Oh8ch: I see your point, but choose to disagree. You quote history and point out societies in which newborns are killed at birth. I believe you, that stuff did, and does, happen. My question, though, is this: Why does that make it right? You name animals that eat their young, or kick them out to starve. Again, why does that make it right? Cannibalism is proven to have existed in some human societies, does that mean it is ok to eat babies? Murder has been a problem in our species since we have existed. So, using your logic, it is ok to kill someone simply because people have always killed? Animals fight for the "right" to procreate as well, sometimes to the death. Should we then initiate some arena death-matches for the right to bed Selma Hayek?
I understand that people are going to disagree on this subject, and I'm not trying to force your opinion to become the same as mine. I will, however, question your logic. I firmly believe in the sanctity of life, and I also firmly believe that abortion is murder. You make a good argument when you paint the picture of the poor 15 year old girl whose life would definitely change should she become pregnant. But the fact remains, if you look at history, that society is always going to have a percentage that is poverty-stricken, and nobody can say that young 15 year old wouldn't be inspired by having a child. Maybe the kid will give her the motivation to finish high school and attend college. Maybe not. My point is, regardless of how many heart strings you tug, abortion is still killing. People make mistakes. But, as the cliche goes, "two wrongs do not make a right". If some girl murders her unborn child because she "made a mistake while her judgment was impaired", to me it is the same as if a motorist killed a cop to get out of a speeding ticket.