To begin with I would like to posit some facts as the basis for my discussion. I do not intend to debate these points as they are scientifically or legally established facts.
1. People have many inherent rights iterated by codified law. The most basic of which is the right to life.
2. Absent proper justification their lives cannot be taken. Some exceptions exist such as to defend the life of self or another, execution of a sentence passed by the courts, to protect property from intrusion/attack. These exceptions are intentionally limited in number.
3. The unborn child is alive from conception (growth begins immediately).
4. The unborn child is unique and a separate entity at conception.
5. Laws have been established in many areas of our nation by which an individual can be charged and convicted of homicide when their actions kill a child in the womb. These laws have been found to be constitutional. At least 36 states have these laws. (Some begin at conception  while other laws depend on stage of development ).
With these established facts in mind one would have to question the Roe vs Wade decision granting any person (including the mother) the right to indiscriminately take the life of another absent legally justifiable exceptions as outlined above. Life begins at conception and it is only one type of life. In this case it is human life. The question is not about the mothers rights. The question is not if we are taking a life. The question is not what kind of life we are taking. The only question is when are we justified in taking human life and who can make that decision.
Few are making the argument that the child’s life can be taken post birth (though there are some that have made that argument as well). This may be the reason that in partial birth abortion they deliver the baby feet first so the brains can be sucked out before the baby takes its first breath. In addition it would be very disconcerting for all concerned if the baby started crying as a foreign object was inserted into his/her head. It would be far more efficient to deliver head first and suck the brains out as the head emerged but that is not the method used.
There are limits in many areas of the nation as to what stages of development the unborn child can be aborted. Forty one states have these laws. There are exceptions to these law such as to protect the life of the mother. With these laws in place it is established that rights to life, in some instances at least, predate birth. In most of these viability is the determining factor though even that definition varies from state to state.
Since it is established that we are in fact taking a human life in every case of abortion when would taking that life be justifiable? That is the crux of the issue. Many argue that at any point prior to birth it is solely the mother’s decision. Others argue the life of the unborn is on a par with the life of any other individual at all stages of development. The argument is also made that prior to established points of viability abortion should be an unrestricted right of the mother. Another argument that at any point the unborn child can sense pain abortion should be restricted. The arguments go on and on.
My point is simple. It has been established that a person can be charged and convicted of homicide for taking a person’s life prior to birth. It has been established that people have certain basic rights including the most basic right to life. It has been legally established when the right to life can be taken from an individual. Those should be the established parameters to abortion as well. If the continued development of the unborn child is a threat to the mother’s life abortion should be permitted. If the mothers rights have been violated by another (rape, incest) abortion should be permitted but should be performed at the earliest point possible to minimize pain to the mother and the unborn child (even though this is not technically a threat to the mother’s life her rights were violated and in this instance supersede the rights of the unborn child).
This by the way is in no way is an argument against birth control prior to conception. It is only an argument against abortion post conception. These points are based strictly on the rights assigned to individuals and codified in law. It is an acknowledgment of the uniqueness and individuality of us all from conception on. To this point religion has not been involved but simple logic has. The next point will involve my religious beliefs on the matter.
I believe in an existence prior to this life. Our spirits were created/born prior to this existence. We dwelt together in that realm establishing relations with one another that predate our birth. In many cases these relationships carry over into our Earth lives due to commitments made in that realm. One of those commitments may have involved choices involving our Earthly families. We very well may have been given some choice as to where, when and to whom we would be born. My belief on abortion is not just about protecting the unborn child. It is also about being concerned for the eternal well-being of the mother and any others involved in the taking of the innocent life of the unborn. Every mother who aborts her child unjustly will be held accountable for that act at some point. Her suffering from my point of view is another argument against abortion.
Oh mother dear
What’s that you hear?
That tiny whisper beat
Then it’s repeat?
It is my tiny fetal heart
This life you did impart.
Mother dear do you care
For this tiny soul you bear?
You made the choice, I have life
Will I see birth or surgeons knife?
It is up to you if I see light of day
I have no rights or so they say.
Would the world a Mozart or an Einstein know?
Many have died since Wade vs Roe.
They have said I have not the right
To my birth, to life, to see the light.
You alone can decide
If I see birth or infanticide.
It is a choice only you can make
Give life or life forsake.
You really made the choice before this day
When with another you chose to lay.
Oh mother dea….
The choice was made it was the surgeons blade
Another precious life waylaid.
Many have died and they die still.
Based solely on the mothers will.
When will the slaughter end?
When will the unborn the law defend?
Is this right? Is this just?
Or do we have a sacred trust?
To defend the weak and the small?
From harm inflicted by any at all?
Yes I think we must succeed
To help the weak in time of need.
The battle not over it wages still
We must have the strength of will
To endure until the bitter end
The weakest among us we must defend.