I'll never understand how people's views on abortion can be so muddled; this "I think it's murder, but I support a woman's right to choose or I don't think the government should be involved" is just ... bizarre to me.  That's like saying "I think it's wrong to murder your neighbor, but I support people's right to make their own decision".  If you think it's wrong or murder, then you should be opposed to it.

I don't believe a fetus is a human being -- until it's capable of surviving outside the womb.  Prior to that, I have absolutely no opposition to abortion; after that, it should be an option only if the mother's life is in risk.

A friend of mine in high school (one of our little "nerd-pack" - he now holds a PhD in Biochemistry) told me that the worst possible position for Pro-choice advocates to take would be something that hinged on "when" during the pregnancy "life" started. 

He wasn't too happy about abortions himself, but as he put it: the strongest arguments in favor of choice rest in the rights of the woman, not in the value of the life of the foetus. (It was his opinion that if the debate focused only on when the "life" or "sentience" or "awareness" of the foetus began, then the fight  had already been conceded in favor of the anti-abortion advocates.)

An abortion, no matter at what stage is the killing of a child. Or a potential child.  It is something which should not be done casually, as a form of primary birth control or without considering options. 

It is not, however, murder. That unborn child is not yet a legal person, and what is more: until it is born and exists outside its mother's womb, it cannot be a legal person.

Any status of personhood conferred upos a foetus falls under the same lack of a moderate "threshold" as the "when does life start" argument. In a pregnancy there are only two true thresholds (applicable to legal situations)- conception and birth. If a foetus is a legal person before birth, then inevitably it must be a legal person since its inception.

Any woman with a "person" inside her (and possibly even someone who possibly might be pregnant) would find her rights limited by that. No right to engage in behaviour that might endanger the health of a child (drinking and smoking), no right to an abortion. Even in cases where her own life is at risk, it might be argued that since they are both persons, she cannot make a unilateral decision about which one of them gets to live.

For a foetus to be a person, the personhood (and attendant rights) of a woman must be limited. For a woman (during her fertile years) to be a full legal person, a foetus (or unborn child if you prefer) cannot be. 

That is my perspective.  I realize it's a perspective that may technically be used to justify abortions up until the actual birth, but there are limitations in the area between 1st trimester abortions and birth that are related more properly to medical ethics than to law.

(of course this is the argument from principle, there are more pragmatic arguments and more emotionally charged arguments that come into play also, but I thought I'd start with this.)

And, surely, this thread is proof of the coming co-habitation of dogs and cats.

They've been doing that for YEARS in my house!  So cute when they snuggle...

(And so strangely anti-nature...)

I'll never understand how people's views on abortion can be so muddled; this "I think it's murder, but I support a woman's right to choose or I don't think the government should be involved" is just ... bizarre to me.  That's like saying "I think it's wrong to murder your neighbor, but I support people's right to make their own decision".  If you think it's wrong or murder, then you should be opposed to it.

There is a HUGE difference between thinking it's wrong and thinking it's murder.  I don't see how you can consider it muddled.  Something being wrong doesn't equate to something being illegal.  Murder, on the other hand, is illegal.  So, if someone thinks abortion is wrong, it's completely valid for them also to believe it's still a woman's right to choose.  But, if someone thinks it's murder I can see your point.

And, surely, this thread is proof of the coming co-habitation of dogs and cats.

They've been doing that for YEARS in my house!  So cute when they snuggle

I'd like to have this at my house but I can't get a dog since I don't want to come home to a mess on the floor every day, heh.  Now if they could just be toilet trained.

It reminds me of a funny thing I heard about cats and dogs.

Having a cat is like having a child.

Having a dog is like having a special needs child.

Scott -- if you crate a dog, they won't mess.  They don't like to poop in the same place they sleep (just like you and me!).  There are also some great services available for pet caretakers to come to your home and walk your dog during the day while at work. 

Cats CAN be toilet trained!  It's actually very easy to do -- never was able to get him to flush, tho.

Cats can flush toilets!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WofFb_eOxxA

Well voiced, Jodi.  This is basically my come down on the situation, too.  It's not a lack of a clear position, but, rather, my putting greater emphasis on the importance of an individual being capable of making that personal choice.  To Geoff's point, I'm...of course...not entirely consistent across the issues spectrum. 

Its not issue of consistency of positions, vis a vis liberal or conservative or democrat or republican.  You can have views that do not match up with straight liberal or conservative lines and thats cool, its evidence of thought.  But I wasn't asking about consistencies in that regard.

It was a question of reconciliation of a statement.  We all push our beliefs on someone by being involved in the process.  There are a great many people who believe they have an absolute right to bear arms without governmental restriction.  Others feel that government can restrict and even ban the legal ownership of guns.  Each is pushing their beliefs on others.  There are many who believe that marriage is covenant made between a man and woman, and that people of the same gender cannot and should not have the right to enter into such an arrangement.  Thats pushing a belief on someone.  Jodi, to her credit, has articulated many positions that she supports which are controversial.  She has no qualms pushing her beliefs on people those issues.  My question was why does she not treat abortion the same way? 

It was not a question of whether abortion is right or wrong.  Thats for each person to decide.  It was questioning why she chose not to push her position on this issue as she does her position on other issues.  As I noted in the first post it was not meant as a trap -- it was an honest question of why "pass" on this issue.

That's like the old joke about being indecisive about abortion:  I love killing babies, but hate giving women any kind of choice...

Keith:

I was critcizing the Roe decision which cobbled together a right to abortion under the legal fiction of privacy rights (among other things).  It was a legal critiqe of the shortfalls in the Roe v. Wade decision.  That decision is a results oriented decision which I generally disfavor.  I was happy with the result (legalized abortion) but unhappy with how the Court got there and feel it infringes on states rights. Which admittedly is a very legalistic sort of comment, but I am a lawyer, so I'm prone to make them.

There is a HUGE difference between thinking it's wrong and thinking it's murder.  I don't see how you can consider it muddled.  Something being wrong doesn't equate to something being illegal.  Murder, on the other hand, is illegal.  So, if someone thinks abortion is wrong, it's completely valid for them also to believe it's still a woman's right to choose.  But, if someone thinks it's murder I can see your point.

Thats a great point, Scott.  One may of course support abortion rights and not choose to have one herself.  One may even think its wrong in certain cases (e.g. as a means of birth control) and believe it should remain legal.  Thats not inconsistent.  But believing that abortion is "killing a child" implies a belief that it is infanticide.