Abortion

[jravnsbo]

YES!  b/c the Griswold decision was a joke, even honest democrat legal minds will acknowledge it was a bunch of made up BS to get the result they wanted and then they used that to decide Roe as their precedent.

The problem is that the Liberals couldn't get the votes to beat abortion so as with many issues they run to the courts.  

Well I think Abortion should be decided in the Congress as I do not think Roe was decide on stable legal grounds.

wow courts that don't legislate that would be great!

Yes.
The legislature is far stronger than the courts(which can interpret law but cannot make law)

Don't worry Jravnsbo, with four more years of Bush43 you will be able to push through your pro-life justices and turn the clock back on women's rights 30 years.

Are you anti Roe v. wade?

[migrendel]

While I have said I cannot concur with the legal logic of the Griswold decision, I do not believe the results of the decision are insupportable by a valid legal theory. While the case does not have the same equal protection and fetal personhood bases that Roe has, because, after all, it only involved contraceptives, the Ninth Amendment could have liberated contraception from the dogma of the state. I do have to admit that some of Roe was awfully legislative in tone. The trimesters system devised by the majority very much resembled a policy decision and was not based upon a logical interpretation or even rational inferences from the text of the Constitution. I believe a more rational and judicial holding would have been to declare laws criminalizing abortion unconstitutional per se, rather than sitting as a body to decide whether what was criminalized in terms of abortion by a statute was acceptable or undesirable. I must say that Roe was to a large extent incorrectly decided, with the Court seemingly trying to strike a balance that would be acceptable to people across the spectrum, even though in hindsight, that hasn't quite happened. It depresses me to see people trying to defend a decision that protects so little, when so much needs to saved from the arbitrary lack of governmental imprimatur.

[© tweed]

I think abortion should be decided by state legislatures and/or congress, not the courts.

Whatever the will of the people is, I would accept.  I am against abortion in principle but recognize that in practice it can possibly be the best of several bad options, under certain circumstances.  

It's not a black and white issue, but I think the logic behind the Roe vs. Wade decision is specious.  I don't believe we're talking about the woman's body, but a separate body growing inside of her, something that was created by a man AND a woman.

I think abortion as currently structured does not provide men with equal rights as a parent, and I think in concept that that's wrong.  A man cannot prevent a woman from aborting his child, even if he's willing to accept sole responsibility for the child.  By the same token, he can't force the mother of his child to have an abortion, even if he doesn't want the child.  But he must abide by her choice whatever it is, including paying child support.  So the  man is assigned full responsibility for whatever decisions the woman makes, but no legal standing to participate in those decisions, even within marriage.  Come to think of it, that's the ideal world as conceived by the feminists.

One sickness of our society is a heavy reliance on the legal system to fix the screw-ups we create in our personal lives.  Americans don't seem to realize that the legal system can't make everything right.  There is no substitute for responsible behavior, on the part of men and women, when it comes to activities that could result in pregnancy.  Abortion and laws to force men to pay support to the illegitimate children that they're not involved in raising are not the answers.

The wwomen bear the child and often end up raising the child, so it should be the woman's desicion, not the man's.

[dazzleman]

I don't agree.  Conceiving a child is a joint action, and so should raising the child be.  It should be joint decision making and joint responsibility.  Plenty of men support their kids, and I don't buy into this argument that only women raise kids.  I was raised by a father and a mother, with only my father providing financial support, since my mom didn't work.  If a woman gets pregnant with a man who's not interested in the child, that's one thing, but a woman should not be able to unilaterally override the wishes of the child's father in my opinion, provided that he has accepted his share of responsibility for the child.

I think the feminist paranoia on the whole abortion issue shows the weakness in the left's strategy of remaking society through judicial decisions rather than through the democratic process.

States were beginning abortion laws before Roe vs. Wade.  Had those favoring abortion worked through the democratic process and gotten legislatures to liberalize abortion, their precious right would be a lot more stable, and they wouldn't be sweating bullets over every judicial nomination.

[© tweed]

I don't agree.  Conceiving a child is a joint action, and so should raising the child be.  It should be joint decision making and joint responsibility.  Plenty of men support their kids, and I don't buy into this argument that only women raise kids.  

My parents divorced when I was six and my father hardly raised me.  He didn't help with schoolwork, nothing.  which is much of the reason I didn't get an education past a high school diploma.

[dazzleman]

I'm sorry to hear that, dude.  I'm sure that contributes to your view of the woman as the primary parent, and in reality, a heavy responsibility does fall on women when a father is not involved.

