PunkFloyd, King of Bards wrote:
Fact is it's a polarised argument, gbaji. You have to be one or the other.
Do you have to work at being this stupid?
In what way is this not polarised? You either support a woman's right to have an abortion, or you think it should be illegal. Where, exactly, is the middle ground?
Not having an opinion.
Sure, but gbaji definitely has an opinion.
If you think that abortion is only acceptable because the fetus is not a person, but that it will attain personhood at some point before birth, then you'll be pro-life respect to optional termination in one case and pro-choice in another.
Of course, you might also supplement that by suggesting that late-term abortions are still acceptable as long as sufficient steps are taken to save the fetus if possible (2-3 months is certainly possible, if it has developed properly).
If you think that abortion is acceptable because the mother has the right to say what goes on with her body, which includes giving her the right to decide who or what uses her body and it what capacity, then you'll likely be pro-choice for all elective terminations. Though you could still oppose late-term abortions, if you think that there IS a moral obligation there when talking about short time frames.
Or you might suggest that this only holds for unintentional pregnancies, but intentional ones necessarily include you giving the fetus legal right to use your body.
But if we are going to limit the discussion to the elective termination of early (1st or 2nd trimester) unintentional pregnancies, then I'd say that it probably is a binary issue.