Centerfield

I think it's fallacious to seek a set of compromise
scenarios under which women can and cannot obtain abortions. The question is should the government have more control over a woman's body than she has herself. The Supreme Court has said no. For the life of me, I can't see why it matters when a fetus is aborted. The woman, the father, and the doctors are the only ones who have a right to be involved in the decision.

No woman makes an abortion decision lightly, and the further into the pregnancy she goes the more difficult the decision is. Every situation is personal and different from every other. The law cannot possibly anticipate all of the variables that might play. I believe the best decision, both for the woman and for society at large, will always be the one made by those personally involved. They are the people who will have to live with the consequences. We need to trust them.

Believe me, knowing you aborted a viable fetus is a terrible thing to live with. A woman can believe in the right to abortion and yet be unable to go through with it when she herself is making the choice.

I think you had it right in your first sentence. It's binary.

There was a interesting editorial in Sunday's NYT discussing the question of when the fetus has legal viability and whether it then has individual rights which outweigh the mother's right to privacy. It suggests that supporters of abortion need to make the distinction between a viable fetus with legal rights and a person. Worth reading.

One thing about abortion is certain; the laws covering the "unborn" are schitzofrenic. Forget about the (obvious to me) moral issues involved and consider the following. In every state in the Union if a fetus is killed by a drunk driver, in a domestic violence incident or during the commission of some other crime, the person(s) having caused the "death" of the fetus are charged with some type of mitigated homicide. In other words the State prosecutes based upon the citizen status of the fetus under the US Constitution. Yet if the fetus(cum citizen) is destroyed by a licensed practitioner commissioned by the mother it is perfectly legal. If a pregnant woman uses drugs illegally during gestation she can be charged with child abuse.

One may argue whether life is the breach of the egg by the sperm or the developement of a heart beat by the fetus, but it is completely emperical the laws governing the subject are seriously flawed.

This topic always reminds me of the 1992 campaign of Ross Perot. At one of his town-hall styled meetings someone tried to get him to take a position on abortion. His response (as remembered):

"Look! You can argue about that until the cows come home and you still won't have agreement on this!"

What I think this means is very close to what you've suggested, Rick. Why? Because that's the consensus position. Go further either way and you lose support.

It may not please everyone (understatement!), but is politically practical and places minimal constraint on individual consciencious decisions.

Found a post by Amy Sullivan which discusses why Democrats such as Tom Daschle supported the "partial birth" abortion bill

http://www.politicalaims.com/archive/2003_10_19_archive.html#106692488046757034

Anti-choice terrorists have driven a lot of abortion providers out of the business. If you live in a rural area with no coverage, and you can't afford to fly to another area, you may very well be thwarted for 6 months in your efforts to obtain an abortion. Also, occasionally the procedure is medically necessary.

Certainly the woman knows she is pregnant - that's not the issue.