[Fruit Pie Jones]

And it's somewhat curious to ask whether something is legally defensible when it has already been proven in courts that it is in fact legally defensible

Abortion is legally defensible, yes, but the question (which may have been poorly worded) was not about the defensibility of abortion in general - it was about whether one can really argue for the general legalization of something based solely on special cases. In short, I don't think one can. Here's my position, plain and simple: I think abortion is an inherently abhorrent procedure that should be strongly discouraged at all times, but I think rape victims and other special cases should be entitled to have one if they so choose. As much as I hate leaving things in the hands of lawyers, these "other special cases" would have to be decided upon by the courts, just like justifiable homicide is decided upon presently (thus the analogy).

It is, but isn't it just as hypocritical to complain about the hypocrisy of others when you can't offer a viable and acceptable solution to the actual problem (overpopulation)?

Strictly speaking, complaining about hypocrisy is only hypocritical if I claim to not be a hypocrite, and I don't recall making such a claim. :bleh:

If overpopulation and decadance of culture threaten our ability to sustain, then it should be dealt with, either via preventative methods (through education, birth control and abstinence) or proactive measures (the morning after pill, abortion).

I completely agree, as I imagine that most people do. Where we differ is in our preferences for certain of those methods over others, and most likely in our reasoning behind those preferences. Because many of us feel very strongly about such things, this will always be a messy topic.

I apologize to all for being so argumentative.

Truth be told, I wish everyone here were as "argumentative" as you. I've read plenty of posts by you in this and other debates, and you conduct yourself with class regardless of what's tossed your way. Very nicely done.