A sidebar question for those who are able to THINK about the issue of federal funding for abortions

I'd like to add a personal philosophical inquiry of mine that comes up every time someone mentions abortion in any context. I've been pro-life. I've been pro-choice. My personal position now is based entirely on my current circumstances, but I always question it, because new ideas always come with the progress of time, along with new developments in technology and social evolution. So here is the question.

Which of these options shows more of a respect or consideration for the value of human life:

1. Offer women the opportunity to abort a pregnancy before a baby/fetus is developed enough to have a consciousness or a "self".

2. Offer the opportunity to abort a baby/fetus at any time before the point of complete birth.

3. Demand that every baby/fetus that is formed in any circumstance must be carried to term if medically possible and given birth to, whether or not the parent(s) have the money to support the child or an adoptive family available to them.

4. Allow that any baby/fetus produced by incest or rape may be aborted but that in any other circumstance the baby/fetus must be allowed to be born if the mother is physically capable, whether or not the parent(s) have the money to support the child or an adoptive family available to them.

The real things to consider in these options are in part logistical and in part extremely philosophical. One must look at the potential quality of life for the child, the quality of life for the parents, the cost to the community of supporting the child, the value of the child to the community. Just as relevant though is the question of the existence of a soul and at what point it starts to exist if it does. How far does development progress before a baby/fetus is considered a human life? One may even ask what value does any individual human life with the full potential for good and evil behavior have?

These questions are important because of federal funding for clinics that provide abortions. There are inevitably some things that a massive group of people will not agree on. To cite a non-controversial example, I lived in a shared space last summer. We were splitting bills- electric, rent, water. One roommate wanted cable tv, wanted us all to split the bill. The majority of us did not have the money to pay for anything extra so we didn't want to get cable. In the end he ended up having cable installed and said he would pay for it himself. Of course since we were all tight budgeted he got behind on the bill and service was shut off. He demanded that since some of us watched television we should have to help him pay for it. We didn't want the cable in the first place. This roommate also demanded we help take care of a dog he brought home that we begged him not to get because we didn't want to help take care of it, so maybe this is a better example of short-sightedness and selfishness in a community, but it's also a good reflection on what happens in a community when the majority disagrees with the minority. In the end, when we all ended up using the tv, who was responsible for the cost? And what measures could/should we have taken to prevent him from getting the service in in the first place?

In legal issues, a minority disagreement often leads to a blackmarket or underground societal workings. In financial issues, it leads to a lot of mudslinging. When the majority made abortions illegal, people who provided them went underground to meet the demand. People got hurt. When the majority decided to legalize abortion it was able to be regulated for the improved health and safety of the citizens. However, what happens when the majority believes that abortion should be legal, but a huge number of citizens do not want to their tax dollars used to pay for a service they believe is immoral? They could withhold their taxes as a protest, but that would risk prison and not very many people in this country are willing to risk physical discomfort to stand up for their beliefs. Instead, they supported the end to federal funding of clinics that provide reproductive care- but some of those services are services they need, such as low cost gynecological exams. Cutting of their nose to spite their face so to speak, or shooting themselves in the foot. So long as the majority of Americans are in favor of spending tax money to provide affordable abortions to citizens with low income, that is what we will do. This may not always be the case however. Those who support clinics that provide low cost abortions may need to be willing to support them with their own money if the majority rules that federal funds should not be supplied to facilities that provide abortions. If your vote is not in the majority that is the price you pay for the times that your vote is in the majority. In order to keep funding for healthcare and birth control doctors who provide abortions may need to split off into entirely separate (and separately funded) clinics, which would be a terrible stretch of resources, but what is the most efficient is not always the most ethical.

Personally, in reference to the taxes we pay and the money this country has at its disposal, I still can't figure out why I can get my birth control pills for nearly nothing, but I can't get the same financial consideration when I get strep throat or need physical therapy for a back injury. I guess the majority that votes on healthcare has it's priorities in favor of reproductive health, but not in favor of overall health... doesn't make much sense to me.