Culling the Infidels; Blacks, Jews and Protestants CHOOSE infanticide.

I had an abortion after getting pregnant using an IUD, before I knew how dangerous they were. I miscarried twins at three months gestation. I have two grown children.

Please stop invalidating women's conceptual experiences with selective morality. The fact is, many fetuses do not grow to term, for many reasons. And once they are born, where is the guarantee that they will have enough to eat, shelter, care, that they will leave long and happy lives without any trauma ? give us a break, let us deal with our own reproductive issues and you deal with yours.

Thanks for this great discussion. It is heartening to see so much common ground emerging between two people with seemingly different points of view but both with deeply human values.

mjm says: "By all means lets eradicate those social conditions which drive women to seek that desperate alternative." That is a great starting point.

Rockerbabe1

This may surprise you, but most of your last post I would agree with. It confirms what I have been saying....that the pressure on women to abort comes mostly from men. Its is embarrassed fathers, irresponsible boyfriends, etc. who demand that the girl not "humiliate or inconvenience" THEM. The wishes of the woman are secondary. Men are also the primary beneficiaries of the multi-billion dollar abortion business that makes a killing by victimizing both women and children.

By all means lets eradicate those social conditions which drive women to seek that desperate alternative.

And while we are still a long way to go on this, the situation you articulated above, where girls with unwanted pregnancies were so badly treated, has improved a lot in many parts of the world. And two wrongs don't make a right. Why victimize the child simply because someone else has been treated badly as well?

What you have said about children being "disposable" is an accurate reflection of that way of thinking. We need to love BOTH the mother AND the child, for they are both precious, with immeasurable intrinsic value. Its time to truly celebrate LIFE.

nellemason: Thank you.
You are very right when you say that women have the priviledge of producing new life and I firmly believe that. But priviledges can be refused as well as accepted.
I think my concern is more about how society treats women who do produce in a manner not proscribed by the "powers to be". I remember times when a woman not married and pregnant was thrown out of her home, school, work and yes church! As if homeless, hungry, penniless and sick women made good mothers - punishment indeed for a priviledge exercised. The fathers - not a word or admonishment made.
I remember when hurried up, hushed up marriages took place over the weekend and the bride no longer came to school, but the bridegroom did. I remember pictures of women who did not survive back alley abortions or who had long hospital stays to repair the damage done. I remember when the word contraception was whispered and extremely hard to find, even if you were married. I remember when rape was a crime and the victim was not to be believed no matter what; incest was not mentioned and nothing was ever done for those women or girls, except to send them away and "force" them to give away their children! So much for sensitivity.
If society in general and the church in particular would respect, honor and support women in creating new life, irrespective of all the other judgements, women would see reproduction as more of a benefit and not a burden. As it is now, women who choose to carry pregnancies to term are still finding the going tough in our profits at all cost society. If parents are and remain disposable, no wonder children are disposable! In any case, reproduction is not a function of government and controlling the lives of women is unacceptable and not be endured by anyone, pregnant or not.

Nader4prez.

I don't pretend to be a Biblical scholar. I'd like to see where you get the reference for that. Perhaps you are referring to the Genesis account where God breathed into the man He had formed the "breath of life". That, indeed (according to the Bible) was the "first breath" and without it there would be no life. I have read that the "life is in the blood" but not that "life begins with the first breath" as you understand it. Can you show me where in the Bible it says this?

Also, in Luke 1 there is a very interesting account which corroborates pro-life thinking to Scriptural truth. Elizabeth, in that story, is pregnant with John the Baptist when Mary, the mother of Jesus who is also pregnant with Him, walks into the room. John the Baptist does a leap of joy which Elizabeth explains is John the Baptist's way of welcoming the Messiah into the world. Both the full humanity of John and Jesus -- both in the womb at that moment -- are thus recognized and celebrated. There are other passages which confirm the Biblical pro-life view as well.

But regardless, the case against abortion does not depend on anyone's view of Scripture, or other religious views. It is logically inferred from empirical scientific and medical evidence and is a natural application of the "self evident" truths upon which the Declaration of Independence was written; that EVERYONE has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Rockerbabe1.

