[continued from previous message]   
      
   If it were purely a medical matter I would.. but if you put it off long   
   enough, the ability to make a choice may no longer exist, if only legally.   
      
   So, my general position is if you want an abortion do so early, if you put   
   it off then you may not have a choice in the matter short of extenuating   
   circumstances and those can not be inflected.   
      
   >>Yet... I'm told I'm wrong because I don't support every abortion, even   
   >>that   
   >>which might occur during birth where the baby is more than advanced enough   
   >>to survive on it's own. Then told that I'm the fanatic.   
   >   
   > As I said that is a minute number.   
      
   Then eliminating such a procedure shouldn't even be a question then, should   
   it?   
      
   However I do agree with you, the overwhelming majority of abortions would   
   probably be unaffected.   
      
   As the overwhelming bulk of abortions occur in the 1st trimester 0-13 weeks   
   (89%)   
   by midterm 0-18 weeks you're up to 94%   
      
   Now.. after that we have the remaining 6%. some of those will result in   
   medical issues for either the mother or the fetus that could call for an   
   abortion, let's call it 2-3%   
      
   So what we are talking about is the remaining 3-4% where the fetus is   
   perfectly healthy but the mother has a 'last minute' change of heart.   
      
   Sorry.. times up.   
      
   But however, the fanatic pro-abortionists have adopted a view that a mother   
   should be able to abort right up to and during labor.. the fanatic   
   anti-abortionist have gone to the other extreme to sometimes calling massive   
   deforming or a direct treat to the mother to be inadequate reasons.   
      
   Realistically, somewhere in the middle is where most people would probably   
   fall. The problem is the fanatics on both sides are the ones fighting the   
   battle and showing up in the news.   
      
   As a matter of rational law.... both views have merit AT a certain point in   
   the pregnancy.   
      
   Further, I will even admit that IMO that my opinion should not matter. WOMEN   
   should decide this issue for they are the ones that have to deal with the   
   consequences of their choice.   
      
   However, I do feel that if women can do an early abortion because they don't   
   want to support a baby.. then men should have the opportunity to disavow   
   financial, legal, and parental rights for now until the end of time during   
   the same time frame in which abortion is legal or 10 days of being notified   
   whichever is longer. A few conditions and such on both sides of that, but   
   that is the broad strokes.   
      
   Talk about smoothing the waters only to drop a massive rock into the water.   
      
   So now that I've pissed of BOTH sides..   
      
   What else would you like to talk about?   
      
      
   >>So it you are going to force it to be a binary choice... innocent life   
   >>would   
   >>seem to prevail in the bulk of the cases.   
   >   
   > No force is involved.  A woman is either pregnant or she is   
   > not, and what has the woman done to make her less "innocent"   
   > than the fetus?   
      
   Had consensual sex.   
      
      
      
   >>When you refuse to compromise.. then that's what you get.   
   >   
   > Exactly how is compromise possible?   
      
   See above. There is almost always a middle ground if you're rational about   
   it.   
      
   In this issue, the rational people seem to be standing on the sidelines   
   because the fanatics make better newspaper copy.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)