[More Cowbell]

The "victim" has as much ability to live, in fact they keep the victim alive so as to harvest the organs, as does a fertilized egg: both depend upon life support (machine, umbilical cord). Whether in war or peace, human life is differently valued in many, many instances. While I can see this point as debateable when applied to this issue, I cannot fathom how the general point could be. A person who has a purposed miscarriage, and the person who performs that procedure is NOT a murderer. We may as well agree to disagree on that point. If you like "legal" definitions, then Roe v. Wade is legal. Thus, you are mixing a moral value judgment with a legal one to suit your own purposes.

As to the "victim" analogy, the victim is NOT alive when the organs are harvested. You cannot harvest organs from someone who has not been declared legally dead. You bring up the idea of "life support", but when someone still has brain activity and is still considered alive, they will not talk to the family about harvesting the organs. And if someone did broach the subject, they would likely get a punch to the face, and deservedly so.

I am not mixing judgments. You are the one who keeps bringing up Roe v. Wade to support your position, even though the thread is to discuss our personal opinions. Again, we all know the current law, but that doesn't make it right. As I've brought up in earlier posts, there are countless examples of unfair practices in this country that were legitimized by the law, such as denying people of color the right to vote. Being supported by a law does not make a practice right, and the legalized killing of babies is still wrong no matter what the law says.

If you do value human life, how can you justify taking the life simply for the convenience of the mother? Just because being pregnant would make it hard for a 16-year-old girl to attend high school, is not justification for the mother to kill the unborn baby.