Your ignoring the main point. That there is a live, distinct human life, separate from the mother, that is killed during every abortion.

And you are wrong if you think that you can live your life entirely at your own discretion. You are not entitled to "drink and drive"; "smoke in many public places"; bully and intimidate others in a way that causes psychological harm; and many other areas of life. As the adage goes: "your freedom ends, where my nose begins". Nor are you entirely free to do with your body what you want to do. Society mandates restrictions on many aspects of our personal lives. You have to (by law) wear a seat belt to protect your body. Similarly you are prevented from putting illicit drugs into it; or prostituting it; etc. This is not ME dictating to you what you can and can't do. It is society determining what is best in a just society, and how to balance the rights and needs of all its members -- including those must vulnerable, the unborn child.

What you intentionally fail to recognize, (and which, of course, is the fundamental weakness in the pro-choice movement) is that none of us are morally free to cause harm to another...and abortion certainly harms -- fatally -- another innocent human life. If you TRULY care and respect the individual, as you say you do, then you can not ignore that tiny, but very, very real INDIVIDUAL in the womb. Otherwise your morality is merely selective.

mjm1972: Maybe you do and maybe you don't. This issue really is who gets to make the decision and is there a safe and legal
means by which to carry out the decision.
If I want my wishes regarding my life and my health to be respected, then I have to respect your decision on these matters also. You do not get to tell me how to live my life, what decisions I will make, what path I will take and what risk with my health and well-being I will take. I will do the same for you. My idea of caring is respect for the individual and their decisions; not my ability to make another bend to my will or belief structure.

Rockerbabe1/

I'm glad you raised the issue of the APA. It is not exactly an "unbiased observer". As early as 1969, it adopted a "pro-choice" position for "civil rights" reasons, and has, ever since, maintained its stance as a pro-abortion advocacy group, unrepresentative of many fine and leading psychiatrists, gynecologists and obstetricians who strongly disagree with them.

A comprehensive study carried out in New Zealand in 2006, which tracked women for a period of over 25 years, (and carried out by a self professed pro-choice researcher) showed an entirely different result -- that women who have an abortion are two to three times more likely to suffer from depression and mental illness. (To say nothing of other physical complications).

In response to this study, (according to a report in the Washington Post) a spokesperson for the APA said that the "APA's position is established on the view that abortion is a civil right". And that "the Christchurch study would have no effect on the APA position because (and I'm not making this up)"to pro-choice advocates mental health effects are not relevant to the legal context of arguments to restrict access to abortion".

So much for objectivity and scientific honesty.

The APA, like the major pharmaceutical corporate industry, is up to its patooties in political machinations and self interest. Their recent report is, at best, highly suspect. In the past, the APA has been forced to withdraw similar categorical statements it has made. I'm sure that will be the case again. But in an election year, who cares if the truth is somewhat distorted, as long as it affects the outcome in their favor.

Perhaps if these psychiatrists of the APA were paid on the basis of the percentage of the population that remained mentally healthy, rather than on the basis of the number of mental illness cases they see, their tune would be a lot different.

Murder is a legal term. In a nutshell, it means the illegal killing of an innocent human life. If someone attacks you with the intent to kill or cause you grievous bodily harm, in most societies, you would be justified if you killed that person in self defense. And prior to abortion laws being radically altered by judicial activists, most societies regarded the killing of unborn children (at least in the latter stages of gestation) to be on a par with murder. But now we have a case where a presidential candidate is on record as being in favor of allowing the death of an innocent BORN baby, who has just survived an abortion attempt. So is that murder? If it is up to individual morality (as you argue) then murder is arbitrary here. And if you DON'T support this presidential candidates views, and regard the killing of an abortion surviving baby as murder, then what is intrinsically different between what happens on the doctors table, and what was supposed to have happened inside the womb 10 minutes earlier?

You stated:

"The life of the woman involved is my concern, not the fetus she carries."

