My response:

I'll keep this one shorter (hopefully). You say: "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)."

What then, would you base the legal question on? The legality of any issue, not just abortion, is based upon those first three questions. You are citing the feminist concern as a reason to keep abortion legal. This is a social question. You cite reproductive issues as a basis for keeping abortion legal. This is a biological question. Your analogy of the person, Bill, being hooked up to your kidneys is a personal question in that is designed to reduce the issue to a one-on-one basis, so that it is easier to get the point across.

You say: "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."

I am not understanding this point. The term "equal rights under the law" was first coined in 1868 in Amendment XIV of the Constitution. However, even if the concept had only occurred in your lifetime (I'm assuming the 1950s or later), why is this a reason for women to deny equal protection to another group of individuals, namely the unborn?

As to the issue of "reproductive rights," (and by this I'm assuming you mean the ability to determine whether you will have children or not), women are the only ones who have reproductive rights at this point. Men have no reproductive rights whatsoever. If a woman wants to abort his child and he doesn't, tough beans. And if she wants to have the baby and he doesn't, he is forced to pay child support. Leaving aside one's personal feelings for the male gender in general, this cannot be viewed as fair or just, i.e one gender having to submit his reproductive will to the arbitrariness of the other's. The time to exercise one's reproductive rights is before pregnancy, when both procreating genders have a say. Once the baby is conceived, neither mother's nor father's will should interfere with the baby's right to live. Obviously the mother has it worse if she doesn't want the baby, but that is the fault of nature not the law.

You also mentioned the birth control issue. It is extremely farfetched to suppose that if abortion were made illegal, we would go so far as to make birth control or penile ejaculation illegal. There is a biological difference between sperm, egg, and embryo. The sperm's genetic code is that of the man's, the egg's is that of the woman's. The genetic code of the embryo is completely unique unto itself. That very individuality is the basis for all of our rights. I suppose you mean that religious extremists could try to make birth control illegal, but the only religion who feels that strongly about birth control is Catholicism. Even fundamentalist Protestants have no problem with it. But even if there were a possibility that people could take it to such an extreme, it is not the issue before the court (so to speak).

But while we are on the subject of religion, let is take in your argument that "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." Interesting point, but faulty. You use the example of Hinduism which believes that life begins at "quikening" and that to designate when life begins, "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... The government doesn't have the right to tell me that my religion's tenets relative to abortion are outlawed..." In answer to the last part, yes it does. The law negates people's religious and personal beliefs all of the time because there is no legal establishment of any one religion or personal belief system. For example, under Islamic law, a man may kill any female family member for "dishonoring" the family. We don't allow that in America because we believe that human lives take precedence over religions. Therefore, these men are not free to practice their religion and murder their girls.

And speaking of men, let's move on to Bill the kidney guy. First off, I dislike this argument because it deals in an impossible hypothetical situation. There is no medical situation that compares to the One Process that each and every one of us must go through to be alive. And Bill, even though he is not allowed to be hooked up to your kidneys, would still be given every other shot at remaining alive. We wouldn't just sit idly by and watch him die without medical intervention. An unborn baby whose mother has chosen to abort it is given no such consideration. No effort is made to save his or her life because there is no other way to sustain that life.

Now despite my vigorous defense of the unborn, I am not immune to the plight of women in the situation. Does it suck to have to give birth to an unwanted baby? Yes it does. But it sucks more to be vacuumed out of your mother's womb, pureed, and dumped out with the garbage. Pregnancy is a temporary situation, after which a woman is free to exercise any right she wants. Abortion is permanent. There is no bringing that baby back if you have second thoughts.

Your best argument is: "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." The problem I have with this is that the outcome is never equal. What happens is that some babies leave the womb alive, others are destroyed and the choice is still arbitrary.

Our laws are based on moral absolutes (don't confuse morals with religion - completely different things). Why is murder illegal? NOT because it says so in the 10 Commandments, but because it is based on the idea that if there were no rule of society to govern, then we would have no security upon which to improve our lives.

You see making abortion illegal as a slippery slope that will lead to the repeal of all the rights that have been granted to women. I see the legalization of abortion as a slippery slope that is already beginning to undermine the value of life in general. First we kill off the useless unborn, then euthanasia, then assisted suicide, then the mentally handicapped, then the physically handicapped, then before you know it we are clearing out the ghettos all in an effort to sanitize our society of the people who may cause us problems. No one can accuse me of being a conservative!!
:-)

I sympathize with my fellow women in The Situation. I've been there myself. But I find myself sympathizing more with the babies who are not given any choice whatsoever in a situation that they had no part in no part in creating.