But at the same time, we do not legislate what pregnant women can or cannot do to their bodies when pregnant. They can drink, smoke, do drugs, etc. This clearly will have an effect on the fetus, including death, birth defects, addiction, but we don't outlaw those either. Fetuses only have rights up to a certain extent.

My personal opinion about abortion is this:

First trimester abortions should be completely unrestricted.
Second and Third trimester abortions should be allowed ONLY for severe birth defects (completely up to patient/doctor discretion, so yes, if a woman wants to abort her Down Syndrome fetus, that is her choice!), non-viability of the fetus, rape or incest victims and severe risk to the mother's life, up to 27 weeks.
-Neonatologist can routinely save 27 week premies. The results at this point for any fetus younger than that age are so variable across the country that it is NONVIABLE in many areas. This week should change as our technology changes.
-Many severe defects are only fully evaluated beyond the point where the fetus is still first trimester.
-The life of the mother should ALWAYS come first. If the pregnancy is beyond 27 weeks, then labor should be induced rather than abortion performed to save the life of the mother.

My rationale for this opinion is that first trimester fetuses have not fully developed any organ systems and are essentially a ball of cells. This gives mothers of unwanted pregnancies a chance to decide what is best for themselves.

Second and third trimester fetuses have developed all of their organ systems and can be easily identified as babies. Termination should be a last resort at this point. If a woman can't get it together to have an abortion before this point, she's S.O.L!

So ... I feel like you're giving conflicting opinions here. Before, in your own words, you said you're either "pro-abortion" or "anti-abortion". Many people have disagreed with your terms, but that's not really the issue right now.

If this is really what you believe, how can you be ANTI-abortion, if you think it's OK to terminate a pregnancy at all ?

^^^ I pretty much second all of this!

Actually, pregnant women have been charged with abuse based on their behaviors before the child was born (drugs, for example http://www.wspa.com/spa/news/local/a...charged/16838/ ) - and, for example, Conor Peterson's father was charged with his murder, even though he was still in utereo. There oughta be a law - and there is .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_...f_Violence_Act. So as a society we do believe some actions which impact an unborn baby are not only morally wrong, but legally.

As to TP's comment - as has been pointed out before, most of those who are pro-legal abortion aren't 100%, at all times, no exceptions, in support of abortion on demand, and most pro-lifers are not 100%, at all times, no exceptions, no abortions ever. Making an exception for a pregnancy which will result in the death of the mother is still pro-life - it just makes an exception for a situation in which both lives cannot be preserved. A life is still being saved - and weighing the two lives, the rights of the mother would seem to me to logically outweigh the rights of the unborn - but it is an exceptional situation. If it makes you feel better, call me anti-legalized abortion on demand. It is a logical fallacy to call it an either/or situation.

If it's not 100% either way, I think that's just another argument against your "anti-abortion"/"pro abortion" terminology/thought process/belief.

Yeah...you can find a couple cases, but I've seen countless others that are never prosecuted. Shoot, most states won't even prosecute parents who kill their babies in car wrecks because they don't put them in car seats. And that's with definitive laws requiring the use of car seats.

I've specified that for the purposes of the political discussion of the topic presented in the poll I meant anti/pro- legalized abortion - and my point is that those who apply those labels to themselves do so with some caveats. Again, not an either/or situation.

Using your logic, it would be most accurate to term my beliefs as "pro-life", because they spring from a desire to save lives, born and unborn. But since we are talking about the legalization of abortion, the most accurate term is anti-abortion,with the understanding that it is possible to be against abortion on demand but to make exceptions in rare and defined cases (i.e., life of the mother), just as someone might call themselves "pro-choice", but believe that the choice being talked about has some limits. Most pro-legalized abortion people I know have a limit to what they will accept as abortion on demand - they would not sanction an abortion at 38 weeks, for example. Does that mean they are hypocrites? Hardly. It means that we are talking about an issue with a great deal of complexity to it.

Actually, I can found quite a few with very little research- and I can think of at least a handful of cases off the top of my head covered here in TX of parents who were prosecuted for the deaths of their children for their failure to properly secure them. Two weeks ago we had a case of a toddler who fell out of a truck. My brother is a police officer who ALWAYS writes up parents who he sees with unsecured children in their cars. I'm not sure how to find cases which weren't prosecuted - I would think they wouldn't be covered, and I guess I'm not searching using the correct terms. How did you find them? ( And yes, I realize we've gotten a little far afield here - but since AOIIAngel used the example of parents being prosecuted for a specific law, that's what I addressed.)

