You're still assuming they qualify as victims, again ignoring the question I asked. A victim is a living being that was sacrificed, but the fetus has a right to life that it doesn't have yet? It can't be both alive and yet to be alive. Pick one.
Redsniper, that basically highlights the fact that some people can't decide where their morals will let them sleep at night. It's like the guy that walks up to the lady in a bar, and asks if she'll sleep with him for $1 million. She says yes, then he says, ok, how about $50? She says of course not, what kind of lady do you think I am, and he says we've already established that, now we're just negotiating.
My point is, you have to be able to clearly define solely in the terms of the development of the fetus, where it does and does not make sense to be ok with birth prevention. To me, it would be before any detectable level of consciousness, and as we can get a fairly good idea of where that begins, generally after the first trimester, then that to me makes completely logical sense to be the cutoff date for an abortion. The only acceptable cause to put it up for debate again is when there is a clear and present threat to the life of the mother.
