No matter where we begin the sentence, and no matter how well you try to explain it, I can’t help but read the bolded/underlined and perceive it as an opinion. I keep picking that up no matter how many times I read it and no matter how many angles I read it from, even all these months later after I have come back to the thread with a fresh view. I think that what really makes it that way is the “sorry” at the end. Perhaps the issue isn’t so much my misinterpretation as it is poor choice of wording.
This wording is something I would have percieved as objective.
Well, I do think that the opinion of the government is pretty significant. Even though sometimes I really don’t like them, it is their job to look at the issues of the country objectively and come to a decision that best fits with our laws, our constitution and rights. I agree with the decision made in Roe Vs. Wade and Justice Blackmun’s statement: “The states are not free, under the guise of protecting maternal health or potential life, to intimidate women into continuing pregnancies”.
Well, since my opinion is that a fetus is not a human being until it has developed the nervous system, no, I don’t consider anything before that to be the taking of the life of another human being.
But my opinion aside, making abortion against the law does not solve the root of the problem, at all. There will always be women pregnant who do not want to be pregnant, and there will always be people willing to provide those women with abortions, whether they be back-door or in a safe clinic, if it’s for the right price. If both sides of the abortion debate would focus on the root of the problem (unwanted pregnancy) instead of the solution (abortion), this issue might have been solved by now. Both sides of the abortion debate can agree on one point: less abortions = good. So how to we lower the rate of abortion? There are many answers to that. I posted links to two articles in my previous post that explain some of those answers.
Well, I think that desperate, fear-driven women seeking out unsafe, unclean back-door abortions performed often times by unproffesional surgeons is also an evil that’s not to be tolerated 
How is that an opinion? If something is defined as a human, it has a right to life. That right is far more fundamental than any right to choose. As soon as the fetus becomes a human–at whatever point that happens (i.e. for you, when they develop a nervous system and brain, and for the hypothetical person, as soon as the baby is conceived)–that thing/person’s life becomes its own. The mother no longer has any right to decide what should happen to it. It has a right to live. Period. To reject that is to say that a woman can end her child’s life whenever she want (e.g. 5 years old, 7 years old, etc.). Please don’t try to twist this into me saying something else. I’m only talking about from the point something changes form a fetus to a human on.
In regards to the government, the examples you pointed out were entirely irrelevant to the discussion (HOV lanes, censuses, etc.). The government consistently treats the same people differently depending on the situation (e.g. a 18 year old is an adult in respect to voting, but not in respect to drinking). The way government treats unborn fetuses/children in regards to such things as HOV lanes and censuses does not mean they treat them that way in every respect, and certainly not in this very different situation.
In regards to yet another quote taken out of context, please note that I made it clear in the first half of the sentence that I was talking about something/one that had passed the threshold and was considered human: “No, killing an infant (I’m referring to anything that’s passed the threshold of humanity, so for you, that’d be anything with a developed nervous system and brain) isn’t murdering in the same sense as some guy running into a school and gunning down dozens of students and faculty, but don’t try to pretend it’s not taking the life of another human being.” For you, that would mean taking the life of a fetus after it had developed a nervous system and brain. Do you honestly think that’s not murder?
I don’t think abortion’s legality needs to be discussed. I think everyone here agrees that, before this organic mass becomes human, abortions should be allowed. However, after wards, it should be illegal. For the umpteenth time, what is disagreed upon is where that line is.
Now, which do you think is a greater evil “desperate, fear-driven women seeking out unsafe, unclean back-door abortions performed often times by unproffesional surgeons” or killing a fetus that has developed a nervous system and brain (by your definition, a human being)? To clarify, we’re only talking about a situation where the woman is doing so with a fetus that has developed a nervous system and brain.