HRS: "Disregarding the issue of whether or not the fetus is human"

Convenient.

HRS: "Abortion [has] physical and psychological risks".

So does giving birth to a baby (eg. post natal depression, birth complication), especially where the pregnancy was unwanted. Even worse, being forced to go through the process with no choice in the matter would risk further psychological harm.

HRS: "clinics can start encouraging or compelling women to have abortions"

Slippery slope fallacy - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

HRS: "feminists can begin brainwashing women into having more abortions"

Slippery slope, plus an unhealthy dose of conspiracy theory.

"various gender prejuiced feminists could also use unregulated abortion to kill baby boys"

Slippery slope again! So you support regulated abortion .. what form does that regulation take?

HRS: "a race can carry out too much abortion, and eventually they cannot maintain their population numbers, and they become extinct, which now appears to be happening to a number of races in Europe"

Show us the research - but you can't because you discount all academics. Convenient. Permissive and highly atheistic/agnostic, Netherlands has exceedingly low abortion rates .. please explain.

SO ignoring these delaying tactics, what about whether an embryo is a person or not?

ScienceLaw,

I didn't intend "religious right" as an insult, just a description of religiously and politically conservative people, such as dominate the anti-abortion movement in the United States.

If having a mind is irrelevant, then why isn't it murder to shut down the life support system of a brain-dead accident victim? It is quite possible to imagine advances in technology that would allow a body in this state, possibly even without a head, or an anencephalic infant to be maintained on life support indefinitely, but at enormous cost.

Why, if embryos are full human persons, do we only need to meet the lower standard of not killing, and not the higher standard of saving, as opposed to how we treat other people? Again, it is quite possible to imagine grossly abnormal embryos detected, removed from the womb, and maintained in some sort of artificial womb or on artificial life support, at ruinous cost to the parents or society. If it turns out that the female body can actively expel or prevent the implantation of abnormal embryos, is the woman obliged to suppress this natural mechanism?

Sancho: "Can someone show me one of these "pro-abortionists"? This debate only ever plays out between anti-choice advocates who wish to dictate how women may treat their own bodies, and pro-choice advocates who respect the decision to either abort or bear a child.

If you don't want an abortion, don't have one. That should be the end of the argument."

If you are willing to allow others the choice to take an action, you are de facto approving of that action. It is not enough to say "I wouldn't do it myself, but I won't stop others" or "If you don't want one, don't have one; but don't stop others". Easily illustrated by a strong example: If you agree that it is up to others to choose whether or not to keep slaves, you are implicitly approving slavery by allowing it to continue (on the basis of someone's right to choose). Would you ever say, "If you don't want to be racist, just don't be racist, but don't stop others being racist if they choose"? No, because that is effectively condoning racism as a valid choice.
Pro-choice advocates are thus de facto pro-abortion.

We "anti-choicers" don't agree that the issue turns on the woman's choice, but on the rights of the fetus. In my slavery example above, we would say the slave's rights trump the choice rights of the "owner". Ditto for the racism example: society should stop people being racist, and whether they wish to be so (or even accept that certain behaviour is racist) should be irrelevant. That's the gist of our whole argument on the choice point - that's its not an issue where choice is paramount.

Rojo: You are perhaps losing sight of your original point. You said "Women should...not be subjugated because of others beliefs."

I responded that our choices are subjugated every day to others' beliefs. As you say, "of course you can rob a bank, you just have to either get away with it or take the consequences"; but your choice to do so is still subjugated. Because of society's belief that robbery is wrong, you will be locked up, or you will be prevented from robbing the bank, or you will spend your life on the run - none of these would be circumstances you would choose (as I imagine your choice would be to rob the bank and live happily ever after on a beach on the proceeds – well, that would be mine!).

I am currently subjugated to my employer's belief that I should work for my pay; if I choose not to, I will be subjugated to his belief that I should lose my job, and then to the bank's belief I should lose my house for non-payment of the mortgage.

In summary, to say that making abortion illegal would subjugate a woman's choice to others' beliefs is not a strong argument, since that's basically what laws do.

sciencelaw,"In summary, to say that making abortion illegal would subjugate a woman's choice to others' beliefs is not a strong argument, since that's basically what laws do."
my point was that there is majority consensus that robbery etc is wrong, but no such consensus on abortion. In the absence of a clear consensus on right or wrong, I believe it is the womans own moral view that takes precedence. I fail to see the guaranteed benefit to anyone, even the potential child, of forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy she does not want.

Employers/banks expectations are reasonably well defined, and generally mutually beneficial.

You have the right to support fetus rights, just as I have a right to support the womans choice, which I think overides the rights of a group of cells that have the potential to be a person.
I guess it comes down to what you believe it is to be human, merely having a body or is it the neural connections that give us consciousness, or the experiences that mould our personality. I suspect we will all have different views on that.

If the argument for fetal rights is profound enough then the woman by choice will not abort, and no-one need make decisions on her behalf.

ScienceLaw” If you are willing to allow others the choice to take an action, you are de facto approving of that action.”

I do not wholly agree with that statement. I do however agree with the following

I defend my own individual sovereign right to make the decisions which effect my life and I know that my right is only secured by ensuring the sovereignty of others is similarly protected.

“If you agree that it is up to others to choose whether or not to keep slaves, you are implicitly approving slavery by allowing it to continue”

Another fallacious example.

The keeping of slaves requires one individual to impose their will and hold dominion over another individual.

The relationship pregnant woman and the embryo developing within her is, because they are both exclusively dependent upon the same bodily resources, is entirely different to a master:slave relationship, where the master and the slave are not exclusively dependent upon the same bodily resources.

Actually what ScienceLaw is demanding is for every pregnant woman to be “Enslaved” to ScienceLaws authority and dominion by denying those pregnant women are denied their sovereign choice to make up their own mind.

“We "anti-choicers" don't agree that the issue turns on the woman's choice, but on the rights of the fetus. In my slavery example above, we would say the slave's rights trump the choice rights of the "owner".”

All you have done is (supposedly) liberated the fetus by enslaving the woman.

In my humbly opinion, that is a heinous barter, a deal with the devil.

Better the secondary or subordinate occupant of a woman’s body (the fetus) be extended considerations subordinate to the will of the principle occupant of the womans body (the woman herself).

Your comparison to employee and employer is equally invalid. You do not have a unique and non-duplicable relationship with any one specific employer, unlike the specificity in the pregnant woman : embryo relationship.