Her Response:

"For me, not saying something would be like keeping silent on one's opinion of death camps for Jews. Maybe the general population didn't have a problem, but I certainly would."

If you speak out against abortion, our government wouldn't inter you in a death camp. In Nazi Germany, had you spoken out against the mistreatment of jews, that government would have interred you in such a camp. So...you don't have to be silent.

"...let me make it clear that I have no desire whatsoever to approach women on their way to a clinic."

My apologies for misunderstanding your original post. I had the feeling that you were lamenting that you felt you couldn't approach them, but wanted to.

"I must also emphatically insist that I have absolutely no social agenda. I don't have any opinion on pre-marital sex except that I think its bad for minors. I have no desire whatsoever to thrust a specific morality on anyone."

Wanting to get the word out that you believe abortion is murder, and wanting to encourage women who are considering abortion to examine other options IS having a social agenda. We all have one or we wouldn't be human. It's just that they all differ. My primary goal, for example, is to impart on all people that we're ALL equally important and our feelings and opinions are ALL equally important, but that we do not have any inherent human "rights" in attempting to impose our individual beliefs on others. In this case, for instance, my PERSONAL opinion about abortion is irrelevent when it comes to my LEGAL opinion, which honors all women - and their beliefs - equally. It is a belief that abortion equals murder, not a fact.

"I've attempted to be a part of the pro-life movement, but is very difficult for me personally."

You can be "pro-life" personally and still be "pro-choice" politically. The "pro-life" stance is not a legitimate political stance, but a moral one; one is either for (pro) or against (anti) choice in this regard.

"You say: "Here's the inherent problem with the subject of abortion. It is the only instance of an issue where one can never give equal rights to both parties, as one is completely dependent upon the other. To give rights to a fetus is to deny rights to the mother - and vice versa. One must make a choice here as to whether the living person deserves more or less rights to the not-yet-living person."

"Here is the problem I have with this argument. It is based on the assumption that an unborn baby is not living."

No, not at all. It is based on the assumption that one entity is fully dependent upon the other entity for survival. The question becomes one of whether the woman has the right to terminate the other's dependence upon her body to supply the required nutrients, etc., until that being can survive without physical attachment to that body - or whether that being has the right to superimpose its need for those nutrients without the woman's "permission" to do so. It's not about whether a fetus is "living", for in fact it IS a living organism, but whether the fetus' rights are greater than the woman's. They cannot be equal.

"Even the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade didn't have the courage to make that assumption. The court said that if it were found that the fetus was in fact a living human being, its right to life would supercede the mother's right to privacy."

That is, sadly, merely a reflection of our centuries-old tradition of misogyny. Keep in mind that women haven't even had the right to vote for all that long; it would be no surprise to find out that anyone within our government, in particular high-end positions such as SC judges, still don't view women as worthy of the right to control their own reproduction if said control might violate the "rights" of men (or potential men, considering a fetus has a 50/50 chance of being male).

"I believe that a fetus is living."

I'm glad you recognize that as a "belief".

"To deny them the same process that brought you and me and everyone we love into the world simply for convenience, is a horrific thought."

Sometimes it's just not about "convenience". Every individual has a different story.

"It is very hard for me to believe that our lives are less precious because we may have made our mother's lives difficult. And it is very hard to accept that all of our rights to exist are based on something so arbitrary as our convenience to our mothers."

As I said above, it's not always about "convenience"; but I have noticed that this is the "reason" for being anti-abortion that most anti-choice people seem to latch on to.

"Do you have less of a right to be born if you are a burden to your mother?"

Well, in a word, yes. As a fetus, lo these many years ago, I certainly had less rights than my mother, and rightfully so. And had she decided to abort me, so what? I simply wouldn't be here, I would not have existed.

"Can anyone honestly say that they would rather have been aborted than cause their mother misery?"

Sadly, I've heard this many times, and in many of those cases, it is probably true. The sadness of that thought aside, can you honestly say that it's "better" for a woman to go through with a pregnancy, only to have that baby grow up to commit suicide over this misery? I mean, which is really "worse"? IMO, I find the suicide much more disturbing.

"Can anyone honestly say that a baby shouldn't live because it could potentially ruin their mother's life?"

The ONLY one who can make that claim is the pregnant woman. I could no more assume what a woman should think or do, than she could assume what I should think or do with regards to my own body remaining pregnant.

"I just don't think my right to be happy is more important than my baby's right to his or her life."

I can appreciate your feelings on this and am glad to see you know yourself enough to recognize your own conviction in this regard. I think that's great! But there are plenty of other women in the world who believe their right to be happy IS important. As well, there are plenty of other women who believe they shouldn't give up their own lives in order to avoid an abortion.

Keep in mind that abortion is not just used when a pregnancy seems "inconvenient", which is the only reasoning you have provided in your post. There could be problems with the child being born severely deformed or handicapped, or the pregnancy could cause death to the woman if she goes through with it. And if those reasons are "good enough" to allow abortions, then any reason is "good enough"...for if the reasoning behind being against abortion is that "the child has the right to live", then ALL of them have that right to live, even if they'll be born deformed and in miserable pain for their entire lives, or even if it causes death to the pregnant woman. One cannot become selective and say, "Yes, all babies have the right to be born...except when...". Their lives are either important or not; you cannot treat THEM unequally, can you?