I fail to understand how you do NOT imply that: Can you please state what condition of the fetus it IS that you believe removes it's full humanity?
The points addressed by Nickhere MUST be addressed directly: Those opposed to abortion have the opinions that 1. The human fetus is, from conception, a human being. 2. The deliberate killing of a human being, without the due process of the law, is murder.
I may not agree with point 1, but it MUST be addressed and not ignored. When DOES a fetus become a human being? When it is delivered? When it first shows brain activity? All definitions open up the prospect of that definition being applied to cases that one may NOT agree are correct, even if one is in favor of "choice".
Is a miscarriage manslaughter? Is the failure to take proper pre-natal care deliberate injury to the child?
As a slight aside, here is something ( on the thread topic) from the Washington Post:
"This is a strange, distorted view of pluralism, which once meant civility, respect and common enterprise among people with strongly held and differing convictions. In the liberal view, pluralism means a public square purged of intolerance -- defined as the belief in exclusive truth-claims and absolute right and wrong. And this view of pluralism can easily become oppressive, as the "intolerant" are expected to be silent."
The most passionate defenders of my beliefs," says Jindal, "have come from people who don't share my beliefs." In one account in the Times-Picayune, the senior pastor of the First Baptist Church of New Orleans, David E. Crosby, gave this reaction to Jindal's writings: "Anybody who reads this whole article and ends up angry just needs to grow up." That is a good definition of genuine pluralism -- an adult respect for the strong convictions of others.