This is one of the issues that I find most interesting, because both sides can't even agree on what's being argued over: the right of the fetus or the woman?

I personally do not put a limit on circumstances. Rape, incest, health of the mother, health of the child, not emotionally ready, not financially ready, father left the picture, between jobs and doesn't want to go to interviews pregnant, ANYTHING. A condom preventing a person and an early-term abortion preventing a person are about equal in my eyes.

I don't really see it as "when does life begin" because all cells are alive, but more as when does what's alive really become a "being". I don't believe that simply a merger of 2 cells is a human, even if it may grow into one. I don't really know at what stage I'd consider it morally wrong to abort. There's not going to be a defining instant when that happens, since by nature it has to be one big sliding scale, and therefor a law would not be able to reflect what I see as right and wrong. Therefor I believe it should be up to only those involved, the mother and doctor, and father where appropriate.

If it were ever made illegal except for rape, I shudder to think how many innocent men would be convicted because a dishonest scared woman didn't want to go through a pregnancy. Or how many women would be forced to carry that reminder if the guy got off. Or what about the backalley or DIY methods? And what about responsible married couples not ready for/wanting a child, condoms break and the pill fails. If they want to be truly responsible, they won't have sex until they're ready for a kid? What if they never want kids? There are SO many reasons abortion should not be illegal. Pro-choice forces no views on anyone. Pro-life does.


I'm all for it being performed less often, but that would depend on better technology for birth controls and a complete revamp of the country's idea of sex ed.