Abortion and Women's Rights

Abortion has nothing to do with women's rights.  Murder is not a right. 

"If it is technically 'human', and it is alive, it is the proper function of government to protect it, regardless of whether or not that faculty is what distances a human from a lump of flesh." So you have the education to say when it is technically a human? Listen, I don't think I can set that limit just yet, but I will not budge when I say that the foetus is only a person when it's *mind* is as unique as its genetic code. Otherwise we would have to ban menstruations too. Its up to scientists to discern when this is the case. Human life =/= human being, since the former is nothing without auto-recognition from the latter. Who feels the organs take form and pulse? No one, before a certain time. Uptil then abortions are a-okay.
"There's a lot more abortions happening than you think.  I think pro-lifers have quite a lot more reason to be angry than pro-choicers." Number of abortions are irrelevant ethically. See above.
"That isn't relevant.  If it is the proper function of government to defend human life, then the government should do so.  If one human life is 'more important' than another, then all that means is that the life of lesser importance should be protected UNLESS a choice must be made between losing the one of lesser importance, or losing the one of greater importance (the woman's).  This means that abortion should be banned once the fetus can be seen as a separate life, unless necessary for the mother's health." Human life is nothing compared to the sanctity of the mind and the magnificence of cerebral processing. There is no life without a unique persona that can experience the existence.
"Quite a different tone taken than that which you took earlier.  I would agree with this - it is philosophically sound, so long as the turning point between the two starts at the time the fetus/embryo becomes a distinct 'life.'" Good, common ground. I think so too, but this is something that should take shape from a current situation, not a compromise that should be eked out of a situation where abortions are banned.
"That education should be in voluntary, private situations.  Private education > public education." I think that a sensible society makes sure that people are aware and comfortable with the most fundamental part of their persona. I wouldn't want my daughter to date a boy without any idea of gender equality who thinks that sex is 'filthy-dirty'. I think this is a cultural, not academical, problem.
"They will improve faster if you let the free market run its course (support the libertarian party)." It has not been the governments job so far, and the free market is very free in America already (it is not free enough).
"Err... I don't understand you.  If this is what you, AS WELL as what most of the pro-lifers want (as you say), what is stopping you from approaching this situation in this light?" Not making myself clear, I guess. The situation in South Dakota is not sound, not utilitarian, not ethically, not morally, not philosophically and not sociologically sound. Yet that is what most of the the pro-lifers want and I've established that a society can't have that. A mixture of abortions, ethical and unethical, are more acceptable than no abortions at all. Keep at it, Cecilia Fire Thunder. Fuck them up.