In the case of abortion, we are not dealing with right and wrong but rather right and right. Should a woman have the right to control her own body? Certainly! Should an unborn human being have the right to live? Of course! The question is under what circumstances does one right prevail over the other.

The Supreme Court in 1973 made a reasoned effort to separate these conflicting rights in Roe vs Wade. Justice Blackman wrote the majority opinion. If you wish to read this well reasoned opinion, you can find it at http://www.tourolaw.edu/Patch/Roe/

An excerpt from the summary of the opinion reads as follows:

1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.
(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.
(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

IOW During the first trimester (rights of the mother prevail), the attending physician in cooperation with the mother has the right to terminate the pregnancy for any reason.

During the second trimester (Mixed rights between mother and baby), the state may regulate abortion in ways that protect maternal health.

During the third trimester (rights of the baby prevail), the state may control abortions to the point of forbidding them so long as the health of the mother is protected.

Since I am not a lawyer, my phrasing may be imprecise. Justice Blackman struck what I believe to be a reasonable balance between the rights of the mother to control her own body and the rights of the unborn child to live. Such concerns as incest and rape are valid during the second trimester. Once the baby reaches viability, the third trimester, he/she has a right to live regardless of the circumstances of the pregnancy unless state law says otherwise.

As I read the decision, two things stand out to me. (1) National law has no bearing on this – Blackman clearly says that abortion law is a state decision – we need to stop asking national candidates where they stand on this issue, their stands are irrelevant. (2) Regulation at the state level should be focused on the third trimester – the time when the baby has viability outside the mother’s womb.

To try to achieve an understanding, I suggest that we abandon the following terms:
1. Right to Life. As PTown points out, if you believe in a right to life, are questionable if you do not support prohibition of the death penalty and serious, if not total revocation of war. A better description of this group is Anti-Abortion
2. Freedom of Choice. Choice is this description is a freedom to chose or reject an abortion by the mother without input from the father, grandparents, etc. Choice does not necessarily apply to any other aspects of life, just as right to life does not necessarily apply. Better description – No right to life.
3. Fetus – This is a very accurate medical term (as Justice Blackman points out in his opinion), however it is used to deny the fact that this is an unborn human being with all the right to live as any other human.

It seems to me that we should start with Justice Blackman's well-reasoned approach to supporting the rights of both the mother and the child and go forward from there. Just my thoughts.