Ron Paul makes a great point, when on the View he said "what if a doctor was asked to abort a 8 month old fetus that weighed 8lbs, would you be OK with that?"

The response was "no that is murder", well he said it is completely legal under the law. So he responded you aren't OK with abortion, you're only OK with it when it is what you agree with.

That is the problem with the entire abortion debate. Ron Paul also pointed out that as a doctor if he did something that adversely effected a fetus he could be sued because it is a 'life' so how is abortion then not qualified as 'murder'? That is the catch 22 of the whole debate. I think most clear minded individuals would see that a 15 year old who is raped should have the right to abort that fetus, but a 17 year old who has unprotected sex with her boyfriend should have limits as to when she can pull the plug. Now RP's direction is 'never' my direction would be that you have 15 days from conception to make that choice, after which there is no choice to be made. But that is me. You'd also have the whole can of worms of 'what if you knew something would be wrong with the baby?'.

The true problem with an abortion discussion is that individual morals get it VERY heated. That is because it is hard to be logical when discussing life or lives, and picking when and where you can effect them.

I know some chicas that have had abortions, some for what I would call..sadly..'the right reasons'...others I would say were doing it as a make shift after the fact birth control.

__________________

An unwavering defender of those I see worth protecting.

"promote the general welfare, not provide the general welfare"

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.