[KSig RC]

For me, abortion quickly becomes a pragmatic argument along the following lines:

Why ban abortion?
A: Because it is ending a life.

When does 'life' start?
A: Nobody can define this with any accuracy in ways that do not rely on personal views (primarily spiritual/religious, but 'personal' is much more accurate).

For that reason, the only thing that makes sense from a 'universalist' view is to generally ban abortions starting at the point of viability (since that seems to be the first "indisputable" point of no return). I'm essentially resolute in this, but am open to some exceptions to the absolute (such as a potentially non-viable fetus that endangers the mother's life).

Before the point of viability (which is still arbitrary, but so is the drinking age), I just can't see the state's compelling interest in banning abortion, because the state simply cannot have a "personal" (spiritual/religious) position on the matter. Individuals can, certainly - and if the individual feels that life begins at conception (and therefore, abortion is ending a life at any point), I would invite them to participate in legal, safe opportunities to prevent abortions through means like education and alternative programming. Past that, I see no reason to enact a specific policy on it, in a general sense. Cases such as minors and corner cases should certainly be treated just as they would in any other situation, which is why parental notification and similar don't bother me in any way.

I can't see how this kind of opinion makes me, in any way, "pro-abortion" - in reality, it's pro-individual much more than it is pro-choice or pro-abortion.

As an aside, the semantic gamesmanship behind "pro-life" and "pro-choice" is one of the most amazing pieces of spin in modern history - a tour de force of douchebaggery all the way around.