John Hardly, you seem to be ignoring the fact   that vialbility of a   fetus refers to   whether a "baby" can live on its own outside the mother's womb. That's where the line is   drawn on whether the procedure is offered and at what stage. At eight weeks, that fetus is not viable. At thirteens weeks, it is not viable. At twenty weeks, well, maybe it is. See the difference?

No. a baby cannot survive outside the mother's womb. I understand that someone else can provide the care. But, it is my understanding that the Roe v Wade ruling doesn't provide even for the thin distinction you offer -- and the pro-choice mommys are fighting tooth and nail for partial birth abortion anyway. Seems even if we were to use your definition of "viability" we would still be snuffin' the inconvenient li'l shits anyway.

"I have not only noted that many who are "pro-life" are also in favor of capital punishment; but that the overwhelming majority of "pro-lifers" are MEN. That includes the Mudcat. My, my, how interestng. Men's opinions on this do not carry the   same weight that women's do. If you don't like that, too freakin' bad. Men who actually respect women understand where I am   coming from on this; but then, they are also pro-choice."

I don't know where you get your stats but I don't accept that more men are pro-lifers. I personally know at least as many pro-life women. My mother was and my sister is and activist in the movement. That's a tired old rube and again, as with slavery or genocide one need not be directly affected to pass logical judgement. I respect women. There is nothing about being pro-life that hinders or limits that.

"My point is that people do not use the same definition for what could be said   to be the same   thing. Why is abortion   as "murder" acceptable, when   capital punishment is not?   And vice versa? I am in favor of reproductive rights (women should   choose if they want to carry a pregnancy to term) and NOT in favor of capital punishment"

Abortion involves the taking of an innocent life. Capital punishment, when done with due process is the taking of a guilty life. This shouldn't be a hard concept to grasp. You may disagree with the usefulness of capital punishment, or even find it immoral -- but you really shouldn't have trouble understanding how one might make a distinction.

And "Reproductive Rights"..... if EVER there was a misfired euphamism it is this one. It's so bad it should be embarrasing to use. There is NOBODY on the pro-LIFE side of the equation who purports to limit one's RIGHTS to reproduce. The pro-choice side doesn't try to limit ones RIGHTS to reproduce either -- but if anyone is suggesting it, it would certainly be from THIS side of the debate.

"NO ONE thinks abortion is a "good" thing; but it should remain a legal and accessible option"

This is that "getting to have it both ways" part of the debate that really gets me. Like when Clinton said that abortion should be safe, available and RARE. But that statement passes the same judgement that Mr Hill does -- it says that what the pregnant woman is doing is BAD. But, and this is the nasty part -- though conceding that it is BAD -- it chooses not only to do nothing about this bad thing -- it actually wants to keep this BAD thing as an option.

It would be far more intellectually honest to admit that you see nothing wrong with the option than to condemn the act out of one side of your mouth -- and promote it out of the other.

You should be able to say with conviction -- "I don't want abortion to be any more rare than the availability for every pregnant woman who wants one". It should not be RARE until its functional usefulness has run its course, and every poor, defective, unwanted, or racially undesirable fetus is gotten safely rid of. For that matter until every goddamn yuppie woman no longer has to make the choice between a new kitchen or the third SUV in the driveway and this unwanted product of volutary recreational activity. It's her body goddamnit!

Who are you to pass the judgement that abortion is not a good thing?