s this a religious issue, a woman's issue, or a legal issue and why?

All of the above.

It's a woman's issue, because women are the ones who confront most of the consequences of childbearing (and, often, child-rearing), and therefore they are the ones who are most likely to suffer from authoritarian interference in any decisions. In fact, being forced to carry an unwanted fetus to term (let alone being expected to do so without any financial, medical, or nutritional assistance; or being expected either to rear the resulting child without financing from those imposing their requirements; or, alternatively, being expected to hand the child over for adoption as though the mother was nothing but incubation equipment) has to be recognizable as a form of enslavement.

It's a religious issue, because many (including me) do not approve of the casual destruction of human life, and the notion that a human fetus is not a human life is deliberate sophistry and fundamentally dishonest.

It's a legal issue, because it concerns the degree to which the government can legitimately interfere with private activities of its citizens (particularly, in this case, women). Currently, some religiously-motivated people regard the imposition of their moral judgments on other people as completely justified by their own personal certainty that they are right, regardless of the costs imposed on those others. The question is whether such an imposition is consistent with any non-totalitarian form of government.

I hold that it is not, and that while religious groups are welcome to discourage their adherents from abortion (as well as dancing, drinking, gambling, short skirts, haircuts, contraception, saluting the flag, accepting blood transfusions, wearing more than one suspender, leaving the head uncovered in public, saying particular words, etc.), they ought not to be permitted to use the government to impose such requirements on everybody.

I do oppose the needless termination of human life, including fetuses, but I don't see where I have an excuse to make the decision for someone else, especially prior to examining all the ramifications of the particular case; and I certainly don't see why any group (including majorities of voters) should be entitled to impose such views on anybody.

Besides, there are many things which could be done to reduce the number of abortions, and few of the allegedly pro-life politicians are doing them. They have been the backbone of the last three decades of change in the economy, leading to the concentration of more and more wealth in the hands of the few and greater and greater economic strain on the many. The costs of raising, feeding, and educating a child are proportionately much higher now, and the degree to which the government allows for those costs is much lower.

If the tax system punishes people for buying houses, home ownership lags. Why should we be surprised that if the tax system punishes those raising children, they look for ways to avoid it? (For that matter, why should we be surprised that a system in which contraception is less available, more expensive, less understood, and heavily discouraged by some churches produces more unwanted pregnancies?)

Roe v. Wade allowed the state an interest in the unborn child, on a basis of steadily increasing involvement over the course of a pregnancy. But to have such an interest, the state needs to put its money where its mouth is, and the state continually looks for ways to avoid that. The U.S. Government is the ultimate deadbeat dad. If government wants a voice in the matter, let it step up to its responsibility first.

All of the above, plus some.

Many religions frown on it as the killing of a human life.

Many women seek to support the right to abortion and many seek to restrict it.

The law concerns itself with protecting us from eachother. It is against the law to hit or kill someone else. If an unborn child is legally a person, then the law applies.

It is also a mens issue. The unborn child is genetically half mother and half father. Men may be held financially responsible for the child if it is born. Sadly, men have been pushed out of the process because it has been argued that it's a "woman's body".

It is disabled persons issue also. It has been found that the vast majority of parents who find that their unborn child has Down syndrome are terminating the pregnancy. Advocacy groups are crying out that this is the extermination of a type of person.

NOw many other disabilities are able to be identified prenatally. Will they also be teminated? If so, who will fight on their behalf?

What kind of "issue" it is, is up to you to define, by your own moral standards and beliefs.

I'd say it isn't so much of a legal issue, as the laws about it have already been defined and ruled on.

I don't think it's an issue at all. People just need to get over it. It's the woman's body and she can do what she wants.

It's murder, which makes it primarily a legal issue.

What issue exactly, you dont say.

d: All of the above.

all three! dont do it!!!!!