woman struggling with the enormity of such an horrendous decision as to decide whether to terminate the life which grows within her.

I am fortunate, being male, the "choice" could not, biologically, fall to me and nor have I ever needed to support a partner in making such a decision.
I have, however, helped someone finance an abortion, after some soul searching and personal deliberation, some 30 years ago, from which I formed the view which I still hold today.

The lady who decides to abort will carry the burden of that decision with her for the rest of her life but we all have challenging decisions to make and it should not be up to me to make it for her. Just as it is not up to any other third party to impose a decison not to abort on her.
We are not chattels of the state or society and as such should not be imposed upon by third parties in such a personal decison.
It is her body in which the baby grows and her body which will bear the risks of pregancy. It must, therefore be her choice (and ultimately hers alone).

The other thing I find quite strange is the the correlation between the "pro gun lobby" and the "anti abortion lobby" - the irony - they see themselves as the steadfast defenders of the unborn whilst promoting freedom of choice for the killing of the born.

__________________
Free Speech measures the idiot by what he says
Censorship measures the idiot as equal with the Sage.

Well, you should find the correlation strange because it doesn't exist. I know of no lobby, pro gun or otherwise, that promotes freedom of choice for killing... maybe a serial killer lobby, if one existed. [sarcasm]For most of us, "killing the born" is an acceptable practice, so long as its a difficult choice to make, the pain and anguish with which few people will understand[/sarcasm]. Your "logic" makes little sense and misses the central issue of the debate.

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit... please do not bother to aspire to it and then publically admit the fact if you want to receive a real response from me to your comments

__________________
Free Speech measures the idiot by what he says
Censorship measures the idiot as equal with the Sage.

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit... please do not bother to aspire to it and then publically admit the fact if you want to receive a real response from me to your comments[/quote]
If we were on a humor forum instead of a political forum (where being witty would be my chief concern), your "sarcasm is the lowest form of wit" might apply. Your statement makes no sense in the present context. In the future, it would be wise to understand a saying before you try to apply it.

Your comment has nothing to do with the topic. Please desist in attempting to talk down to me with your "quirky" version of up-man-ship. If you cannot make real comment about the importance of a woman's right of choice (which is the topic) and the responsibility of society to respect her sovereignty over her own body, then just don't bother.

__________________
Free Speech measures the idiot by what he says
Censorship measures the idiot as equal with the Sage.