[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

I didn't say that a human fetus would be protected under the Endangered Species Act, but that a similar piece of legislation could be made that protects their right to thrive, especially once it hits a certain growth period. It has nothing to do with citizenship, since you're not saying a fetus is a US citizen, you're really just giving them a similar status to a protected animal, who also have no official legal status, just the right to thrive and survive. As well, those status-less aliens are still afforded the right to not be murdered, even if the government denies their existence.

Again, a ridiculous proposition. That would mean that you establish a protected zone in the womb of every woman, and remove the personal control of the body from each and every woman. That is a direct restriction of their rights as guaranteed under the constitution.

What's next? The religious right gets to decide that masturbation is a crime and get to impose a no touchy zone between every man's legs? After all, every single spermatezoa is a potential human being! We can't restrict their rights to hook up with that ovum and create an other gob of goo that could turn into a god fearing human. Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great, when a sperm is wasted, god gets quite irate! Great, we can call it the Python Proxy and it can reside in the Penial Code.

Also, there is proof that a fetus does have brain function and by the end of the second trimester, can support itself with help by modern medical equipment... while that would be no reason to ban abortion, it would be enough to at least ban second trimester abortion. One could also say that banning second trimester abortion does not go against a woman's right to choose, because she had the chance to within the first 3 months of her pregnancy, and chose to do nothing. (the majority are first trimester anyway, but there's still a lot that creep into the second).

I personally agree with you that abortion after the first trimester is wrong on most accounts, but it is not my position to judge the motivations of the mother. That is a decision that only she can make. That is somethng that she will have to reconcile between herself, her conscience and her god. There is no room for anyone else, or their opinion, in that equation.

There are significant reasons why an outright ban on abortion shouldn't happen... especially when one looks at the demographics of abortion and crime rates... but a law like that would not be as easy to pick apart as you believe... but like I said, perhaps best unlegislated.

The thing that really pisses me off about the whole issue is the contradiction the religious right shows in the big picture. They demand that mothers do NOT abort their babies, but never for a second consider the circumstances the mother finds herself. The same clowns that stand on high and scream about abortion are the same clowns that yell the loudest about taxes and killing off welfare. How the hell do so many of the single mothers manage to take care of their babies when they are unemployable, couldn't afford the childcare if they had jobs, and don't have a social safety net to fall back on? Sure, lets crank out thousands of babies that mothers can't take care of. The lack of thought is just mind boggling.