Sorry Comet, I didn't ignore you, just missed it, I assure you it wasn't intentional.
While what I said cannot be a "fact" in the traditional sense as our conscience doesn't come with an instruction manual, I think its safe to say that taking a human life is something that requires justification. One such justification is self-defense, this justification could apply to a human in the womb. No other reason for killing that has been presented thus far qualifies as justification, aside from rape.

I agree whole heartedly with this statment. We are unable to determine with any certainty when "life" begins. But, consider this, we have hundreds if not thousands of laws meant to prevent people from doing things that may endanger another person. How do we justify allowing elective abortion when we know it may kill another person?

I agree that some abortions will always be legal. I also believe that we are one or two key judicial appointments away from severly limiting when it is legal.

I am pro-choice as well, where we differ is in the timing of that decision. I am very much a smaller gov't advocate, but one of the things that the gov't does have the duty to do is protect the citizenry. Gov't has the responsibility to pass an enforce laws against murder, rape, stealing, etc.

These are circumstances where abortion can be justified. In the case of rape, the woman did not consent to the sex, her right to choose was denied. In the case of danger to the mother's life, were talking about self defense.

I disagree, the most logical course of action is to adopt the position that protects people like we do with so many other laws. For instance, it is illegal to randomly shoot a gun into the air (at least where I live) because the bullet could cause harm to another person, even though the chances are incredibly slim.

Smaller gov't and anti-abortion are not mutually exclusive. We should make gov't smaller where they are acting outside their mandate. Passing laws to protect people from harm by others is within that mandate.

__________________
Never annoy a cat. We like our meals hot and bleeding.

Again I see this mostly as a medical issue. Others are tired of my repetition I'm sure, but it's the position I've held for some time.
A medical treatment for physical or even mental reasons.
And women don't have a "right" to privacy. Just look at those who deliver in a Naval teaching hospital and you'll see it isn't very private.

__________________
214 Days
9 Hours
56 Minutes Days till Christmas

Of course they do.

Then those who object to the lack of privacy have the right to deliver elsewhere.

Citizenship is determined by where one is born.
The government has neither duty nor legitimate interest in "protecting" the unborn from those whose bodies they inhabit.

The government has a legitimate interest in prohibiting acts which endanger or otherwise adversely affect society.
I fail to see how abortion is on par with such acts, and frankly I find such an implication both ridiculous and offensive.
I'm a vegetarian and an animal welfare activist; factory farming makes me cry. Yet you don't hear me implying that eating meat should be illegal, since murder, rape, and burglary are.
And believe me, my right to bodily sovereignty is far more fundamental, far more central to my basic humanity, than your right to stuff your face with Big Macs.

What about the KFC Double Down?

__________________

And what about the girl who's legs are spread elsewhere? Women have very little privacy of body once they become pregnant imho. And if you think that's bad wait till you have to sing twinkle twinkle little star to your toddler from the commode. That'll get your adrenalin goin.

__________________
214 Days
9 Hours
56 Minutes Days till Christmas

Ok, bad wording, replace "citizenry" with people.

I agree.

Simple, we outlaw things because they are potentialy harmful to another human being. Most abortions fall into this catagory.

Holy apples to oranges comparison Batman!!

__________________

"A rising tide has lifted all yachts." Warren Buffett

Obama is not a dark skinned, anti-war socialist who gives away free health care; you're thinking of Jesus.

That may reflect your personal experience, but it has nothing to do with what is or should be the law of the land.
My rights do not change one iota when I become pregnant.
I have the right to pay the individual of my choosing to deliver my baby in the location of my choosing. They are to do so in the manner of my choosing (hell, with this last one, I even chose my baby's birthday. I wanted him born five days prior to my actual due date. It was done. My doctor is willing to induce at 39 weeks, which is when it is medically safe to do so. Had my doctor not been willing, I would've found one who was). Should an emergency arise where a woman in labor is unconscious or otherwise mentally incapacitated and medical decisions need to be made on her behalf, these are to be made by the person she has previously chosen and designated for this purpose.
If she doesn't like the way things are are done in a hospital, she can choose a different one. Or a birthing center. Or she can give birth at home, attended by a mid-wife. Or in the woods all by herself, if that is her choice.

Anecdotally, I have a 21 year old and a 20 year old, as well as a newborn.
I did notice a difference between my experience with this recent pregnancy and delivery, as opposed to those other long-ago ones, as far as feeling empowered and in control. I selected my doctor carefully, and paid a lot of money to have the medical personnel at the hospital of my choice deliver my baby. I procured and paid them for their services. They were working for me. If I hadn't liked the job they were doing, I could've dismissed them and declined their services at any time.
This was just as true 21 years ago, but I didn't know it.
Just because you don't know you have rights, however, doesn't mean you don't.
A person may be ignorant of their rights and therefore not exercise them, but that does not mean said rights don't exist. They exist regardless.