I have also seen other cases where mothers have walked away, and left the whole job to the father, but that is far less common.

But I don't think the law should be crafted with the assumption that only the mother will do the child-rearing, and that the mother should have all the decision-making authority simply because she bears the child.  I think that both parents should have equal rights and equal responsibilities, and that childbearing and childrearing should be as much as possible a private arrangement between two people.

The feminist logic in general is a major bone in my throat.  I have seen so many injustices perpetrated in the name of feminism, and I don't believe that two wrongs make a right.

By the way, I'm surprised to hear that you didn't get an education past high school; you come across as well educated.

[Gustaf]

I will give my view on abortion, which is inconsistent, therefore i don't really have one. I would like to take the same position as Dazzleman and many other people; that I am against abortion personally, but can accept under certain circumstances, don't want it to be banned, and so on. The problem is, that is not defensible. An opposition against abortion has to be based on the notion that an unborn child is a human being with a right to life. Murdering that human being cannot really be justified by anything. That leaves a ban as the only way out, but that is a horribly bad solution.

I hate the abortion-issue. There is no good answer.

[12th Doctor]

I am, of course, anti-abortion.  I would like to make a point, however, to all of you pro-abortion (no such thing as pro-choice) people:  reversing RoevWade in a proper, legal way would not do away with abortion.  It would simply allow states to make their own laws on the subject.  Also, I was raised majoratvly by women, my father ran out on my mom before I was born.  That doesn't make me believe, however, that abortion should be legal in all cases or that, idealy, the father doesn't carry responsiblity in raising a child.  Raised by women.  Have great respect for feminine stregth.  Not a feminist and not pro-abortion.

[Nym90]

Actually, there definitely is such thing as pro-choice, it's not pro-abortion at all. I've never heard anyone say that they thought that abortion is good and that there should be more abortions, that would be pro-abortion. But pro-choice people believe that this most difficult and personal of decisions should be left to a mother and her physician, and that the government should stay out.
Likewise, as you say, reversing Roe vs. Wade wouldn't stop abortions. Many states, especially the more liberal ones like New York and California, would keep abortion legal. Even if abortion was outlawed nationwide by a constitutional amendment or bill, it would still be legal in Canada and in Europe. So, rich people would be able to go to those countries to get an abortion, but poor people who couldn't afford to travel there would not be able to get one and would in many cases die or have great medical complication from having a back alley abortion.

[© tweed]

Actually, there definitely is such thing as pro-choice, it's not pro-abortion at all. I've never heard anyone say that they thought that abortion is good and that there should be more abortions, that would be pro-abortion. But pro-choice people believe that this most difficult and personal of decisions should be left to a mother and her physician, and that the government should stay out.
Likewise, as you say, reversing Roe vs. Wade wouldn't stop abortions. Many states, especially the more liberal ones like New York and California, would keep abortion legal. Even if abortion was outlawed nationwide by a constitutional amendment or bill, it would still be legal in Canada and in Europe. So, rich people would be able to go to those countries to get an abortion, but poor people who couldn't afford to travel there would not be able to get one and would in many cases die or have great medical complication from having a back alley abortion.

Well said.

[migrendel]

While you are right that abortion would not be illegal across the board without Roe, it would be complicated. The Supreme Court would have to review criminal abortion laws of perhaps many states and compare them to their standard. Also, as Nym90 pointed out, it would essentially create a two-class system among women, with wealthy women able to travel to places where it is legal and have it safely performed, and poor women going surreptitiously to abortionists who probably purchased the lion's share of their obstetric tools at a restaraunt supply store. I don't know how a government can countenance women being butchered. I think some women need this just to keep body and soul together. I don't see, supersoulty, how we can force women to be mothers and at the same time respect feminine dignity. I believe it is thoroughly undignified to be forced to bear a child you do not desire.

[© tweed]

While you are right that abortion would not be illegal across the board without Roe, it would be complicated. The Supreme Court would have to review criminal abortion laws of perhaps many states and compare them to their standard. Also, as Nym90 pointed out, it would essentially create a two-class system among women, with wealthy women able to travel to places where it is legal and have it safely performed, and poor women going surreptitiously to abortionists who probably purchased the lion's share of their obstetric tools at a restaraunt supply store. I don't know how a government can countenance women being butchered. I think some women need this just to keep body and soul together. I don't see, supersoulty, how we can force women to be mothers and at the same time respect feminine dignity. I believe it is thoroughly undignified to be forced to bear a child you do not desire.

