> > I am against abortion, but I am also against laws that regulate it.
>
> May I ask why? I'm interested that you mention this, because I have been thinking about this stance a lot lately and don't understand it.
>
> I'm completely ambivalent about abortion. It's a question I feel completely torn about. I don't think I'm capable of being convinced that human life begins at conception, but at the same time saying it begins it at birth seems just as arbitrary. Without a good definition of what constitutes a human life, I can't figure out how to decide if it's okay to abort fetuses, and if it is when and under what circumstances.
>
> What I don't understand are people who are against abortion but don't want to regulate it. I mean, if a fetus is a clump of cells and not a human, then why care if they're aborted? Why be against abortion at all? On the other hand, if we are dealing with living humans, then it seems exactly the sort of thing we should be regulating -- the protection of human life is the fundamental purpose of government.
>
> So you can see why I might be a little confused on the issue.
>
> Stephen

As you can see, I am confused a little myself. While I think it is wrong in most cases, I still see it as a private matter, and not the kind of thing the government should decide. Every case is different. So I get called a liberal by some and a conservative by others. I think such labels are unnecessary. I am probably more of an idealist. I think a woman should make her choice before conception, but in the real world, that is not going to happen with any regularity. Besides, the woman is not the only one who should make a choice. How's that for confusion?
Howard