I disagree. I posted this article a long time ago, but embryology is important here.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leonard-pe...
The problem is: requiring a host to be viable. the host choice does not stop at conception. that's bull shit

Good morning khalling,

Yes. Rand said we should value the actual over the potential. Today we know much more about the viability of babies aborted in late term. I am in agreement with your position, for what it is worth, coming from a man... Abortion should not be used for birth control, and late term abortions are infanticide.

I think one major elephant in the room, so to speak is our inability to accept the economic circumstances of the cost of carrying a fetus to full term and the demand of couples for babies. Often, I feel their is a Christian precept of "selling life" and there are legal impediments: both statutorily and due to judges' decisions, that make it impossible to tell what is going to happen. Please check out my post on Sperm Donor. :)
If these economic and legal uncertainties were removed, females and mothers would have an incentive to carry to term, reduce, if not eliminate late term abortions.
Further, I am a mother, and I support up to 16 week voluntary abortions and the morning after pill; you can call me female if you like, but it does not change the rational fact that I am a mother, and I own myself more than I have an obligation to a fetus.
There have been court cases about medical circumstances mothers or babies life. Actually, courts have come down on both sides, which is absurd. I own myself. No one has the right to make decisions regarding my person just because I may carry a fertilized egg.
Regarding late 2nd term and 3rd term abortions, I believe that is murder because it is proven that the fetus can live outside the mother's womb.

don't misunderstand me, I agree with both Maphesdus and AlliInVA. I say "female" as I could never consider one who aborts a mother and my statement about the 5 or so inches between legal abortion and illegal murder was merely pointing out the law as it is written and certainly not a defense of the law though I can see as some could interpret it that way. You could swap the 2 phrases of abortion and murder and it would still be the same, a 5 inch difference between the them.

"fe·tus noun. Embryology .
(used chiefly of viviparous mammals) the young of an animal in the womb or egg, especially in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation. " And that "female" you refer to is the mother of that fetus (child). Abortion is murder.

Rozar- thanks for that link.
I have a suspicion that women are human and therefore have rights too.

what he did has never been legal anywhere in the US. The man decided to take the easy way out and kill a human rather than abort a fetus. To be legal, he would have had to deliver the fetus feet first and snip the spine while the head was still inside the female. Once the fetus is outside the body, and it breathes a single breath, it is a human being. So interesting that for want of 5 or so inches a legal abortion can become illegal murder but that is the law.

Thanks. Gosnel's House of Horrors was ignored by the media because it was an inconvenient truth. Gosnel chose to give up the right to appeal in order to get a life sentence. He chose life. His victims didn't have that choice. What he did was legal in all 50 states until recently. More horror stories are coming. Gosnel was not an anomaly.

Have you ever been to theobjectivestandard.com? It's a quarterly journal that discusses how objectivism relates to current affairs. They wrote an article a while back about what an objective look at what abortion means. I'd hate to try and break it down, as it has been over a year since I read it, but here is the link
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issu...

Also they wrote a quick blog on Gosnel that might help illustrate the difference.
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog...