This thread piqued my interest on this topic. viewtopic.php?f=22&t=156841

It seems to me that there is too much pressure from the 'versus' appearance of the abortion issue, to set it up as a binary choice, which leads us to conclusions like "pro-life is really all about controlling women." I think there are more angles here than people think.

1: The sovereignty of the state (has / does not have) sufficient extent to criminalize the act of providing an abortion for another.
2: The sovereignty of the state (has / does not have) sufficient extent to criminalize the act of commissioning an abortion for onesself.
3: The state (should/should not) punish women for having sex for reasons other than procreation within the bounds of marriage.
4: Human life, which should be protected, begins at or around (fill in the blank).
4a: The determination of the beginning of human life (is/is not) an event for which rational justification is available.
4b: Religious convictions which cannot be rationally justified to those of sound mind and character who do not share my religion (are/are not) admissible as bases for legislation.

It is noteworthy that almost all court decisions on the issue of abortion has revolved exclusively around 1 and 2.

One can also hold positions that don't fit the binary model. Consider Biden's comments on abortion in the VP debates this year. His answer looked something like this: I have a religious conviction that human life, which should be protected, begins at conception, but my religious conviction is inadmissible as a basis for legislation.

I'd be interested to know if anyone can come up with a rationally sound justification for the rape and incest exclusion that many pro-life people allow which does not involve punishing women for having sex. I certainly can't.

May not be that relevant, but amused me.

That's because the purview of the courts is not to legislate morality. The courts may only review what the government is so chartered to do or not do.

---

Suffering from the diminishing marginal utility of wealth.

I'm curious as to what you think the courts and the government are doing when they make things like murder, theft, assault, etc illegal.