Also, well said.

[jravnsbo]

pro-choice

choice to have sex

then choice to stop the beating heart of a child

ok pro-choice

[© tweed]

pro-choice

choice to have sex

then choice to stop the beating heart of a child

ok pro-choice

Are you pro-choice in cases of rape or incest?

[jravnsbo]

I'm not pro-choice as that is a made up political term by the left to sound more friendly than being pro-abortion.  Being for choice sounds friendlier.  If you don't do anything no choice has to be made as it is natural to have a pregnancy.

Abortion, I'm pro-life.  Abortion can be used in my opinion to save the life of the mother as you are still saving life.  I do not believe at all women should use it for birth control.  

Rape and incest are horrible and could result in deformaties in the child which would not only hinder the woman's life but the child might not have much of a life either.  I do think abortion could be available in those instances.  

I am also for parental notification and partial birth abortion ban.  I think restrictions should be placed on it at a minimum.  These safeguards do not stop the abortion but allow the mother to be fully advised of the ramifications.  Many women regret abortions later and some become sterile because of it.  Not a decision to be made in haste.

pro-choice

choice to have sex

then choice to stop the beating heart of a child

ok pro-choice

Are you pro-choice in cases of rape or incest?

[© tweed]

I'm not pro-choice as that is a made up political term by the left to sound more friendly than being pro-abortion.  Being for choice sounds friendlier.  If you don't do anything no choice has to be made as it is natural to have a pregnancy.

Abortion, I'm pro-life.  Abortion can be used in my opinion to save the life of the mother as you are still saving life.  I do not believe at all women should use it for birth control.  

Rape and incest are horrible and could result in deformaties in the child which would not only hinder the woman's life but the child might not have much of a life either.  I do think abortion could be available in those instances.  

I am also for parental notification and partial birth abortion ban.  I think restrictions should be placed on it at a minimum.  These safeguards do not stop the abortion but allow the mother to be fully advised of the ramifications.  Many women regret abortions later and some become sterile because of it.  Not a decision to be made in haste.

pro-choice

choice to have sex

then choice to stop the beating heart of a child

ok pro-choice

Are you pro-choice in cases of rape or incest?

I am against parental notification.

[migrendel]

I oppose parental notification. I believe that it has the unhelpful effect of involving adversarial parents into a situation which could be potentially explosive. I also concur with the findings of the Florida Supreme Court that such a law violates what they term a right to privacy, by infringing upon a girl's reproductive freedom and physical autonomy.

[© tweed]

I oppose parental notification. I believe that it has the unhelpful effect of involving adversarial parents into a situation which could be potentially explosive. I also concur with the findings of the Florida Supreme Court that such a law violates what they term a right to privacy, by infringing upon a girl's reproductive freedom and physical autonomy.

Agreed.  Very religious, anti-abortionst families would ridicule their children if they were notified, if not taking action more severe.

[dazzleman]

I oppose parental notification. I believe that it has the unhelpful effect of involving adversarial parents into a situation which could be potentially explosive. I also concur with the findings of the Florida Supreme Court that such a law violates what they term a right to privacy, by infringing upon a girl's reproductive freedom and physical autonomy.

So it makes sense that a minor girl can't be given an aspirin legally without her parents' permission, but an abortion is perfectly OK?

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

Actually, there definitely is such thing as pro-choice, it's not pro-abortion at all. I've never heard anyone say that they thought that abortion is good and that there should be more abortions, that would be pro-abortion. But pro-choice people believe that this most difficult and personal of decisions should be left to a mother and her physician, and that the government should stay out.
Likewise, as you say, reversing Roe vs. Wade wouldn't stop abortions. Many states, especially the more liberal ones like New York and California, would keep abortion legal. Even if abortion was outlawed nationwide by a constitutional amendment or bill, it would still be legal in Canada and in Europe. So, rich people would be able to go to those countries to get an abortion, but poor people who couldn't afford to travel there would not be able to get one and would in many cases die or have great medical complication from having a back alley abortion.

