Being a former fetus makes me Pro life.
The fetus isn't part of the mother. Sure, it lives off of it. But it has different DNA. That's makes it impossible for it to be part of the mother.
We're also one of the only types of animals that kills our own children before they are born. If you didn't want it, you shouldn't have had sex. That's my stance.

So, did anyone count? :p I think pro-choice wins here.

Me, pro-choice, too.

Technically almost all of our cells have slightly different DNA.  You'd be hard pressed to find cells that shared their DNA 100%.  Replication errors are just too common.

Your second point is strange...can any other animal articulate and understand what birth is or how even babies are created?  Very few animals could even be called "self-aware" to the degree that they can think of themselves as a distint entity.  And I would say that only probably applies to the smartest of animals, like primates, dolphins, and a few others.

Only our species and one or two others have sex for "fun."  Does that mean that animals are less promiscuous than humans?  To some extent maybe, but most animals, even females, will have sex with anything tha moves.  You are trying to make a point based on a false assumption, that animals even comprehend the things you are attributing to them.

do you remember what i said about I not being an extremists and forcing my views on each other, we should all take this path.

Pro-choice. Government should get out of people's lives (that's why I also support lower taxes and smaller bureaucracy).

 I agree. I think that is quite decent of humans to kill their offspring before it is actually born. Many animals usually kill the offspring for whatever reason (even majestice creatures like horses for being sickly, weak, another male's offspring) after it's born. Good point.

Of course filicide does happen with humans as well, but I imagine it would be better if we kept it to before they were born.

While reading up a bit on abortion a while back, I found this data on wiki page, "Abortion in the United States". It's old data, but I don't think it would be too irrevelant from a poll today. Maybe this is questionable? I guess you can take that however you want.  Personally, I find the highlighted bold parts a little saddening. I'm not one who believes in a government that makes decisions for people, but I'm also not content supporting a law which allows potential humans to be trashed because of choices like the ones above.

I think that rape/incest and health risks to the mother or baby is grounds for abortion. After reading a bunch of these threads, I can see the arguments on both sides, however deep down in my heart I think abortion for any other reason is very questionable. At the very least, I think that a lot pf people don't take it very seriously. Abortion just seems to be a get out of jail free card.

Seems like people don't think much of it because they believe the fetus to not yet be a human? I'm thankful my mother decided not to abort me while I was a fetus then. Anyway, I know this is not the best argument ground in scientific fact and such, but it's what I believe until I'm proven otherwise somehow. 

Pro-Life

It could make sense if he generally approves of the option for people to kill in general.

Hm.  and we should allow for drug cartels to kill people and the return of the mofia to put certain streets back in fear.  That is what would start in certain areas allowing their influence to grow through corruption.  This would most likely lead to more militant groups, terrorism, etc.  And while this would allow for more frequent changes in local government and eventually changing overall government, the end result would be sections of the country hating other sections of the country and random terrorism and violence with the people in the respective sections afraid to come out of their houses.  Does that sound familiar?  Kind of like an extreme case of how many view the Middle East perhaps (or not extreme)?  I mean there is no guarantee that that is exactly how it would come about, but we need people to oversee the basic principles and concepts in a society.  If we are to remain one unit, then we need some sort of regulation on the whole.  Otherwise we will eventually split apart and diverge due to the imbalance of our society. 

Look at companies right now.  Already we see Lawyers refusing to help the poor and preferring to take the big money cases, Medical facilities taking every penny they can from the less fortunate, Big companies treating customers like dollar signs, etc.  Eventually the government is going to have to step in or we are going to be another culture where there is royalty and peasants with legal business inequality leading to race sepremacy, and possibly the return of concepts such as slavery in certain areas.  If the government in its current design does not  help create overall guidelines and standards then somebody else will and it won't be the average joe.  It will be the people of power, those big Companies or manipulating individuals who might have malicious means.  See, when a country is left to its own, the most ambitious and manipulative are those with alternative goals personal to them, others who may be smart or simply kind but not as driven and want to just live their lives are easily stepped on or used by these individuals, and when these people are left to make these decisions without any checks, they get greedy and start showing their true nature, such as making their successor come from their bloodline, or refusing to step down from power, or taking all the money they can from those beneath them.  Not everyone is like that, but that is why we have had Great Rulers and Horrible Rulers, great leaders and horrible leaders.  Once these people start to take control, it is hard for anybody at the bottom to rise up without rebellion, and then we are back to similar events to what started our country (USA) to begin with as well as many other countries with their current governments.  Sure there will be good situations and bad situations but it is far more conflicted, dangerous, and chaotic and this isn't even elaborating on areas that would be run by groups of people who are united by hate, which is easily manipulated as well if the manipulator is not the hated.  We still see the ramifications of hate even today in a somewhat controlled environment.

Certainly we don't want the government doing what they want; and our current structure isn't without its flaws; but we still need some structure built on the same principles as our current structure is to help prevent situations like the above and oversee controversial topics like the one in this thread that you simply brush off based on your view of a more general principle that you probably don't even fully understand.

@mmnin:

1) The drug cartel phenomenon you are talking about is actually a phenomenon CAUSED by government intrusion into our lives. The government made drugs illegal. Therefore, they created an extremely lucrative black market for drugs. You are mixing up your causes and effects there. Not to mention the "war on drugs" has been a miserable failure.

2) You are citing a ton of things without any evidence whatsoever. Lawyers will take all kinds of cases from all kinds of clients. I don't see this phenomenon you are talking about that they are turning down poor plaintiffs. That is many attorney's bread and butter.

3) You are right to a certain degree about the government giving the average consumer the shaft fairly recently, but the only party who is going to do anything about that (assuming something should be done about it) is the pro-choice party. I don't really see how as a practical matter what you are suggesting will get done AND abortion be outlawed. The parties are split on those issues.