Fair enough, Willow. But, on the when does life begin issue, I'll state it begins, IMHO (and not ascribing it to anyone else) when there is discernible brain activity. If we base it on heartbeat, there are issues with those who are in a permanent "vegetative" state - and with other things in this world of cloning capabilities. I think you must think to be "alive" as a human. MHO.
As with the fetus, I think whenever that brain acitity beginning is, that would be the point at which to cutoff abortion IF we are giving the fetus the same rights as a living/out-of-the-womb person.
Yes, it is true that in MOST states, you can stab a pregnant woman, killing the fetus, and be charged for murder even though she was outside the abortion clinic intending to abort the fetus that very day. The law is always a bit slow in catching up to science, and especially on an issue as tricky as this often inadvertantly results in weird conclusions.
But, the "choice" issue for the law is comparative: as I said, the Roe v. Wade justices didn't think that a fetus in the 2nd trimester was not "alive." Rather, at that point, they felt the woman's right to choose would still "trump" any right the fetus had, whether "alive" or not. The guy who stabs the pregnant woman has NO rights vis-a-vis the fetus, whereas the mother does. Now, that's crystal clear, right. [img]graemlins/awcrap.gif[/img] Well, at least I tried.
Cerek, great post, and I think (no offense) you would fall into that category of people whose various moral views lead them to seemingly inconsistent conclusions on these issues. But, it made perfect sense to me.