What Nym90 fails to understand is that from the moment the sperm goes into the egg, it is a living, viable being. I would propose outlawing abortions nationwide, and would withold needed federal funding to those States that do not comply. And, there would be a requirement on women who are leaving the country pregnant, and that they must be certifiably pregnant upon re-entering the United States. Abortion is murder. Absolute Murder. And, Nym90 brings up the idea of women having back alley abortions. Well, another part of my Bill, or proposed Legislation to Congress would be even harsher, and that is that if someone has complications from performing a back alley abortion, her Medicaid and or Insurance would be forbidden from covering any costs accrued in trying to cure any complications that arose as a result of her stupidity. "THOU SHALT NOT KILL."

[migrendel]

To dazzleman:
I fail to see the apparent and vested liberty interest in taking aspirin. After all, no one ruled aspirin consumption part of the right to privacy.
To Christopher Michael:
My graces, you have a fetish for these unicellular organisms. I'll have to just address your ideas, one by one, onerous as that task might be. I'd like to contest your idea that a zygote is a viable organism and a person. First of all, a person isn't even technically pregnant at the point because the zygote or blastocyst hasn't implanted itself in the uterine lining. That's why pharmaceuticals like Birth Control Pills and Post-Coitial Contraception are called contraception and not abortives. But getting back to the issue of viability, it cannot be considered viable because if it was removed from the fallopian tube or uterus, it would not survive. As you know, viability is the point at which something can survive independently. Also, you said you would restrict funding to any state that allows abortion. Is it really that important that many states would enter into fiscal crises over arcane debates over the point of the beginning of personhood? Now for your downright scary idea about the allocation of Medicaid funding. I don't see how the death of a fetus, assuming it was alive in the first place with a life to take, would justify the death of another person. As for disallowing private insurance companies from doing that, I daresay that the Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee could tell you why that is at odds with free enterprise and a free market. I now have the distinct displeasure of addressing the statement that just won the Nobel Prize for Hypocrisy for this year. You emblazoned upon your post, in bold letters, one of the Ten Commandments, Thou shalt not kill. While in Cambridge we refer to them as the three suggestions, I will accept their validity for the sake of argument because you say you do. If you honestly believe in those words, how can you justify your stand in favor of capital punishment? Someone is being killed, and it does say kill. I know you Christians do try to run circles around the wording of that commandment, by saying it only refers to murder, but that just amounts to second guessing what it says. What I think is that you will bang that commandment over our heads whenever it is convenient to you, but whenever it isn't quite suitable to your reactionary agenda, you disown it like some poor relative. I cannot stand such wishy-washiness, and I'm eager to see you defend it, while you say I am complicit in the murder of innocent babies. Now I'm going to do something I haven't done in a while. I'm going to get down on my knees and pray. My prayer will be that the revealed intentions of God that Christopher Michael will be President, disclosed in His lengthy conversations with him, will never come true, because if it does, we'll be screwed six times over.

[jravnsbo]

first word-- spaces please, to break up your arguments, just helps to read thanks

Next, I'll tackle teh 10 commandments /abortion/death penalty   one even though CM I'm sure will weigh in.

Ok as you said the killing of INNOCENT babies.  The unborn have not lied or done anything sinful, except original sin maybe (not going there for now).  

Murders have broken the commandment by killing.  They had a choice to do that.  They had to have acted premeditately (sp) and usually with aggravating factors to get the death penalty so there was some actions and thoughts behind their actions.

That said the Bible does say an eye for an eye and allows for the punishment of evil men.  God even punished man with death in some instances.  

So the big difference is int he choice.  The killer forfeited his life the moment he killed.  Whereas the baby has done nothing to warrant death, but be an "inconvience" to a mother so she chooses to stop its life.

