I think you and I agree for the most part, but I just don’t see choosing between child and mother as no-win. It is not required that we must choose one or the other. The winning choice in my book is to choose both.

Everyone pretty much already has the right to do whatever they want to their bodies, short of murdering someone else in the effort. But what our current abortion laws do is give women a time window for when they have the right to murder their children. I think it is pretty clear in my book that this is not morally acceptable.

As far as society figuring this out, this is what we have now with regard to the Supreme Court decision on Roe vs. Wade. This decision is quite uniform. This decision was reached in part because society could not reach a concensus on their own, without judicial intervention.

You miss my point. It is a no-win situation because you are having to decided between who’s rights are paramount. The right of the child to its life, or the right of the mother to do with her body as she sees fit (be it doing drugs, piercings, or, yes, having an abortion). You have a conflicting set of rights. There is no 100% clear cut RIGHT answer. There is a “more right” answer, but again, there is NO answer that does not involve the imposition/violation of an individuals rights.

My point is I think that, absent heavy handed one-size-fits-all federal government intervention, society at large will figure the question of abortion out, and I think you would see a fairly uniform policy applied to the problem over time.

Just my .02 of a dollar.

And I disagree with the argument that this as a “no-win” situation with regard to supporting or rejecting abortion. It is very rare given our state of medical services when a woman’s life is threatened by being pregnant. And most abortions are done to women who’s lives are not threatened. And most of the health problems involving pregnancy and abortion occur from the abortion, not the pregnancy.

We must stop buying into the argument that siding against abortion-on-demand is somehow a hard decision.

On the other hand:
What people most fear about the abortion issue is having government dictate personal decisions. But using the abortion issue to battle the politics of government power over society isn’t the way to win converts from those of us on the conservative-right of the political spectrum.

What Christians must agree on is that gay marriage and abortion are wrong. What the Bible does not prescribe is exactly how we enact laws to protect life and marriage, but the principles are clearly laid out.

Reasonable Christians can disagree the “how to” of these things. What we cannot reasonably disagree on in good conscience is God’s clear word.

The issue of abortion revolves solely around the issue of when does a fetus reach a stage that imbues it with natural human rights. Some say conception, some say when the fetus is “viable” to live outside the confines of the womb. Some used to say “at birth”, but I think society has drifted away from that.

My problem with abortion is you are immediately cast into a no-win situation. The rights of the individual are paramount. With abortion you have two rights which are in conflict. The right of the child to his life, and the right of the mother to her body. There is no answer that does not involve violating someone’s rights.

My personal opinion when no “right” answer is possible, you must go with the answer that does the least harm. And in my opinion, the right of the child to life is of greater priority to the right of the mother to her body. But it is a sticky situation to be forced to choose. I think however society will figure out what they are at most comfortable with.