Jocephus wrote:in other words, is it a pizza when the ingredients are on the dough or when it comes outta the oven?
I hate to use this analogy, but it's actually a good example. The problem that often arises in arguing/discussing abortion is the "when is it a pizza" problem. If you believe it is pizza once all the ingredients are in place, that is fine. When the person you are discussing the issue with believe it's only pizza when it comes out of the oven, you aren't going to make a lot of progress. Generally, each side is working from a mutually exclusive starting point: either it is life at conception, or it is only life at some later point. Whether that point is birth, viability, or some other point, it's some point later than conception. And so each side ends up talking past the other, because they are working from a different underlying belief.
Not saying that's what is going on here, but in my experience this is where most problems when discussing "pizza" arise.
And re Snayke's comment a while back on Roe not being overturned by Republican administrations, this is true. But Planned Parenthood v Casey, and other cases, have created numerous constitutional limitations that do not place an "undue burden" on a woman's right to choose. As such, many state legislatures have enacted many requirements that pregnant women must satisfy before being able to actually go through with an abortion. As a result, the right to choose remains intact for some women who have no way to actually exercise that right. That's the part that bothers me the most: setting up a situation where some individuals have the ability to exercise a constitutional right, while others do not. Whether you think the right to an abortion is constitutional or not shouldn't color one's opinion on whether only some individuals should be able to exercise their constitutional rights.