[dotcoma]

Quote by: Gorgo We need to draw the line somewhere. We need to weigh the problems caused against the benefits gained. Abortion is a major medical procedure. The risk and cost of a major medical procedure is the only negative I can think of. The positive would be the ability of a woman to run her own life.What am I missing?

You are missing the fact that this creates a society of people who treat pregnancy like an option that they can just abort as they please.

Quote by: bishop i dunno.. like i said, i don't see these details as being pointless. i'd characterize it as - it is life, but not A life. not anything remotely similar to what pops out after 9 months imo.

Well I guess that is just your opinion, and that's fine, but it seems silly to me. I mean you now what that zygote is.

on a constitutional level, the charge that abortion kills life, therefore it should be illegal seems hypocritical to me. we've employed the death penalty for over 200 years now. doesn't that deprive someone of life?

But people are being executed by the state because they killed someone else. What did the child do...and the state is not the one killing the baby.

plus, at what point does the constitution apply - does it apply to the unborn? and also, forced pregnancy (i.e. when you take away choice) isn't exactly in the interest of liberty and the pursuit of happiness from the woman's perspective (and you could also argue that it's an invasion on her rights over her own body).

The constitution technically does not apply to children either, but our society does not let the mother control her own destiny by killing them as she sees fit (sorry for the exaggerated example :) ).

no, everything cannot be for utility, that's true. but, there are instances where it does matter and is legitimate.. i find it to be the epitomy of hypocrisy that anti-choice people out there stir up such a shit storm about the rights of the unborn - but once the child is born, they could give a shit less about it. if the mother happens to be poor, uneducated and ill-equipped to supporting her child - it's all her problem, and she doesn't deserve the little bit of welfare she gets either. it amazes me how the anti-choice group seems to view the mother as public enemy #1, while it loses concern for the baby once it's born.

Well what about adoption agencies and such? Some of the poorest children can grow up to be amazing people yes?

The only thing that bothers me in the back of my mind is I know that if they remvoed row v wade that there would just be tons of underground illigal self-abortions.