Oops, also this contention, since you bring up the "live & let live" philosophy here, and someone actually needs to have a life in order to let the person live it.
The Reagan 'big tent' Republican thingy. The 'Reagan Democrats'. Socially, I'm 'live and let live'. I do not want govt controlling people's social lives.
***I'm about the same. But that "live and let live" thing don't fly if the baby dies.
Yes, I respect that. The short answer is that I don't value all human life the way that you do, if I understand your position.
Aborting an unborn fetus, the death penalty, assisted suicide -- there are several cases in which the taking of a human life doesn't bother me, for different reasons.
In the case of abortion, I agree the fetus is a human. But to me, it's a human at such an undeveloped state that doing away with it doesn't bother me. And when compared to what is likely to happen if that mother has the child she doesn't want, especially in the case of young, poor, urban mothers . . .
I read an interesting book called, "Freakonomics" a while back. One of the chapters in it put forth an interesting theory. Crime rates started declining in the early 90s. 18 or so years after abortion first became illegal. They theorized that a high percentage of the babies who were aborted would have grown up to be criminals, because they were largely to urban, poor, uneducated mothers.
Cold, and harsh, I understand. But I'm ok with that. I'm at peace with my hard heart! It might also be why I have hypertension problems . . .
I fully understand why others like yourself feel differently. I would understand why you would want your states to have laws against it.