To dazzleman:
I fail to see the apparent and vested liberty interest in taking aspirin. After all, no one ruled aspirin consumption part of the right to privacy.
To Christopher Michael:
My graces, you have a fetish for these unicellular organisms. I'll have to just address your ideas, one by one, onerous as that task might be. I'd like to contest your idea that a zygote is a viable organism and a person. First of all, a person isn't even technically pregnant at the point because the zygote or blastocyst hasn't implanted itself in the uterine lining. That's why pharmaceuticals like Birth Control Pills and Post-Coitial Contraception are called contraception and not abortives. But getting back to the issue of viability, it cannot be considered viable because if it was removed from the fallopian tube or uterus, it would not survive. As you know, viability is the point at which something can survive independently. Also, you said you would restrict funding to any state that allows abortion. Is it really that important that many states would enter into fiscal crises over arcane debates over the point of the beginning of personhood? Now for your downright scary idea about the allocation of Medicaid funding. I don't see how the death of a fetus, assuming it was alive in the first place with a life to take, would justify the death of another person. As for disallowing private insurance companies from doing that, I daresay that the Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee could tell you why that is at odds with free enterprise and a free market. I now have the distinct displeasure of addressing the statement that just won the Nobel Prize for Hypocrisy for this year. You emblazoned upon your post, in bold letters, one of the Ten Commandments, Thou shalt not kill. While in Cambridge we refer to them as the three suggestions, I will accept their validity for the sake of argument because you say you do. If you honestly believe in those words, how can you justify your stand in favor of capital punishment? Someone is being killed, and it does say kill. I know you Christians do try to run circles around the wording of that commandment, by saying it only refers to murder, but that just amounts to second guessing what it says. What I think is that you will bang that commandment over our heads whenever it is convenient to you, but whenever it isn't quite suitable to your reactionary agenda, you disown it like some poor relative. I cannot stand such wishy-washiness, and I'm eager to see you defend it, while you say I am complicit in the murder of innocent babies. Now I'm going to do something I haven't done in a while. I'm going to get down on my knees and pray. My prayer will be that the revealed intentions of God that Christopher Michael will be President, disclosed in His lengthy conversations with him, will never come true, because if it does, we'll be screwed six times over.

[Gustaf]

To dazzleman:
I fail to see the apparent and vested liberty interest in taking aspirin. After all, no one ruled aspirin consumption part of the right to privacy.
To Christopher Michael:
My graces, you have a fetish for these unicellular organisms. I'll have to just address your ideas, one by one, onerous as that task might be. I'd like to contest your idea that a zygote is a viable organism and a person. First of all, a person isn't even technically pregnant at the point because the zygote or blastocyst hasn't implanted itself in the uterine lining. That's why pharmaceuticals like Birth Control Pills and Post-Coitial Contraception are called contraception and not abortives. But getting back to the issue of viability, it cannot be considered viable because if it was removed from the fallopian tube or uterus, it would not survive. As you know, viability is the point at which something can survive independently. Also, you said you would restrict funding to any state that allows abortion. Is it really that important that many states would enter into fiscal crises over arcane debates over the point of the beginning of personhood? Now for your downright scary idea about the allocation of Medicaid funding. I don't see how the death of a fetus, assuming it was alive in the first place with a life to take, would justify the death of another person. As for disallowing private insurance companies from doing that, I daresay that the Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee could tell you why that is at odds with free enterprise and a free market. I now have the distinct displeasure of addressing the statement that just won the Nobel Prize for Hypocrisy for this year. You emblazoned upon your post, in bold letters, one of the Ten Commandments, Thou shalt not kill. While in Cambridge we refer to them as the three suggestions, I will accept their validity for the sake of argument because you say you do. If you honestly believe in those words, how can you justify your stand in favor of capital punishment? Someone is being killed, and it does say kill. I know you Christians do try to run circles around the wording of that commandment, by saying it only refers to murder, but that just amounts to second guessing what it says. What I think is that you will bang that commandment over our heads whenever it is convenient to you, but whenever it isn't quite suitable to your reactionary agenda, you disown it like some poor relative. I cannot stand such wishy-washiness, and I'm eager to see you defend it, while you say I am complicit in the murder of innocent babies. Now I'm going to do something I haven't done in a while. I'm going to get down on my knees and pray. My prayer will be that the revealed intentions of God that Christopher Michael will be President, disclosed in His lengthy conversations with him, will never come true, because if it does, we'll be screwed six times over.

Actually, CM is the only anti-abortionist here being consistent. If you take a stand against abortion it would have to be all the way, since the view that it is a human being would prohibit killing it, even if there is rape or incest involved.

To jravnsbo:

I hope you do not actually believe in "an eye for an eye" as a base for the legal system? (Damn, why didn't I bring that up with jmf? ). Like, if you rape someone you should get raped yourself, or what?  

[jravnsbo]

I always thought an eye for an eye just applied to murder, but maybe this isn't how it is seen.  That is what I would limit it too.  Well I do approve of the death penalty if Treason is proved also.

