Thanks Mrrzy for trying to undersatnd what I was trying to say, rather than assuming it meant something it maybe didn't and reeacting to that, which is what often happens in this kind of discussion/argument.

What's been good about this thread so far is that it has been mostly about trying to understand and explain our different points of view.

What I meant was that for someone who thinks all abortion is killing, the kind of late "termination" that set off this thread is not essentially different. And it's not in principle different from killing a baby once she or he has been born.

But there are a lot of people who argue that to get rid of what is called an embryo at an early stage, and a foetus at a later stage, is not the same as killing a baby - and a main plank in that argument is that a foetus is not really an independent person because it is not capable of having a separate life outside the mother.

However there is a stage in pregnancy at which there is what everyone would accept is a baby, which is perfectly capable of surviving outside the mother - it just happens not to have been born yet.

And I was observing that people who believe that abortion at an earlier stage is justifiable can well feel just as strongly as any "pro-lifer" that to kill a baby who is capable of living independently is infanticide. In fact that has been demonstrated in this thread.

And arguing in support of legalised infanticide is different from arguing in favour of "the right to choose."

I think I've expressed myself a bit more clearly this time. As to my own views, I think that what matters isn't whether something is legal or not, but whether it's right, and that the whole issue of abortion has been muddled by people who think the law (and coercion ouside the law)is the way to stop abortions, and it never has been. And there is no "right to choose". And that's a complicated position that doesn't satisfy anyone.