A woman's "right"? Puh-leeze. The only "right" she and her lover had was the right to use birth control to begin with... or, if they reeaaally don't want to chance pregnancy: abstinence. It still floors me how in this day and age -- with all the different methods of birth control available -- folks still have "unwanted" pregnancies. And rape? Incest? You're talking about maybe .02% out of the massive slaughter
of babies that's going on. And even IF the pregnancy came via one of those horrors, IT'S STILL NOT THE BABY'S FAULT. Yet, regardless of the means, people still want to sacrifice innocents all to the god of convienence. A "woman's right"...sheeesh! The BABY (NOT tissue, fetus, etc.) inside her, while he didn't ask to be conceived, has "rights" as well, and the most basic right is the right to life. And don't give me that crap about "since it's legal, it must be okay." Throwing people to the lions for their religious beliefs was okay in Rome at one time, too.
As far as those who insist on referring to the unborn child as a "thing" rather than a baby, I suppose this helps alleviate some of the inherent guilt over it. But my question to those folks is, What are the chances that this "fetus/tissue," if left unchecked and unaborted, will grow into an actual person ?? Probably pretty good. Thus, if the unborn child is going to grow into a man or woman, then he/she is still a person inside the womb. And if a person, then, quite simply, abortion is murder. You can label it whatever you'd like to help you sleep at night, but whatever you believe it is personally doesn't change what it truly is.
And, btw, I'm not "anti-abortion"...I'm pro-life. "Anti-abortion" is just another handy label folks use to: (1) Again, alleviate guilt for the pro-abortionists ("pro-choice" is an oxymoron); and (2) paint the pro-lifers in a negative, "rebellious" light. But, hey, that's cool...I love being a rebel!