I agree with you that an abortion is the destruction of innocent human life. It is the 'innocent' part that makes comparisons to the death penalty out of place.
But I do think that they should be allowed if the mother's health is truly in danger if she carries the baby to term and gives birth to it.
Practically speaking, I think that the best that could happen on a policy level is for Roe to be overturned and for the matter to return to the states. If that happens you would have a polygot of laws. Some states in the Northeast would probably only restrict late-term abortions, but the restrictions would likely be so weak so as to have a defacto policy of abortion on demand. Some states would probably be very restrictive and allow for abortions only in those threat-to-the-mother cases, while othres would probably extend exceptions to include rape, incest, etc.
It wouldn't be perfect, but at least policy wouldn't result from judicial fiat.
And Mach9: you are right about lack of respect for States' rights. The Tenth Amendment might as well not even exist considering how it is ignored.
I knew a woman once who had a brain tumor. She was pregnant, and had other children. She could not get cancer treatment while she was pregnant. So, she had an abortion, and got treatment. The rationale is that she could not live and take care of her other children, so best to kill one child to save the mother's life.
She died 2 months after the child would have been born. Her children are motherless anyway.
How about if she had liver cancer, and was going to die, if she didn't get a transplant? What if her 3 year old was a perfect match? Should the three year old be killed and the liver given to the mother, so that the other children would not live without a mother? What about sacrificing a three year old to save the mother's life? Are you for that? If not, why not? To me, it is the same thing. I would GIVE my life to save my children, no matter how old they are!
