Well I would argue there is some logical reasoning against it. Though really all abortions after the 13th week or so.

The 12th-13th week is the week that brainwaves are first recorded.

This seems to be the best "cut off" point for allowable abbortions and a good compromise in the US since most people think abortions should be more restricted... even pro most abortion people.  (About 70% think it should be more restricted.)

Edit: As for why it's signed out aside from others... that's how these things work... If i thought that millions of babies were being murdered i'd do whatever i could to stop it too.

Yeah you could easily make that argument, but there are no solid arguments against the procedure itself.

I would disagree.... somewhat... based on the weird rulings for abortion in the first place.

The ruling in the US is that it's not a baby until it can live "by itself", IE if hooked up to medical technology survive... etc.

Medical Technology since Roe V Wade has occured and eventually unless an ammednment is passed or the Supreme Court ignores their own rulings to protect abortion late term abortions are going to be more and more eroded away.

The earliest surviving premature birth is 22 years. While this is used between 18-26 weeks. It is feaseable that a full born baby that is removed from the fetus could live if hooked up to medical technology even at 18 weeks.

While other methods of abortion dismember the fetus within the persons body.

It doesn't exactly make sense... but it does in the mind of judges i'm sure... as some kind of wierd compromise.

I pulled them outta my ass...

Sike!

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/president/

STATUS	CANDIDATE	VOTE	VOTE %	EV
	Bush (Incumbent)	62,040,606	51%	286
	Kerry	59,028,109	48%	252
	Nader	411,304	1%	0

CNN was being generous here and gave 1% to Nader... which again proves my previous point about Nader taking away Dem votes since that would have gone to Kerry, which is why he only has 48% here instead of 49%, not that it would have mattered as there was no mathematical way for him to win regardless.

See what just a little research can do?  Now compare that with Clinton's victories, and notice in both elections how much of the vote Ross Perot took (almost 19% in '92, that-single handedly cost Bush Sr. the election) and also how in both of his victories he couldn't crack more than 50% of the total popular vote, yet everyone considers him to be so much more popular of a president than Bush...

1996

	Presidential Candidate	Vice Presidential Candidate	Political Party	Popular Vote	Electoral Vote
	William Clinton	Albert Gore Jr.	Democratic	47,400,125	49.23%	379	70.4%
	Robert Dole	Jack Kemp	Republican	39,198,755	40.72%	159	29.6%
	H. Ross Perot	Pat Choate	Reform	8,085,402	8.40%	0	0.0%
	Ralph Nader	Winona LaDuke	Green	685,297	0.71%	0	0.0%
	Harry Browne	Jo Jorgensen	Libertarian	485,798	0.50%	0	0.0%
	Other (+)	-	-	420,024	0.44%	0	0.0%
	Map Key  > 40%  > 50%  > 60%  > 70%  > 80%	Turnout

1992

	Presidential Candidate	Vice Presidential Candidate	Political Party	Popular Vote	Electoral Vote
	William Clinton	Albert Gore Jr.	Democratic	44,909,806	43.01%	370	68.8%
	George Bush	J. Danforth Quayle	Republican	39,104,550	37.45%	168	31.2%
	H. Ross Perot	James Stockdale	Independent	19,743,821	18.91%	0	0.0%
	Andre Marrou	Nancy Lord	Libertarian	290,087	0.28%	0	0.0%
	Other (+)	-	-	375,659	0.36%	0	0.0%
	Map Key  > 30%  > 40%  > 50%  > 60%  > 80%	Turnout

And just for shits and giggles here's the infamous 2000 election results for all of you libs/Dems to mull over one more time

Candidates	Votes	Vote %	States Won	EV
Gore	50,996,116	48 %	21	266
Bush	50,456,169	48 %	30	271
Other	3,874,040	4 %	0	0

It seems that the VG community forgot Bob Barr and the Georgia impact. In some states it will be McCain (R) vs. Obama (D) vs. Barr (L) vs. Nader (I).

Very true, although I think this election is going to once again be a two horse race again and possibly come down to the wire because of how politically divided the country still is.  Therefore, I don't forsee any third party or independant candidates earning more than maybe 1% of the total vote, if that.

Each side is going to be doing their damnest to turn out the vote and try to ensure the other side loses, same as last election... it's all gonna come down to which groups turnout the most:

If the staunch conservatives and religious right turn out and hold their noses for McCain then he will win, but if they stay home or enough of the young first time/college vote turns out then Obama could win.  In any even, its gonna be a close one, I don't see the winner taking more than 51 or 52% of the vote unless something HUGE happens beforehand like some big news bombshell about one of the candidates.

^Nader maybe 2 percent, Barr 1 if that.

Political parties have a detrimental effect on our system in and of themselves.  When elected representatives feel compelled to toe the party line to get campaign money, that is a corrupting effect on the system.

I Would have voted for Ron Paul, but he has dropped out and I dont reall know who to vote for now. I agreed with most of his policies, espacialy taking down the federal reserve.

But between Obama and McCain. I would chose McCain

McCain, uneasily. If that contributes anything to this.