It's not meant to be an easy question to answer, although the safest line seems to be birth, it is clear that fetuses should not get the same consideration as fully living humans, much the same as persons in a Persistant Vegatative State. This is, of course, assuming a rationalistic/non-theistic morality, whereby what separates us from the animals is our ability to think, which is the rational approach towards the sanctity of human life.

There is no easy answer to your question, but we do what we can, especially when presented with the fact that unwanted babies generally breed problems across the board (for the baby itself, for the parents, and for society at large).

Ideally, we should just stop unwanted pregnancies through greater availability of contraceptives and more comprehensive sex education.

So if there is a group of people that also generally breed problems across the board(for themselves, for their families, for their neighbors, for society in general) should we take steps to limit their ability to reproduce? Wouldn't it be better to stop people with any condition that can be passed on geneticaly from having babies, so those fuure babies dont go on to be a drain on society and live unhappy unhealthy lives? where should the line be drawn? People with mental or physical disibilities? People of a certain race or country of origin? People who come from obese families? The problem with the argument of its better for humanity, is that there is no good place to draw the line. Perhaps only people who have good jobs, and health care should be allowed to have kids.

Yeah... except as you well know.  Actual sentience doesn't manifest until about 2 years old.  Until then, children are less sentient then pigs.

So really, if your argueing on the basis of sentience you should be for "abortions" up till about a baby is 1 and a half years old, and not eat pork.

Birth is a completely illogical belief... going through the birthing canal doesn't change a single thing about a child.   They reach a state greater then "Vegetative state" before then. 

Additionally, one has to consider what makes the vegetative state so special?   Some people get put in "Vegetatative like" situations all the time.  With the only difference being that at some point they WILL come out of it.   Clearly killing someone like that is wrong.

Which is... much like a fetus.  With the difference being that a fetus, unlike someone in a vegetative state does have some senses after... I want to say 16 weeks or so?

That's why the US guidelines have been "Medical Viability."

Once a fetus is likely to survive a premature birth.  It can no longer be aborted.

If a clinic is that vital... they could always just not do the abortions right?  Leave the abortion clinics to the ones that aren't vital... and there is more then enough money on the pro-choice side that i'm sure areas will wind up fine with clinics.

You mentioned voter ID laws later on... yet the numbers have shown the laws haven't disenfranchised anyone.  The woman who brought up the case in your home state got a voters ID after she lost her lawsuit. 

In general... I've found lately most of these arguements on either side end up being overly alarmist and in generally treating "harder to do something" as
"impossible to do something."  Much how Obama and various Republicans are argueing now that America is doomed if we don't let them look at our emails.

Also, i'd argue intention is irrelevent.  If someone passes a law with bad intent but it ends up being a positive... like Voter ID?  Who cares about the intent?   Voter ID has been nothing but uniformly good.

In this case, i wouldn't be shocked if specific groups just rally around the clinics and they end up bigger and better then ever.

"Medical viability" works, though i would think the definition of "survival" would have to be carefully looked at (who can survive is surprising if they're willing to plunk hundreds of thousands of dollars into it).

And i know how the vegetative state works, hence why I keep saying "Persistent."

You are missing my point.

Which is that it's illogical to compare a fetus with a persistant vegetative state.

Since it's "vegetative state" isn't persistant.

It's more or less the exact opposite of persistant.

Doctors medically know just about exactly when such a state will end.

If the doctors had someone in a coma and knew exactly when he was going to wake up from it.  It's unlikely they'd let someone remove them from artifical devices.

It's just one of those arguements that doesn't make sense along with "abortion till birth" and "No abortions unless rape or incest" as if being a rape baby or incest baby makes you less human.

Because only a women can have a child and it's up to her, what happens to the fetus as long as it can't survive without life support (up to 5 or 6 months in pregnancy). It is also a women's right to abort, no matter what you think. 

And we on the left don't like the death penalty for many reasons. It is not only a vengeful and barbaric practice of the state but it also don't work. The death penalty has generally lead to more crime, not less like it should of. Partly because it doesn't look at the causes of crime and doesn't stop people. It is also very expensive as a practice. Instead of trying to make people apart of society again, the death penalty removes them forever. Also, if we don't look at what problems in society cause crime, we will never learn how to effectively deal with them and reduce crime. Instead we will kill them again and again, making the state just as bad as them.   

The point of the comparison is they both lack conscious brain activity. 

Until conscious brain activity occurs, both parties - the fetus and vegetable - are dead.

No life has been suspended if there is no conscious brain activity. The only difference between states is that the vegetable once had life.

Is that what you got from what I said? Because you clearly missed the point.

I didn't even imply there was anything wrong with recreational sex.

Well that depends on your definition of consious.

If you mean self consiousness.  That doesn't happen until  like 2 years old.  So logically and scientifically speaking people should be for "postnatal abortions".  As is brought up by the Jounral of Medical Ethics.

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full

I mean, if your for that fine.  If not, your being pretty illogical.

Outside that.  I feel like you didn't read what i wrote.  Afterall there are plenty of people that go into vegtative states that aren't what we consider "Vegatitive".  People who go into comas and are expected to wake up.  Should it be perfectly legal to take these people off life support, even when the doctors KNOW they will wake up?

Once again, if this is your primary line of reasoning.  You should instead be comapring the fetus to someone in a vegative state that doctors know they will recover from.  (Because... the fetus will "recover" from it.)

If you inject someone with medicine that puts them in a coma, then kill them... are you not guilty of murder then?

I'm Pro Choice myself.  Just that line of reasoning is lazy, awful and illogical.