I'm not a big Hillary Clinton fan but...
 

...this seems to be a pretty good position.

http://slate.com/id/2112712/

Safe, Legal, and Never
Hillary Clinton's anti-abortion strategy.
By William Saletan
Posted Wednesday, Jan. 26, 2005, at 8:53 PM PT

Two days ago, marking the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Hillary Clinton gave a speech outlining her views on abortion, contraception, and abstinence. "Clinton Seeking Shared Ground Over Abortions," said the front page of the New York Times. "Hillary in the middle on values issues," agreed the Washington Times. But Clinton isn't trying to end the abortion war. She's repositioning her party to win it.

"Safe, Legal, and Rare" has been the standard liberal position the whole time, and that is just the realistic version of "Safe, Legal, and Never". If you want it to be rare, that's the same as saying that in ideal circumstances it would be never. Republicans have tried, with some success, to make the pro-choice position seem to be pro-abortion, but that's a misnomer. People are either pro-prohibition or anti-prohibition which is related, but distinct, from how frequently you think it ought to happen. Clinton is trying to clarify the issue.

The theocratic position on many "morals" issues is to legally enforce what would ideally be the preferred choice among many, ignoring the fact that attempting to legally enforce that sort of choice is usually more harmful than letting some people choose "wrongly". Intensely personal decisions like that are best handled by the person, with the help (if wanted) of their family and church (if any).

The thing that really gets to me about abortion is whats behind it--- why should people be able to decide what people can and can't do, simply because they feel it is immoral? Takeing into account that this event has no adverse effects and does not result in the changing of ANYONE's life, except for that of the would-be mother, why are people so adament on having it banned completely? Take this example- A woman has sex. Her condom doesn't work. She gets pregnant but doesn't know until a month later, a time when all the possible after-conception contaceptives do not work. Why should she be punished for something that is completely out of her control? Why should someone force her to go through surgery or the pains of child birth for a child she doesn't necessarily want? Who decided that if you get pregnant you are required to have that child? Who decided that you have to have sex in marriage and it is only for children? Just a list of questions I want pro-prohibition people to answer.

i don't support a complete prohibition, but devil's advocate here... why should it be legal to kill the fetus the on one day, but it's a felony to kill it a few days later? what is the substantial difference between 1 day before and one day after delivery?

*Quizzical expression*

Well. That's what many laws are - the majority of the population agreeing that something is bad and prohibiting it. The majority of folks don't think it's nice to murder people so we have a law against that. The majority of folks don't think public nudity is good so we have a law against that. There's a whole bunch like that.

The liberal position is pro-abortion.

Pro-"Choice" is a marketing strategy.

Step one in getting this country less divided on abortion will have to be understanding the other sides beliefs. If you don't get that most Americans believe abortion ends a human life you are as much a part of the problem as your counter-part on the life side who doesn't get your belief that human rights appear on the sunny side of the birth canal. You don't have to believe it, but you'd better understand it. There are folks who believe that the fetus is human who are willing not to impose their belief on everyone else but you alienate them with your rhetoric.

No, you're wrong. The vast majority of people, including me, is pro-life. I, however, do not want to reinstate prohibition, so I am also pro-choice. The only real division is pro- or anti-prohibition. And anti-prohibition is obviously pro-choice.

Pro-life is the marketing strategy.

Remove the emotion from the argument by substituting the word "smoking" for "abortion."

I'm a non-smoker. I think smoking is a BAD IDEA. I wish nobody smoked. I support some restrictions on smoking, but I do not think smoking should be illegal because I think people should be able to make that decision for themselves.

According to your logic, I'm pro-smoking. That's absurd.

One could make the same argument for being "Pro-Life." The vast majority of politically conservative pro-lifers only seem to care about the "child" while it is still in womb. Once it's born, bye bye, you're on your own. Isn't it still "life" after it is born?

Just to get my viewpoint into the ring ...

I support safe, legal abortion. I believe that taking the step backwards and making the process illegal will do us more harm as a society than good. You can't unfuck the virgin.

I believe that life begins at conception. I do not believe that there is a magic line at 3 months prior to which a "fetus" is "tissue".

It's a baby, even before it looks like one.

If you have an abortion, you are killing your baby.

There's no sugar coating of that particular statement, nor do I think there should be when discussing the "procedure" as an "option."

(and, incidentally, I don't typically use "pro-life" those folks are just anti-abortion. I'm not a big fan of abortion protestors on the whole, as I have yet to see scads of them step up to adopt children of women they talk/scare out of abortions, or to provide any real supportive services to such women. A lot of screaming and huge posters of bloody, aborted fetuses does not an effective movement for change make.)

No more needs to be said. You support the liberal position. The reasoning for it is immaterial. People have a wide spectrum of reasoning for opposing prohibition, ranging from yours to "female empowerment". The liberal position is that it needs to be legal, and people need to be able to make the choice themselves, and people can use their own reasoning and reasons when making that choice.

All this is just semantics so I would like to get my own semantics in here. This is the terminology I prefer.

People who agree with me: caring, thoughtful and correct

People who disagree with me: heartless evil morons who don't understand the world

If I am following your logic here, you support safe, legal baby killing? If you truly believe a fetus/zygote/embryo is a human being, shouldn't you be opposed to abortion in every case? You can't have it both ways.

Sure I can. It's my opinion, and conflicted or not I'm sticking to it.