We may see a shift in the US political landscape.

[kandrathe]

I'm sorry your experiences were so shallow.

For many years I fancied myself more of a Republican, and was pretty involved in local and state caucases. I was even an alternate one year to represent my State at the RNC. I always resented that very first litmus test question, "What is your stance on abortion?" Not that they asked it, but that it was the FIRST question. But... The local and state republican caucus is not representative of *all* republican opinion in my state, and certainly not representative of a growing political majority of fiscal conservative, limited government, personal liberty individuals I have met. And, the other part is that as a part of my job, I get the opportunity to do projects for all levels of government and frequently indirectly rub shoulders with the politically famous and notorius.

...
Some might argue that a first trimester fetus isn't really a "child" yet.
[right][snapback]91033[/snapback][/right]

Ah, the "crux" of the issue. I'll abide by Ghostiger's wish not to devolve into a debate of substance. But, in my opinion Congress's shirked role for all these years has been to clarify in Constitutional law when a person becomes a person, and who gets what rights when. That is a proper role for the Senate and House debate, and very important to clarify before we set out into the new worlds of cybernetics, artificial intelligence, and genetic engineering. I'm not in the "Every sperm is sacred" camp, but I know as a father of two boys that a baby is a fully developed organism very early in pregnancy. But, who is qualified to decide when it is a lump of excess tissue, and when it is a new human life to be protected by law? Here in farm country, we don't legislate "corn picking" day. We let the farmers decide when it's ripe. Technically, I would expect some developmental factors to be determinents such as a beating heart or brain activity.

Specifically to Occhi's (albeit tongue in cheek) statement... It is a fallacious in my opinion, because you could just as easily extend execution of any child then beyond birth. If poor stupid people raise social refuse for children and killing them in the womb is a solution, then why not kill them at 2 or 3 years of age? At any age? I ask this rhetorically, to allow you to ponder the role of law in society, and again, not to engage in any debate of substance on the issue of abortion.

The law of the land is that the woman gets to choose, right or wrong, what happens to that child while it is inside her. If you outlaw 2nd and 3rd trimester abortion then women will still seek refuge in places that will allow them. If you write into law any form of proscribed activity, there will be outlaw havens that allow it. The decisions here that Congress and our societies MUST make are to me the heart of defining the morality of our society. I am a libertarian, not an anarchist so I believe the government has a role in making a moral coda of laws that enable a harmonius society. This moral compass has guided humanity in making decisions about slavery, womens sufferage, civil rights, torture, and any plethora of freedoms all of us take for granted.