Here she decides that legal questions should not be answered by scientific evidence, social impact, personal views, or logic of any kind.

You're correct about the various types of debates going on. In regards to the political issue, though, I don't believe it should involve the biological question (i.e., when does "life" begin? - for that involves a fully agreed-upon definition of "life" itself), the social question (i.e., usage in response to overpopulation/poverty - decades removed from today's mindset), or the third one (i.e., "everyone has a personal story" - and btw, I don't have such a story, neither about myself nor anyone else I've known).

But the legal one, about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is a legitimate basis for legislative discussion. First, the concept of "equal rights under the law" is entirely new and has only occurred within my lifetime. Prior to that, more than half the population did not have equal rights. In some states today, women still don't have "equal" rights - for example, if they are victims of domestic violence, some states still do not have laws to protect them. Rather they extend rights to the husband - or "owner" of said woman - by not prosecuting him unless the battered partner has the courage to do so herself.

Keeping that in mind, you have to understand the implicit message to women by entertaining the idea of preventing abortion - "we've given you equal rights, just a few measly decades back, but this idea of total control over your reproduction is too much of a threat and we need a reason to forbid you to have an abortion...let's embrace this idea of extending equal rights to the fetus in your body and give them the power over you, not you the power over them".

The concept of women having "equal rights" automatically extends to their reproductive system, not just their minds. This is a such a "new" idea in this country (in this world) that subsequent generations are apparently still reeling from the idea that women don't have to rely on a man to make their decisions for them any longer. It's a huge social change, one we've been ill-prepared for I might add.

You said, "Since everyone who is alive was allowed the process of conception, this should not be denied to anyone else. The legal justification for this is the fact that everyone is entitled to equal rights under the law. This means that you can't allow some people to be born and others not to be."

This could literally be interpreted to include the use of birth control as a method of allowing "some people to be born and others not to be". Radical thought? Perhaps, but that doesn't guarantee there wouldn't at some point be laws against birth control, perhaps even masturbation, oral sex....any sexual contact that results in ejaculation without further resulting in conception.

I know that's "crazy", and I certainly don't feel that way, but I mention it because it's NOT all that far-fetched for some people to think that way, following that logic.

The very idea that someone could designate an absolute about when life begins flies in the face of our protection under the first amendment - the freedom to pursue religion. The Hindu believe that life begins at quickening, that is when life is "felt" by the mother - the fetus is moving and kicking, etc., at which point an abortion is deemed to be wrong. To be specific about "life" means to include all living organsims, which includes eggs and sperm, as they are "alive" as well. And this brings us back to the first point pertaining to "when life begins", the biological, not political, issue. That cannot be agreed upon.

The definition of "life" within the womb thus requires very specific language. If we say life begins at conception, and a woman exercises excessively, thus causing a spontaneous abortion - or miscarriage - would she then be guilty of ending that "life" due to her negligence? And do we then relegate all pregnant women to live within rigid guidelines in order to protect that "life", in a sense imprisoning women and removing THEIR rights because some other life is more deserving?

What is the difference between specifically seeking an abortion to end a pregnancy and being negligent about the life in your womb to the point of causing a spontaneous abortion, one that could have been prevented? Intent? Not really, because causing a thing and allowing the potential cause to occur both imply a guilt. A woman who rides a horse hard for four hours, thus causing a miscarriage, is no less guilty of "killing" the fetus than is a women who finds another method of inducing an abortion, such as the methods used by doctors.

These are the reasons we must be very careful in our language to describe things, as well as in our doling out of rights. As I mentioned before, abortion is the single issue that requires - not just suggests, but requires - one have rights over another. There is no such thing as equality in this regard. So we are forced to decide who deserves the priority in having rights - women, who only recently achieved what is loosely defined as "equality", or feti?

If we decide to afford the priority to feti, then we are making a social and biological statement as to when life begins and what "life" actually means. That negates the belief systems of millions of individuals who believe that life begins at the point a fetus can sustain itself (breathing) outside the womb, as well as those who believe life begins the moment an egg drops from the tube or when sperm is ejaculated from the penis. We cannot dictate these beliefs without jeopardising the foundation of our Constitution.

Further, we are setting an ugly precedent of "someone else's" life being more important than another's right to make choices. For example, if the only way for Bill to survive is by being hooked up to my kidneys for several hours a day because his don't work and no one else's kidneys can help him, would the law require me to allow this intrusion upon my person? Hell, Bill actually has a voice, something a fetus has been purported not to have, so Bill could actually say, "don't kill me, I have a right to live!" Why is it okay for me to allow Bill to die, but not a fetus inside my body? If we don't have laws that say I "have to" save Bill's life, how can we impose an arbitrary law that says I "have to" save anyone's life, fetus or otherwise?

You said, "A person is allowed to give up their own life to save another, but they are not legally obligated to save a life if it puts their own in danger." In the case I mentioned above, they are not legally obligated to save a life even if it DOESN'T put their own in danger. And if we decide to mandate one, we must mandate the other - why is Bill's life less important than any fetus? It's not as if Bill can make a choice here either (much like a fetus).

You said that all our laws are based on morals, but whose morals? We have laws that legitimize murder by allowing the death penalty - whose morals are those? They're not mine, yet I live in a society where such killing is legal. What is my choice? My choice is that I will not take someone's life, regardless of what our government allows. The same can apply to abortion.

Finally, you said, "The pro-life argument is completely legitimate simply for the reason that no political body has weighed in on when human life begins, so it has not been LEGALLY determined whether abortion is murder or not. Shouldn't all opinions be weighed equally especially when determining something that affects lives of every person?"

The whole point of leaving abortion up to the individual involved (i.e., the pregnant person) supports that very question, that ALL opinions are weighed equally by allowing for the option of abortion. It's not like the law is mandating that women MUST HAVE abortions; that would be as bad as NOT allowing abortion. That's the whole point behind individual autonomy and personal freedom. I may have an abortion if I want one, but I'm under no obligation to have one. By the same token, the government doesn't have the right to tell me that my religion's tenets relative to abortion are outlawed, nor have they the right to force anyone to follow those tenets.

Again, the concept of "when life begins" is just too open to interpretation for this to ever become the definitive answer to the question of abortion's legitimacy. If "life" means a living organism, then we could feasibly outlaw birth control, because the egg and sperm are both living organisms. If "life" means a being that can survive on its own outside the womb, then we could feasibly outlaw abortions after the 26th week (give or take) but not before. This issue will never have total consensus.

And the concept of one living being having rights over another when both must rely upon ONE body for survival brings us back to whether the law should require me to allow Bill to hook up to my kidneys so he doesn't die. When they do THAT, I will understand and accept the idea of outlawing abortion. And then I will move to another country, kidneys in tact.

(and thank you for one of the few real "discussions" about this topic I've had in decades - I enjoy such discourse without the name-calling and what-not that so many seem to need in order to make their points, and this so very rarely happens...so thanks!)