Because if you truly believe it's morally wrong, it doesn't matter how many courts rule that its permissible under law

Which is exactly why laws are enforced rather than morals, and why America should strongly maintain what is left of its separation between church and state!

OR (warning inflamatory content follows)

Perhaps we should invite the Taliban to enforce their morals here, eh?
Yeah, thats it, lets just stone unmarried pregos before they have a chance to have an abortion!

Yeah, but as laws are a human construct, whereas morality is the work of God, the laws obvously need to be changed.

Irish

P.S. - Please understand I'm playing devils advocate here

This issue has come up in a thread of yesteryear. The heart of the relevant federal statute is:
............................................................................................................
§ 1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited

(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or
foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth
abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth
abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother
whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical
illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering
physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy
itself.
............................................................................................................

Note the proviso, "in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce." Daniel and I contended over its import. If I were a juror in such a case, I'd have to be convinced that interstate or foreign commerce took place or was affected before I'd find the defendant guilty. It remains to be seen what the US Supreme Court makes of it.

I think the issue is more than about the morality of abortion. Late term abortions are troublesome to those who are not moral absolutists. Even I'm concerned about abortions of eight month fetuses because, like many people, I feel that at that stage of development they're very much "like us" in ways that matter.

What makes no sense to me is the "partial birth abortion" law which bans not abortions but a procedure. The law doesn't bar a single abortion; it just requires that another method be used. It seems to me that one wouldn't use a certain procedure unless it were deemed the safest one available. So the law in essence allows abortions to go forward if the woman is willing to accept some marginally higher risk. The result: same for the fetus, somewhat more danger to the woman. So who exactly does this law help? I don't think it makes sense even from a pro-life point of view.

If the real issue is late term abortions, then that's what should be discussed, as difficult as that discussion may be. But it seems that neither side is willing to address it, so instead we get nonsensical restrictions like this one.

Just an addendum. It seems to me that few in the pro-life community really have the courage of their convictions. The advantage to their side is clarity, a bright line that says fertilized embryo = human being. But if that's the case, then there can be no anti-abortion exceptions for rape an incest, because abortion would still be taking the life of a human being. Moreover, you shouldn't just fine doctors or imprison them for a few years; you have to prosecute them for murder. And same goes for the woman, worse in fact, because it's murder for hire which is a capital offense in some states. Some pro-lifers are consistent in taking these positions--but very, very few of them.

I am pro-life. I think abortion is wrong. (There, I said it.)

However, I am also against laws making abortions illegal. That is because I am an ER nurse and dislike the idea of nearly dead women coming to see me at work after home-style abortion attempts.

I do not understand why the rest of the pro-lifers don't see the most effective means of preventing abortion being the prevention of unwanted pregnancies. If you really want to eliminate abortion, lobby for better sex education, primary care for women, an end to poverty, and better education for all Americans.

Of course the problem is that the rest of the pro-lifers have this totally screwed up notion that sex is for the sole purpose of making babies and that people should only have sex if that is their explicit intention. Which is proof that they are doing it wrong...

I am pro-life. I think abortion is wrong. . . . However, I am also against laws making abortions illegal.

Perhaps it's a semantic difference, but I'd call someone who was against making abortions illegal pro-choice. I think there are plenty of people who think abortions are tragic and to be avoided if possible, and even morally wrong, but who don't think they have the right to make that decision for someone else. That to me is the essence of the pro-choice position.

I see the pro-life position as taking the view that a single cell with the complete set of human chromosomes and the ability to develop into an adult is a human being, and therefore terminating that entity's existence at any point of development is murder, thereby giving the state the right to prohibit such terminations.

I think it is a sematic and philisophical difference. One could be pro life and pro choice concurrently.

One could say For myself I am pro choice and I favor the option of life but I think that people should be free to make whatever choice they want to.

Quote:

---

I am pro-life. I think abortion is wrong. . . . However, I am also against laws making abortions illegal.

Perhaps it's a semantic difference, but I'd call someone who was against making abortions illegal pro-choice. I think there are plenty of people who think abortions are tragic and to be avoided if possible, and even morally wrong, but who don't think they have the right to make that decision for someone else. That to me is the essence of the pro-choice position.

I see the pro-life position as taking the view that a single cell with the complete set of human chromosomes and the ability to develop into an adult is a human being, and therefore terminating that entity's existence at any point of development is murder, thereby giving the state the right to prohibit such terminations.

---