I don't think I mentioned that.and you mentioned that you would be for making it illegal for a woman to end a life if there was a societal reason to do so.
No.what happens if in 15 years we reach a sub-replacement fertility rate and our immigration supporting it drops as well? what if we have an aging population problem without a means to support our society (and hypothetically) it is commonly believed at some point in the future (again, hypothetical) that abortion plays a significant role, would that be considered a worthy societal reason to ban it?
If it sounds inflammatory, it is because guys like to set up these straw men -- these "typical" opponents, who they ascribe arguments to, and then try to defeat those ascribed arguments.this is a very sensitive topic, obviously, but you do seem to be taking on an unneccessary inflamatory role. is there a specific point at which a person's rights become subserviant to the life of another? you mention non-viable...but i am curious what exactly you mean by that.
I think the viablity argument is the best compromise. There are plenty of definitions that support your argument that the definition is necessarily going to be vague and problematic. To me, the critical issue is the states involvement in a personal decision regarding constitutionally protected rights. I have no problem with a woman's rights being affected by an increasingly shortened non-viablity period.