Reply #25: The pet thing was a little goofy, but the point is valid....

[txaslftist]

You are saying all of the things (in different ways) that the Supremes said in Roe v. Wade. The Supremes didn't have the luxury of waxing philosophical and coming to no conclusions, however, they had to make a decision on this difficult, divisive issue.

What I think it boils down to is, yes... in the third trimester a mother does not have a right to "abortion on demand"; on the other hand, if her life is threatened, the doctor and patient should decide what to do.

As for the first and second trimesters, there's a different practicality. The practical reality is that during these trimesters expectant single moms and teenage girls WILL abort, even if they have to go to a back alley coat hanger guy. The morality issue has to take a back seat to the practical realities. People who ignore this ignore our own historical attempts at abortion prohibition. The govt. should try to ensure that abortion is safe and rare.-the Clinton position.

That is a non-religious, practically driven justification for being pro-choice, which is not the same as being pro-abortion or anti-life.

The personal attacks on truhavoc don't help, by the way.