RE:
Article #2; New York Times.

Arkansas Abortion Law

One of the most difficult things to do, is to try to categorize any one controversial law, proposal, idea, or situation into an "either or" niche.  When it comes to abortion, both sides of the debate have very firm beliefs, but there is such a chasm between those beliefs, that it would seem impossible to bridge the gap.  Just this last week a Doctor in, I believe Philadelphia, was arrested for snapping the spinal chords of babies that were actually born alive. Aborting a fetus, up to a certain point is one thing, this is ???

Perhaps that is the biggest dilemma facing people today.  At what point does a separate egg and a separate sperm, when joined become an entity that is acceptable to all the factions of the debate, as a human being. From the belief that at conception, the fertilized egg is a living being, to the belief that if an abortion is not successful, and the perfectly viable fetus is extracted, it is O.K. to just put it in a sink to die on it's own, I wonder what is the point at which the "thing" becomes a viable something that is acceptable, to both sides?
The original questions from Professor Ellerman were;

Would this law pass under your constitution?
For me personally, I would say yes.  If you have a beating heart, you have a living being.

Do you think it is a good idea?
Again I would say yes.  But I have no idea what the circumstances in each case are.  If a person is seeking an abortion, it is a pretty fair conjecture that the baby would be unwanted, and be brought into an environment that would be lacking.  Then again just 2 weeks ago, a court said that nothing be done to a woman that did crack cocaine 2 days before giving birth.  Go figure.

Why?  I'm not qualified to give an answer to that.

I certainly do not know.  I'm just glad my mother didn't believe in abortion.