In My Dishonourable Opinion (IDMHO).

I have said this in the past: "Men can decide if and when women have an abortion when women decide if and when men have a vasectomy."

So I take abortion arguments with a grain of salt as my role would be limited at most to support not the actuator.

I believe in evolution. Those who chose not to breed will steadily overtime remove themselves from the gene pool. Abortionists will quite possibly die out. I still think though that we should have a choice as individuals and not be bound by our genes or them being combined with someone else.

I think rape is a relevant argument as we should include all the possibilities on the table. Also starting with the more 'black and white' examples will help us give more information for the grey areas. Again I don't believe in eugenics, but if a women cannot abort a rapists child that is eugenics (an increase in frequency of a gene type associated with a trait due to government interference).

As we are not an underpopulated species facing extinction, I do not see any pressing moral force of society determining the rights of individuals.

However there is a point where a fetus is definitely capable of life outside the womb. It is at this point that we should have a definite no for abortions. I would say that anything beyond 13 weeks is probably wrong, but that is based on a qualitative feeling not a quantitative why and why not.

As for a man in a coma. Iff they are never going to recover should we be spending money on the individual or spreading it out for those who can recover... such as say a children's burn unit?