Does it make sense? I am arguing from a pro-choice perspective and emphasizing that the abortion issue is more of a civil rights issue rather than a moral issue. I am saying that it deals with a woman and her choice.

You should never abandoned something because a select few abuse it. The truth is, at the time when most babies are aborted their brains aren’t even developed enough to make them smarter than an adult mouse. I’m pro choice, very much so, but I am not going to say I’m for later term abortions when the baby is almost due. That sick for obvious reasons.

The problem with the Extremists is that they do not know how to argue. Usually, their argument comes from what they were told to believe by their pastor or priest, so they do not know how to argue with facts, but rather, from works of fiction like Pinnochio or the Bible.

Don’t women have options? Can’t they place the baby up for adoption? Why do we never hear anything from the fathers of these babies? I don’t understand why so much hate is directed towards the doctors who perform abortions, when they are just part of a bigger issue. Am I naive? Would this make more sense if I were a woman?

My abortion had nothing to do with hate, guilt or blame, take it somewhere else.

Your naivete is made apparent by your generalizations.

This should be a Polls question.

Just a suggestion, but I might start off by pointing out that seeing a pregnancy to term is more dangerous than having an abortion, that men–who don’t bear any personal risk made the decisions, and mention that graveyards all over the world are filled with women who died during child birth.

Since you have asked for critisism, I would take out some of the more PC praseology. My reason being that phrases like "terminate at pregnancy" and "reproductive justice" tend to preach to the choir while pi**ing off Christians and conservatives to no end while just going in one ear and out the other of the people who are already on your side. Remeber, the secret to successful argument is to convince people to change thier opinions.

I’ll give it a try which you are free to use, take ideas from or throw away keeping your basic points. But, remember, your job is to change the minds of people on the other side of the debate. Those that share your view won’t take any convincing at all.

OPENING STATEMENT
Medically, the most dangerous thing any pregnant woman can do is to have the baby. From the dawn of time countless, faceless women have died anonymously in childbirth and been buried with little or any recocnition in stone fields filled with female corpses and graveyards which men built for them.

Make no mistake about it. Carrying a baby to term is the most medically dangerous choice a pregnant woman can make.

Throughout history, men in a patriarchal society just presumed it was a women’s place to die or give birth. It was certainly not her choice to question the choices of Men in power. Roe v. Wade changed that. In Roe the Supreme Court found that there exists a "zone of privacy" that surrounds every single citizen male and female. And decisions made withing that zone are private decision to be arrived at by the person who not only bears the risk of pregancy; but, who also is forced to deal with the responsibilities of motherhood should she decide to bring the life within her into the world. No longer can men, who if unhappy with the results of thier brief sexual unions dictacte a lifetime of consequences to women while they convienently dissapear. No longer may the state and Church intude into the most intimate recesses and organs of a women’s body and dictate outcomes that they do not take responsibility for. The decision to excersize the Right to have an abortion can be the most agonizing decision that a woman may face. But, with abortion safe and legal, she has the choice to make it not only for her interests, but also for the interests of the child that she choses to carry in her body for nine months or chooses not to carry. Her decision is not easy, not without moral difficulty or ambiguity, or with out far reaching psychological repercussions. That is why it is so critical that this decision of such great importance be made by the woman who will bear the burden of her choice. It is not the decision of the anonymous, unfeeling state, or the father, who may or may not decide to see things through. She who bears the risk and carries the wheight also is responsible for deciding how to handle a pregnancy. No matter howerver ambigously unjust the consequences may be. The decisions leading to those consequences, as a matter of law, lie with she who will bear the ultimate consquences of the decisions she choses to make. The decision whether is be to bring the child to term or opt for another alternative, to parahrase Retired Supreme Court Justice, Sandra Day O’Connor, "a husband cannot excercise the degree of control over a spouse that he can over a child."

Roe v. Wade places the decision where it best belongs with the person who’s body bears the risk and rewards of potential motherhood or the decision to avoid it.
*********************************
I had the parpagraph below left over. Good luck with your assignment.
********************************
Oddly, it was not until medical science made it possible to safely abort a fetus that there was any choice for a pregnant woman to make.
Even more oddly, those who made the choice were not those who bore the risk. Abortion was prounced sacrilige and murder by the men of Church and the men of the State. Curiously, the decision was reached by men–who by the very dictates of biology would never suffer a single death from miscarage or even a single, "normal" of episode morning of sickenss from pregnancy.

2) Isn’t it the the Women’s right to choose and NOTHING to do with anyone else

I have wrestled with this issue myself and come to the conclusion that it needs to be addressed. The fact is, the Envangelical Christian movement has made this a big issue and the elitist hypocrites leading the movement ( remember Ted Haggard?) drive Christians to vote Republican based on the belief that abortion is murder and democrats support abortion while republicans claim to oppose abortion and vow to overturn Roe v. Wade if the Christians will help them gain enough control over the government.

Even though 7 of the 9 supreme court justices were appointed by republicans ( only need 5 votes to overturn Roe v. Wade), they still believe their chief pharisees when they tell them that they have to go vote republican if they want to stop the infanticide. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge even ran radio ads in 2004 telling Christians it was a sin to not vote followed by ads telling them that it was a sin to vote for anyone who supported abortion rights. His scriptural justification for the claim was pure nonsense and yet I heard it repeated by sheepish Christians all year long.

Before I add my contribution to this debate and offer my answer to your question, I thought it would be good to explain why I believe we are at the pro-life vs. pro-choice point in the debate. It really is manipulation of the church for political purposes.

That said, I think we could easily change the debate to pro-choice vs. anti-choice if we could simply convince Christians to read their own scripture and recognnize that they have been deceived on this issue ( and many others).

Exodus 21:22-23 ( KJV) (vs.22) " If men strive and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he will pay as the judges determine. (vs.23) And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life."

The loss of an unborn child was not considered murder according to the old covenant of the Bible. Clearly, if an unborn child were considered a life according to the Bible this situation would have required a life for a life whether any mischief followed or not. It was not punished life for ife as murder was because God didn’t consider it murder. Anyone who says that he does is a liar. The proof is there to be seen.