This reply is GOING to get flak, and I'm ok with that, this is, ONLY my opinion and you get what you paid for. I don't feel like this is a case of state versus federal at all. Given the choice of pro-life (with no exceptions) or pro-choice (with little regulations) I'm going to have to take pro-choice. If the MOTHER is at risk no questions asked I'm for abortion (note, not pro choice, pro abortion. A mother is capable of having another child, there is no guarantee the child will be ok). Pauly told me there are very few cases where the mother's life is at risk, not sure the source but I trust him on this. If the CHILD has little chance for a normal, happy life, I'm pro choice, but leaning towards the abortion side. How many cases do we see on TV (fake I know) where they say "the baby is going to be retarded, have 1 arm, no eyes and won't ever be able to eat on their own" but yet the mother is staunchly against aborting the fetus. How is that fair? To the potential child, the mother/father, AND the rest of the economy that will inevitably have to pay for the support? In terms of what you've said redkow, I agree that the people are so avidly against abortion need to propose a solution, and "wear a condom" doesn't solve cases of rape. Here's the end of the story, there will NEVER be a happy solution for 100% of people. I think our current solution is flawed, but in the case of the extremes, I'll take what we have now over pro-life.