Here is my personal opinion on the topic of abortion.  I will leave it up to others to decide whether it is liberal, conservative or moderate.  I just call it sane.

Abortion should NEVER be used as a form of birth control.  I have no problem with a law that properly enforces that.  I CANNOT agree with a law that makes ALL abortions illegal, because I don't buy the argument that they are never medically necessary to "save the life of a mother".  I also, much as I respect life, do not agree with a law that prevents abortion in the case of rape or incest. 

If my wife or daughter were raped and became pregnant I would want the terrible decision about whether to raise or even allow that rapist's child into the world to be their decision, and I want the option to give them my advice.  It is not the state's right to take that from us.  They  (and I) would be the ones who have to live with the consequences of that decision.  And I do not believe that the state is wiser than I am on things that have deep impact on my personal life.

But remember, rape and incest cases are a very slim minority of the reasons women who have them give for their abortions.

What about cases where pre-natal testing reveals with certainty that the child will be significantly handicapped in some way that will be life threatening and very expensive for the parents and society to care for that child?  I again think that is a personal choice that the parents have to make.  Liberal that I am, I do not trust the state to make these decisions for me, my wife, or my daughters.

So what are the consequences of my opinion, should the rest of society agree with me?  This is one way to evaluate the impact of a position.

1. Abortion should never be required by the state under any circumstances.

2. Birth control technology should be freely available to everyone and as cheap as possible. Any child male or female, who is physically capable of producing a child of their own, should understand the consequences of sex and have access to birth control technology. So I am in favor of "sex education".  Lack of knowledge or access to birth control should never be an excuse for pregnancy.

3. Its OK with me if the social consensus is that abortion should be illegal except in the case of rape, incest, or "medical necessity". It is NOT OK with me if those exceptions are not permitted.

4. Abortions that do occur should be rare and safe.

5. Society has to reach consensus on the meaning of "medical necessity". That meaning will have to evolve over time as medicine advances and society evolves.  My stake in the ground is when there is reasonable certainty by qualified doctors that the life of the mother is in danger or when there is indisputable evidence that the child will be "severely handicapped". 
 
6. Society has to define what "severely handicapped" means. We have to have enough faith in our basic humanity to believe that the vast majority are not going to accept things like "wrong sex" or treatable conditions like "cleft palate" or "mild mental handicaps"  to be defined as "severe".  But there will be debates about the definition, and we have to accept that there will be.  Like medical necessity to save the life of the mother the definition of "severe handicap" can't be cast in concrete and will not be something we all agree on.  And also, this is a very small percentage of the reasons why women who have abortions say they have them.

Parents do not have a right to expect that their children will be "perfect" and there are real risks associated with pregnancy and child birth.  Technology and medical science will make handicaps that are "severe" today avoidable or quite livable tomorrow.   But if the  technology that enables a handicap to be classified as "not severe" has significant costs associated with it, those costs should not be only the responsibility of the parents of the child or the child themselves.  The state that declares the the handicap as "not severe" or not on the list of "severe handicaps" needs to help the parents gain access to it without bankrupting themselves.  

If we look at a tally giving the reasons women give for having abortions collected from women who have them or doctors who perform them, we will see that this eliminates a large majority of them.  Perhaps as much as 90 percent. 

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
http://www.pregnantpause.org/numbers/whyabort.htm
http://www.nrlc.org/news/2005/NRL10/NewStudy.html
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_why.htm

There are still those that fall into the areas where my proposed law would permit them.  However, technology and medical advances will reduce even these over time.

I happen to believe that this issue is going to be decided at the state level now rather than by Congress or the Supreme Court.  I think recent Supreme Court decisions have made that inevitable, and I do not think an ammendment to the Constitution or national law are going to happen.  If I lived in a state where these principals were in a proposed law I would vote for it.  I think a majority, though not every one would, regardless of their religious affiliation or point of view on other issues.   It would eliminate the vast majority of abortions in any state that passed it.