To dazzleman:
I fail to see the apparent and vested liberty interest in taking aspirin. After all, no one ruled aspirin consumption part of the right to privacy.
To Christopher Michael:
My graces, you have a fetish for these unicellular organisms. I'll have to just address your ideas, one by one, onerous as that task might be. I'd like to contest your idea that a zygote is a viable organism and a person. First of all, a person isn't even technically pregnant at the point because the zygote or blastocyst hasn't implanted itself in the uterine lining. That's why pharmaceuticals like Birth Control Pills and Post-Coitial Contraception are called contraception and not abortives. But getting back to the issue of viability, it cannot be considered viable because if it was removed from the fallopian tube or uterus, it would not survive. As you know, viability is the point at which something can survive independently. Also, you said you would restrict funding to any state that allows abortion. Is it really that important that many states would enter into fiscal crises over arcane debates over the point of the beginning of personhood? Now for your downright scary idea about the allocation of Medicaid funding. I don't see how the death of a fetus, assuming it was alive in the first place with a life to take, would justify the death of another person. As for disallowing private insurance companies from doing that, I daresay that the Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee could tell you why that is at odds with free enterprise and a free market. I now have the distinct displeasure of addressing the statement that just won the Nobel Prize for Hypocrisy for this year. You emblazoned upon your post, in bold letters, one of the Ten Commandments, Thou shalt not kill. While in Cambridge we refer to them as the three suggestions, I will accept their validity for the sake of argument because you say you do. If you honestly believe in those words, how can you justify your stand in favor of capital punishment? Someone is being killed, and it does say kill. I know you Christians do try to run circles around the wording of that commandment, by saying it only refers to murder, but that just amounts to second guessing what it says. What I think is that you will bang that commandment over our heads whenever it is convenient to you, but whenever it isn't quite suitable to your reactionary agenda, you disown it like some poor relative. I cannot stand such wishy-washiness, and I'm eager to see you defend it, while you say I am complicit in the murder of innocent babies. Now I'm going to do something I haven't done in a while. I'm going to get down on my knees and pray. My prayer will be that the revealed intentions of God that Christopher Michael will be President, disclosed in His lengthy conversations with him, will never come true, because if it does, we'll be screwed six times over.

Actually, CM is the only anti-abortionist here being consistent. If you take a stand against abortion it would have to be all the way, since the view that it is a human being would prohibit killing it, even if there is rape or incest involved.

To jravnsbo:

I hope you do not actually believe in "an eye for an eye" as a base for the legal system? (Damn, why didn't I bring that up with jmf? ). Like, if you rape someone you should get raped yourself, or what?  

[Nym90]

Well, clearly the fetus is not a viable human being on its own, since it can't survive outside the human body. The record for the earliest that a fetus has ever been born and survived outside the body is at about 6 months, hence the concept of "trimesters" for abortions. The reason that it is ok to regulate abortions in the 3rd trimester is because at that point, the fetus gains the ability to theoretically survive outside the womb (even though at 6 months it would be extremely unlikely, but it has been proven to be possible). So as to the question of whether or not a recently conceived zygote is a viable human being, the answer is clearly no. So why should a zygote have rights? Well, you might say because it is potential human life, but every single cell in your body is potential human life, as well. When you scrach an itch on your skin, you kill thousands of cells that could potentially become a human life. Obviously no one thinks that this should be illegal. Obviously those cells are a part of your body and thus you have the right to do with them as you please, and they have no rights on their own.
Now, one could raise a religious objection to abortion, and argue that when two people have sexual intercourse, God decides whether or not the sperm and egg will come together to form a human being, and thus humans have no right to interfere with that. That's fine, but it creates a problem. If so, then how can there be an exception for rape and incest? Does it say somewhere in the Bible that God only guides the sperm and egg together in consensual, nonincestous sex, but otherwise it's just random? That doesn't make any sense. If one is raising a religious objection to abortion, it would seem that one would also have to oppose it in cases of rape and incest as well. Likewise, even if you believe that abortion is the moral equivalent of murder, you'd have to still oppose it in rape and incest cases for the same reason; it's still murder even then. Only to save the life of the mother (not even the health, just the life) could abortion thus be justified. And even in those instances, one could argue that it is still being guided by God's will, as to who dies and who lives.
So, as I see it, there is no scientific basis for making abortion illegal in the first 6 months of pregnancy, as the fetus would have to be defined as a part of the mother's body and not as its own organism during this time, there are only religious reasons, and thus as I believe there should be a seperation of church and state, I think that abortion should be legal in the first 6 months. During the last trimester, however, once the fetus has achieved theoretical viability, I think that it should be legal to ban abortion except in cases in which the life or health of the mother is at risk. I do believe that at that point the fetus should have some rights, since it could live on its own outside the mother's body, and thus its right to stay alive should supercede the mother's whims.