But in the final analysis, it doesn't matter whether or not the criminals are prosecuted - the issue is that as a point of law our society recognizes unborn children as having rights - limited rights, and rights which are subject (obviously!) to a great deal of moral and legal wrangling in order to support, but rights which do exist.

I have had to have two abortions in my life. For both times the reason I got pregnant despite the birth control I was taking at the time, was because I wasn't informed by my doctor or pharmacist that the antibiotic I was taking at the time, negated the effectiveness of my birth control. Both times I was with my boyfriend of five years and he supported me in whatever I would decide. I still regret having them but not as much as I would've regretted keeping them. As a biology major I also know that being in the first trimester my babies had not yet reached the point of consciousness, or found the ability to feel pain, the defining characteristics that makes us human. I also know had I not had the abortions I would never have been able go to the college of my choice, or for that matter join my sorority.
So, to the people out there that so vehemently oppose what I have done, from the standpoint of a scared 17 year old girl, you should concentrate on improving the lives of those around you and not tell me what to do with mine. It is my own decision to live with.

TWICE you didn't bother to read the insert in your birth control and/or in the antibiotics you were given in order to know any drug interactions? TWICE in one year (when you were 17)? Really? And you are a biology major?

For the record, you could have both gone to whatever college you wanted (maybe not when you had hoped to, but you could have) and joined a sorority had you chosen to give the babies up for adoption. One of my chapter sisters did just that - and one consideration in giving her a bid was the character she showed as a scared 17 year old.

Defining being human as having " reached the point of consciousness, or found the ability to feel pain" means that there are a great many people in comas you don't regard as human - and what of those who are born with the rare inability to register pain? Are they not human?

As to improving the lives of those around me - that's exactly what I do by supporting agencies that provide support for scared 17 year olds. I've referenced the Edna Gladney Center above. Women there can attend high school AND college, have counseling and medical care, and are able to both improve their lives and give life to their babies, and those who give them up for adoption contribute to improving the lives of infertile couples.

eta - I want to be clear that while I think you made an unfortunate choice (well, two), I am sympathetic to the plight of ANY woman who finds herself in that situation. I have 4 children - 3 of whom were "unplanned". I know what it is to feel the panic and fear of having your life turned upside down. Baby #2 came in the midst of our unemployment - no insurance, no real income - yikes! Baby #4 came a mere 15 months after baby #3 - and I was 38 at the time. But out of fear and panic can come opportunity, and often the things we fear most turn out to be blessings in disguise.

I've personally seen the children come in dead because they aren't physically restrained. I did two years of general surgery residency at a Level 1 Trauma center. My attending, who was very active in national trauma surgery groups, was part of a movement to convince DAs around the country that yes, parents should be prosecuted for these cases. Few of the cases made it to courts because the DA felt the "parents had suffered enough already." The ones that do make it to court are the egregious ones like the one I personally witnessed- a morbidly obese woman was holding her 6 week old baby while driving. She got in a wreck and crushed her baby between the steering wheel and her body. Gruesome. Unfortunately, the parents had suffered enough on the countless kids I treated with severe head injuries after flying around a car unrestrained.

So far, the unborn really don't have any rights. See how many cases of crack mothers you can find that have been prosecuted. Babies are born EVERY SINGLE day in the US addicted to drugs. The state takes those babies away but RARELY goes after the mother.

Just remember that every person is different and every town does not have a Edna Gladney Center. You're community is lucky to have that option, but it isn't available to everyone.

AOIIAngel - the unborn do have federal rights - see the above link to information on the Violence against Unborn act . . .

As to restraints - the laws should be enforced.

that "baby" is still dependant on that woman's body for "life." she should be able to do what she wants to do with it. you act as if though pepple are getting abortions at the same rate as people speed or get a tatoo. your logic is WAY off.

For most unplanned/unwanted pregnancies, I would agree with this statement. In the case of pregnancies where birth defects aren't detected until the second or third trimester, however, I can't really blame the woman for not "getting it together" enough to have had an abortion earlier.

It's easy, in conversations like this, to forget that it isn't just unwed young women who are having abortions. (General observation - not directed at you, AOII Angel.)