I remember reading this article by Dallin H Oaks when I was a student at USU. It has stuck with me ever since. I used to feel really conflicted about the abortion issue, after all, shouldn't a woman be able to choose? It's her body.
Yes, she should be able to choose, and she can. Aside from rape and other circumstances where the choice has been taken away from her, a woman can choose whether to have sex or not. A woman can choose to use some form of birth control. It should not come as a surprise to any woman that having sex can result in pregnancy. If it does, then we need some major education reform in Utah (either in the home or in schools, I'm not picky). It would be nice if males had a more direct consequence from having unprotected sex. They don't though, and using that as an excuse for a woman to avoid responsibility for her choices is ridiculous.
Somewhat as a side note, I learned something new recently. On my gardening/composting discussion forum (obviously we talk about other things too) someone posted an article about a woman who was arrested after she had taken the first part of the Morning After Pill. The jail's nurse for whatever reason did not allow her to take the second pill. I don't think the original story had anything to do with moral objections by the nurse, but on my discussion forum, that's how it was brought up. I didn't know anything about the morning after pill, although I did do some reading about RU486 in college. I had always assumed that the two were the same. I was wrong, and I think a lot of people make the same assumption. The Morning After Pill (also known as Plan B) is not an abortion drug. It prevents pregnancy much in the same way that birth control pills and IUD's do (and it is supposed to be available at pharmacies without a prescription for women over 18 years old). Anyway, back to the main issue- I just thought this was interesting.
Abortion is a responsibility issue, not a choice issue.
That said, I'm not sure how I feel about the bill to ban abortions. I'm glad to see that the bill includes the exceptions that it does, but I'm unsure about the financial cost of defending the bill. Who decided to change it from the original trigger bill anyway?