Tzor, I agree with everything you have said above, with the exception of the last paragraph and one clarification.
You said I was drawing a parallel between abortion and organ transplanting. Only in the sense that both are difficult issues with which we must grapple. Then, it is mostly a debate for the later type abortions where you are talking about either a very unhealthy mother or a very unhealthy child (or both). The debate about the early stages is more to do with when "real" life and real sensation and so forth begin.
As for the injured child, as much as I, at least, would like this to be a "pure" debate, based strictly on the morality, viability of life and so forth; reality includes nasty things like costs and the sheer difficulty in caring for a highly disabled child (and that is definitely a shifting definition, by-the-way). These have to be taken into account as part of the full picture when discussing the morality of aborting/euthanizing pre-birth, the children that are so seriously injured they won't really have any kind of life. Stephen Hawkins most definitely DID have a life ... years ago, he might have been put into this category. Now, he would not. BUT, when you bring up him, you also have to see the hundreds others who did not get, who do not get such wonderful care and love as he obviously did. THAT makes all the difference.
tzor wrote:I would just be happy to break the absolute barrier of the supreme sacred tablet of the supreme court, never to be questioned or countered.
I am not sure where you get this idea? The Supreme Court is just that .. the SUPREME court, one of the three branches with different rolls, each.
The courts hear all kinds of issues constantly. True, you can't just walk into the Supreme court and expect them to hear your case. There are other courts, then challanges... ultimately the supreme court has, well supreme jurisdiction. They DO hear issues over, but only when new information, new challanges are presented. Not simply because some people want them to change their minds.
I would be happy to see the decline of the pro-abortion forces that are still pushing to get religious hospitals to perform abortions. I would be happy to see that abortion clinics would provide accurate and non-biased information so that people who go to them can be informed enough to make a truely free choice.
Except that, in my experience, ( in CA, in MS, NY, etc.) there is much more of an issue of seeing that all girls (and boys, for that matter) get information about effective birth control and STDs than lack of information about abortion. At times, it was hard to walk down the street without seeing graphic photos. Virtually every school debate had at least one person trying to talk abortion evils. BUT, more and more schools do not teach about STDs, birth control.
As adults, it is hard to find real information on why so many caring, thinking, individuals might take such a truly horrid step ... and I absolutely think it is a horrible choice, make NO mistake about that.
I know fully there are people who think abortion is basically no more serious than having dental work. They exist, but are quite rare. Even in urban California, places like San Francisco and LA, I almost never met anyone (anyone female, that is) who was really and truly "for" abortion. I met plenty who felt it should be the woman's choice (in early stages ONLY). I did meet a few men who felt essentially, that if a woman got pregnant (by him) she had no right to "cause" him to have a child.... but I think that actually is just another form of idiocy. In many cases, I think they argued that point more to anger the ardent right to lifers around than because they necessarily actually believed it (not sure, though).
The majority of people I met felt that abortion was a "necessary evil". That legalizing early term abortions was better than the alternatives.
Late term abortions are an entirely different matter. They should NOT be done except with medical reasons. Reasons I think best left to the doctor, clergy and parents involved jsut because it is so complicated, the situations so variable and changing even from one year to the next.
The other side, the ones wanting NO abortions at all (In Dakota, the governor did not even want an exception to save a mother's life) are gaining ground. Many of them are very much like Napoleon Ier , ignorant and unwilling to even listen to other opinions. THAT is what I see as the real problem.
I'd even be happy if the pro-choice marchers in Washington DC would march as civily as the pro-life marchers in Washington DC. (Why, for example, does every pro-choice march always degrade into an anti-clergy bash fest?)
I don't like ANYprotests that result in violence, but I would not be too quick to assume the Pro-lifers are civil and the pro choicers are not. I have seen plenty of downright nasty pro choice rallies and some quite civil pro-life demonstrations and debates.
I will add it was the anti-abortionists that were bombing clinics not too far back. An insane section, admittedly, but you can hardly tag the anti abortionists as an entirely peaceful and wonderful group. Shoot, Napoleon is definitely a part of that group. Just look at his behavior here. Not violant, no, but his words are definitely far from reasoned.
Sorry nappy but you just won my award for best straight man. 
