Abortion

Ok, so you're elevating a metastatic cancer, choriocarcinoma, to the moral level of a human being. Choriocarcinoma is one possible outcome of a fertilized egg, but not all choriocarcinomas originate as a zygote. Does that mean that it's murder to treat a choriocarcinoma with chemotherapy if it arises from a fertilized egg, but it's fine to do so if the choriocarcinoma did not arise from a fertilized egg?

I know it's taking things a little too far -- that's what always happens with rigid moral stances. The problem is that it puts you in the position of defending ridiculous situations in order to remain morally consistent.

You seem to hold the position that all fertilized eggs are morally equivalent to humans. But when pressed on some of the things that a zygote can become other than a human, you are willing to allow for some exceptions (like when the life of the mother is threatened). Thus, you have an element of consequentialism here too, your moral stance is tempered by situational particulars. Well, that's exactly what a rigid anti-abortion advocate would accuse a rigid pro-choice advocate of, i.e. having moral inconsistency. In this case, it's just a matter of where you draw your line.

But what about the concequences to a society that believes that it is okay for a woman to "choose" whether or not her child should live or die?

You obscure the debate by talking about fetuses who will be born extemely defective (a rare occurance).

I believe in capital punishment

And don't fool yourself, the majority of abortions arise not because the fetus is a "zygote" but from an irresponsible wish to rid oneself of an outcome that was not desired.

Society pays a terrible price when it reduces the decision of life and death to choice....
... The real problem is when we accept that ANY pregnancy can be terminated on the whim of the mother; are there any repercussions for us as a society? I think so.

most liberals whould prefer to save the lives or murderers on the pretense of possible racism...

...while they have no problem with allowing a mother carte blanche on decisions of life and death.

It's an issue of if we're prepared to execute innocent people. Sure, some are guilty of terrible crimes. Sure, some people are so horrible that they deserve to die. But our justice system is SO imperfect, especially with respect to the death penalty that I think it's ridiculous to assume that it can actually reliably determine who deserves to die and who doesn't. How many innocent people who are put to death would you consider acceptable in order to have a capital punishment system? I would answer zero.

The problem here is you're looking at abortion in isolation from all the other issues that it's part of. If we are interested in a society in which women are able to fully self-actualize, then they need access to contraception, freedom to divorce, unrestricted access to education and to professional advancement, and unrestricted ownership of their own medical decisions. Pregnancy (let alone delivery and parenthood) places such immense physical, economic, social, and professional constraints on women that we will NEVER have a society in which women enjoy all the freedoms of men when women pay a far bigger price for the same "irresponsible" act.

Then I suppose you believe in life in prison without parole. Otherwise what of the innocent people killed by a murderer who does not fear capital punishment.

No, I understand all too well the larger implications of abortion on demand.
Women cannot be equal to men since they are not men. They can never be equal unless you are talking about equality of results, another word for socialism. But history shows that equality of results is not practical, worse it is tyrannical.

The only thing that equality of results has accomplished where it has been implemented is to spread poverty and famine. It has never raised the living standards of those it claimed to benefit, but has only lowered them. As has been noted by many - "capitalism is the uneven distribution of wealth, and socialism the even distribution of poverty."

In the real world none of us have unrestricted access to much of anything. Unless we are self-centered monsters life will always impose restrictions.

What repercussions does abortion have on society? It undermines morality.

Then I suppose you believe in life in prison without parole. Otherwise what of the innocent people killed by a murderer who does not fear capital punishment.

Why is the predictability of inconsistency so consistent within the liberal ideology.

...but would extend the complete latitude to a woman as it pertains to the serious issue of considering and executing the inherent permanence of an abortion

Life and human behavior are both predictably inconsistent. That's why someone with a shred of compassion would find it ridiculous to endorse a government sponsored policy of executing people in a grossly imperfect system under the ideal of "justice".

I'm talking about equality of self-actualization. And given that women have every cognitive and professional capability of men in every respect other than physical tasks, they deserve every opportunity to achieve what they want.

Men have a higher cognitive ability then women. Women have the ability of logic to a extent but opt out often for a emotional response this is of course general some women are very logical

Excuse me, but if "the system" is in fact "grossly imperfect" then it is the people who make up the system who are to blame and not some abstraction.

So you have murderers and the loved ones of the murdered and the voters who institute the policy of whether or not to have a death penalty. And of all three of these it seems that the focus might be best if it is upon the act of murder and not some abstractions of "the system" or some "ideal of justice".

For, what would the death penalty be if there were no murders committed?

The death penalty seems to be an understandable response on the part of the murdered victim's loved ones. Our compassion rightly belongs with the victims.

That's complete nonsense and it's been shown repeatedly to be so.

What repercussions does abortion have on society? It undermines morality. Presumably, before abortion on demand people found it as difficult as they now find it to be good. But then the call to goodness was not clouded by a society that explicitly said it was a woman's right to literally kill her mistakes. There was a time when the family was the economic fundament of life, the basic welfare of children could not be assured outside of, or before, the family was established. And since contraception was not reliable and abortions were not acceptable, the reasons for sexual discipline were palpable.