Now in other issues, such as sexual orientation, it isn't the same; "pro-choice" as you define it, meaning basically a Libertarian outlook, means giving people the option; "anti-gay" IS an opposition on an individual level.

Just so you know, I never mentioned sexual orientation. I don't think that that's really part of the pro-choice movement, though certainly many pro-choice people are also for equal rights for everybody.

...pro-choice means choice in many aspects of sexuality...

Also, I think a lot of Libertarians would take issue with you calling pro-choice a Libertarian outlook, but since I'm not a Libertarian I shouldn't try to speak for them.

People who have abortions and have "settle down" should tell others how bad it is so we can prevent abortions.

I do know a girl who had an abortion. She doesn't regret having it, but she does regret the fact that she had to have it...if that makes any sense. But she said it changed her life forever, made her "settle down", so to speak.

First, two thirds of women who abort say they cannot afford a child. In the past three years, unemployment rates increased half again. [...]

Second, half of all women who abort say they do not have a reliable mate. Men who are jobless usually do not marry. [...]

Third, women worry about health care for themselves and their children. Since 5.2 million more people have no health insurance now than before this presidency - with women of childbearing age overrepresented in those 5.2 million - abortion increases.

The U.S. Catholic Bishops warned of this likely outcome if support for families with children was cut back. My wife and I know - as does my son David - that doctors, nurses, hospitals, medical insurance, special schooling, and parental employment are crucial for a special child. David attended the Kentucky School for the Blind, as well as several schools for children with cerebral palsy and other disabilities. He was mainstreamed in public schools as well. We have two other sons and five grandchildren, and we know that every mother, father, and child needs public and family support.

What does this tell us? Economic policy and abortion are not separate issues; they form one moral imperative. Rhetoric is hollow, mere tinkling brass, without health care, health insurance, jobs, child care, and a living wage. Pro-life in deed, not merely in word, means we need policies that provide jobs and health insurance and support for prospective mothers.

Being an illegitimate child myself

Mr. Jack Chick thinks abortion is wrong...

But if a woman is raped and impregnated it is almost the first choice because if she keeps the child not only does the kid grow up without a father but what does the mother say when the kid innocently asks "When is daddy coming home?" and personally that breaks my heart, I hate to see little kids cry and that tears me up inside.

Sorry, I'm confused again. Is Mr. J. Chick a hypothetical person for an example, or a real person I don't know about?

it's always good to hear a opinion vastly different than your own, even if the other guy is an old raceist(sp?) bible thumper.

To summarize, these are the arguments against abortion: zygotes, embryos, and fetae are people... [this]is bunk, at least (and not being a scientist I have no opinion on this) until a certain stage quite a ways into development.

The brain itself is not completely developed synaptically until about 25 years of age.

Anyway, your argument hinges on claiming that a fetus at two weeks is developmentally equivalent to a child at two years. I'm sure you were aware of the absurdity of that argument

IJ, you must know the danger of putting arbitrary markers on a continuum when those markers have life-and-death consequences!

Saying "before the third trimester", for example, is hardly arbitrary -- it is based on the fact that before the third trimester a fetus is not viable.

we say that on day B Suzie can go out and get sloshed, and we say that on day C Jimmy can own and operate a firearm.

a week before day A, B, or C, the consequences really won't be any more dire than if they had happened a week after. That doesn't mean that those markers are arbitrary or that they're not sensible or don't have any worth at all.

And your argument could easily be applied in reverse. But I'm not about to argue "If you believe that it's okay to use emergency contraception to terminate a pregnancy 48 hours after conception, then you MUST also believe that it's okay 5 months later."

I'm sorry, I must not have read the thread or the U.S. laws correctly... since in the U.S. it is (unfortunately) legal to do a partial-birth abortion 1 day before a baby is due, despite the fact that the baby is viable. There is no third-trimester law to the best of my knowledge. I wish there was.

Thus, the decision established a system of trimesters, whereby the State can not restrict a woman's right to an abortion during the first trimester, the State can regulate the abortion procedure during the second trimester "in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health," and in the third trimester, demarcating the viability of the fetus, a State can choose to restrict or even to proscribe abortion as it sees fit.

Is your criterion viability?

You are alarmingly confused on this issue.

Firstly, a mantra for you; repeat after me: "there is no such thing as partial-birth abortion".

If you can find me a state in which an abortion can be legally obtained by any pregnant woman one day before her due date, then I'll check myself into a mental institution.

I haven't mentioned my criterion, nor will I. Nor do I suppose any single criterion like viability or development alone could decide this issue.

The law uses it as a valid term. The media recognizes the term. So, no matter who fabricated the term, or what euphemism it's known by in clinics, there is such a thing.

Medical professionals use euphemisms such as bone marrow transplant, which actually means lethal-dose chemotherapy, all the time.

This Report on Abortion Procedures for Congress suggests you should at least begin looking into good funny farms near home.

However, he indicated that he performed no elective abortions after 26 weeks gestation and approximately 80% of those abortions done after 21 weeks were non-elective. It is 13 unclear what indications would be considered to be elective and non-elective, however, the presumption, based on some newspaper reports, is that elective abortions are those done on normal fetuses carried by healthy mothers.

"Non-elective?" Sorry guys, but I really don't have time to read said report right now--but what would that mean?

"Non-elective?" Sorry guys, but I really don't have time to read said report right now--but what would that mean? I assume elective means the mother wanted to have the abortion. Would an abortion ever be performed without the mother's request?

I hope this has cleared up the definition. We don't (yet) have forced abortions in the U.S.

And, though I know I'm going to get lynched for saying this, if individual people wait for that kind of intimacy until they're married, this won't be nearly the issue it is, maybe 1% at most. I have, and so can each of you.

However, I still don't believe that as a society it's possible to stop young people (as a demographic)

Even if every parent took a year-long effective parenting course before having a kid,

No matter what the law says, then or now, in England or America, if you can afford a plane ticket and the medical bill you will always be able to obtain a competent abortion, so laws essentially make it illegal to be poor and seek an abortion.