How about these ideas to solve the problem:

1) Have mandatory birth control until you can show fiscal, emotional, and child educational performance levels to get off birth control?

naw, that’s to fascist...how about:

2) Have the Mother perform the abortion herself. She can use a device to insert a suction tube and grab the baby and suck it out. In order for her to get it properly there will need to be small video cameras with back lighting so she can actually see the baby as it gets sucked up or ripped in half. I guess the remains left squirming around inside her will be a tough memory to erase until she can insert to tube to suck up the remaining "Clump of Cells".

Hay, this puts the total power into the woman’s hands!!! Isn't that what you pro-choice guys want right???

More government involvement in peoples' lives = bad.
Less government involvement in peoples' lives = good.

It's pretty much that simple.

Where, pray tell, did you clearly articulate your position? For the most part the people you are allied with are absolutists. For the most part, legislative solutions proposed are effectively absolutist, making no provision for rape or incest.

Let's get down to the real reason for you anti-choice, anti-privacy fearful:

You are, in fact, afraid of women with power, particularly over their own bodies.

Take a look at my first post on the topic Tech. I clearly state that I do not think it is my job to tell someone else what they can or cannot do to their body. I do, however, consider abortion to be the killing of a human life and I think that people who are "pro choice" should stop sugar coating the issue and rationalizing it by trying to make it into some sort of pregnancy due to rape issue. It isn't. Look at the facts. The facts state that 95% of abortions are done for purely elective reasons. These are the abortions we are talking about.

I'm sure it makes it easier for you to put people into camps and talk about who I am "allied" with (we're all rednecks anyway right?) instead of actually reading what is posted and trying to deal with the individual.

There are a few here (and we know who they are) who would have women infantilized and returned to the status of chattel.

Talking cows?
:)

My guess is, most of you experts on either side have not been faced with the decision.
Not so black and white, believe me.

Sure. But where do you stand, exactly. If it were up to you, would you place limits on abortion? No? Elective abortion of an 8 pound infant while it's mother is in labor? Is that OK with you? No? Is second trimester abortion OK?

Tech, it's easy to shout down the lunatic fringe. But where do you stand?

The issue, IMHO, isn't what personal decision you make but whether the government even allows anyone to make the decision at all.

I'm personally against abortion.

But I am 100% for taking the government completely out of all medical decisions; letting the medical profession police itself re: cloning, euthanasia, abortion, etc.

These are all individual decisions with many different circumstances. And overall, that type of situation is not a good place to apply the blunt instrument of government intervention.

I guess you'd describe my position as libertarian.

But what about the cows man?

Decisions will be made whether we are allowed to or not.
They always have been. The fact that it is currently a legal choice, reflects what the majority of people in this country want.

This is the philosophy of many "pro life" people I've run across. If faced with such a choice (raped/impregnated daughter) they have absolute confidence that they would find a way around it -- sending her to another country, etc. They really want other people to have no choice.

Agree.

I'll take that as a complement...:D

Abortion is murder.

We obviously run in different circles. I don't know a single person who has ever said something like this to me. I'm sure I must know some folks who are pro-lifers, but they never talk about it with me. And in 3 yrs. of working at the RNC, I never once heard a mention of abortion in the building by any co-workers.

So....you would support the legality of full-term abortion? (By the way, that's a yes or no question.)

Oh my Gawd I almost chocked on my Lemon Rosemary Pork Lion lunch!

For the sake of argument I will assume you are being rhetorical.

Incase your not. I am not afraid of that by any stretch of the imagination. It has nothing to do with the women’s body. It is a life form in the women’s body. She does have rights as do men but certain rights are forfeited when she begins to carry another life form (or proto-human form) weather she wanted the life form or not. She is in fact the agent of the species delegated to harbor life. It may be a burden in certain cases but it is a huge privilege overall. That’s the gig of a female, like it or not. The male inseminates and the female brings to term the life form for it to start all over again when the time is right. But let’s play the game for a minute:

I am walking with my child strapped to my back – no life treating issues, just living day to day stuff. I think that I can cover more ground and be more productive and also have more freedom if the child wasn’t on my back. The only way I am gonna make this work is if I un-strap it and let it walk beside me. The problem is, it is only a year old and really won’t be walking for another year or so. Do I continue to carry it till it can walk? Do I just let it go and let nature take its course?

Yes, I would - although it would be a "hold-your-nose" choice. It's not my decision to make - it's between the woman, her doctor and her conscience. Everyone else is out of the decision-making loop, or should be.

Existing laws are pretty clear - human life begins at birth - usually interpreted as demonstrated ability to survive outside the woman's body (such as by taking a breath). I don't particularly like these kind of "dumbed down" laws that set arbitrary standards but they exist for the same reason as arbitrary speed limits, 21 to drink, 18 to enter into a contract, etc. Our society's lack of ability to think critically demands that a line be drawn somewhere, so it is in our laws.

I don't like the implications of it either, but until our society starts demonstrating an ability to be more rational and objective, I suspect we'll continue to see the need for government and lawyers to hold our hands and impose arbitrary standards upon us. Don't like it? Start thinking critically and demanding that others do the same instead of defaulting to dumbed-down bullet-point answers for everything in their lives.

EDIT: At risk of being inflammatory I'll simply point out that religion is exceedingly good at demanding that people simply obey, rather than question and decide for themselves. Just another example of how it holds our society back by indirectly ensuring that we remain slaves to arbitrary standards.

Yes. I support any decision -- however unlikely -- made between a patient and physician.

Nor would you until the issue arises. I believe Jim Cesiro's experience is absolutely typical. I also believe that "pro lifers" are far less likely to share the information that they are getting or involved in an abortion.