Now I must admit I'm confused, first you say you "support up to 16 week voluntary abortions and the morning after pill" and also agree with me that "I believe that (late 2nd and 3rd term abortions) is murder because it is proven that the fetus can live outside the mother's womb." Then I'm guessing you disagree that each State should have the right to decide amongst its own people their choice, in otherwords wishing to impose your views upon them. I can't help what happens in China or influence their choices, but someone in the U.S. could move freely from one State to another (as many are doing over State taxes now) to a State whose laws(morals) were the same as theirs. If you want to get into burden, then why shouldn't the male get a say. He will be responsible for child support, even if it is at an amount he cannot afford and jailed if it is not paid. A State could set up a system then if the male wanted the abortion and the female refused he was under no obligation to pay. Conversely then, if the male wanted the child and the female didn't, should he get a say by denying the abortion and having sole custody after birth? What if both want the child but can't afford it? Is it the child's fault it is unable to provide for itself and is a moocher on society until such point it can work? At what age should the child start working? 13? 10? 6? Think a 6 yr old can't work? The North had child labour at this age long after slavery was outlawed in the South.

It is hard sometimes for one person to consolidate all their beliefs into one(by this I mean when dealing with isms you tend to support some of the ism while rejecting other parts of the same ism) and this is one of those cases. The woman has a right to her body, the baby has a right to life, both of them cannot be true. The woman can speak for herself, the baby cannot, but others speak for the baby. Who's view is more important? Surely the baby is the most effected, but the woman is close behind. Perhaps abortions should be legal until the child is 18...but no, few would make it out of their teenage years then.

This is why the U.S. was set up the way it was. A State says, "You weirdos can do what you want there, but we are not doing it here." But, if 3/4 of the States decide, "Hey, this really really does make sense to most everyone so we'll amend the Constitution," then the others must relent. As the issue stands now, one side almost gets it complete way and the other is denied almost anything. Would it not be fairer to everyone's views?

All that said, I completely support your right to morally disagree with me. Now let's go play devil's advocate and stir up a hornet's nest in the immigration topic lol ;D

I would naturally prefer to live in a world where abortion never happens and where your moral judgement prevails. Life exists, in scientific terms in your spittle. I do not know much about embryology, and while I can grudgingly tolerate abortions in early pregnancies (due perhaps to my ignorance and recognition that prohibition has proved worse) because I believe they have no conscience and are not yet sentient beings, I find no tolerance for aborting babies that have brain waves (which some claim occur as early as six weeks) or have reached the stage where they could be viable outside the womb. So given my choice and limited knowledge there would be no abortions. But, I do not trust the government to be arbiter of these decisions.
Frankly, except for rape, incest, and risk of death to the mother, all should be carried to term and if unwanted put up for adoption. But that's my preference... My moral code is not accepted by all.
How do you feel about the morning after pill?

I disagree. I posted this article a long time ago, but embryology is important here.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leonard-pe...
The problem is: requiring a host to be viable. the host choice does not stop at conception. that's bull shit