Only in the first days after the pregnancy (i.e. the morning-after pill)
Before the second trimester
Before the third trimester
At any point prior to birth
Only when the mother's life is in danger
Never; I oppose abortion in any form
Other; describe in your comment
Here's the twist. You actually have to [i]defend[/i] your vote. Back it up with actual reasoning. Explain to me how you arrived at your particular choice.
Otherwise, you are either allowing others to choose for you without critical thought, or you are making a choice based on nothing.
I believe abortion is acceptable only when the mother's life is in danger. The debate really comes down to whether you believe a fetus constitutes a human life with rights. I believe it does. I believe this is a self-evident premise & that cut-off points advocated by supporters of abortion are chosen in an arbitrary way. Therefore, it is not acceptable to end the life of a human being. If the mother is inconvenienced by her pregnancy, too bad. That does not give her the right to kill another person just to alleviate her own burden. Maybe she should have not gotten pregnant in the first place.
However, abortion is acceptable when the mother's life is in danger because (obviously) the mother is a human being too, and therefore she has the right to defend her own life. It is my moral and ethical position that all people have the right to defend their own lives when threatened against any assault, using any means necessary. In this case, it becomes a "survival of the fittest" scenario, and the mother gains the right to exercise her fitness as a fully grown, mature human being over the undeveloped fetus leeching away her life force.
See? I stated my position and made a logical argument supporting it. I made my premises clear and explained how they led me to my conclusion. Why do abortion advocates have such a hard time doing this in a logically consistent way?