That is the understatement of the year! I happen to care for both.

mjm1972: Respect for life is an individual issue; there is respect and then there is respect. The life of the woman involved is my concern, not the fetus she carries. The fetus is her concern and really her concern alone as it is she who bears 100% of the risk for the pregnancy!

Obviously, my morality is not your morality; thank God! I wouldn't want to live under your dictates and I know for sure you wouldn't want to live under mine. Murder-how do you define murder? I always thought you had to be born to get murdered? So an entity not able to live on its own and apart from it's mother, has juristiction over her? I don't think so.

Rational discourse is what you make of it and I do have the audacity to disagree with you. You have nothing to fear from me - I would never consider "making" you do something you don't want to do or would be against your wishes. I respect your right to make your own decisions and I demand that you respect my right to do the same.

Abortion doesn't hurt women anywhere near as much as forced childbearing which some akin to torture. A recent white paper from the American Psych Association has reported not increase in mental issues in women who have had abortion as opposed to those who carried their pregnancies to term. I guess it all is about whose pov reigns. I choose liberty and choice and I hope you are adult enought to do the same. Just remember, under NO circumstances do you get to tell this grown woman what to do, how her medical issues will be handled and what is in her best interest. I will gladly show you the same respect.

Rockerbabe1.

And when are you going to acknowledge and show any respect for the life on an unborn child?

Not all morality is an individual sensibility. What religion you follow is. And other issues might fall into that category. But murder doesn't. Protection of the lives of the innocent is not a "private matter". And society can not afford to let murder be arbitrary for long without suffering untold consequences.

You make wild, hysterical, and insulting allegations, such as suggesting that I might want to "kill the woman". So you obviously aren't at a mature enough intellectual level to benefit from rational discourse.

Abortion hurts women. Is that what you want? (See I can play your silly game too).

mjm1972: Morality is really an individual sensibility. No one should be forced to live another's belief structure. If this were not so, then maybe you wouldn't mind being Islamic or Jewish or something other than what you already are.

-Pregnancy happens within an already born person with full personhood. Conceptions have a 50% failure rate even before the implantation stage, which is when a woman, yes a woman is considered to be pregnant [there are bodily changes that come about only after implantation]. Of the pregnancies that are carried or attempted to be carried to full term, there is a 15-20% miscarriage or stillborn rate {varies slightly with the population group studied]. Saying to a full fledge person that you have not right to control who and what uses your body for "their" purposes is a denial of her liberty, self-determination, denial of civil rights and potentially a lethal situation. Forcing a woman to carry a pregancy to term that resulted from violence is akin to torture. In balancing the rights of the woman vs the fetus; who has the greater claim to viability? Roe vs Wade states the woman has control, but only so much control as the pregnancy progresses. Her life and well-being must take presidence over the fetus, unless she renounces that claim. Kill the woman and there will be no more fetus from her - or is that what you want?

-Most women know exactly what they are about to do; having government mandated "readings" that are politically inspired is not the way to dissuade woman from termainating an unwanted pregnancy. Lying about contraception, sexuality and childbearing as well as virginity or lack thereof does no service to anyone.

-"Open season on the unborn child"; what rubbish! Women do not terminate pregnancies after the second trimester because they have nothing better to do! Mid-to-late term abortions are often done due to genetic issues, fetal death or near demise and to protect the life and health of the woman. I suppose you believe women who want to save themselves from high-risk and determinal pregnancies should die along with the fetus? Again, do you not value the woman in any capacity except childbearing?

-Anesthetia for the unborn is just a ruse; when are you going to show some respect for the woman involved?

-The bottom line is that I and I alone get to make decisions regarding any pregnancy or other health related issues that pertains to me. I must bear the consequence of that decision and I also must bear the cost and the outcome. I will answer to my God for my actions, you do not figure in my deliberations, nor would I want to figure in yours.

Rockerbabe1

You do present an interesting perspective. But your reasoning is also flawed.

1. Just because something is ruled OK by the courts, does not mean it is moral. It might make it legal, but that's not the same thing. And unless our laws are based on commonly understood morality, they will fail.

In the 19th Century, the US Supreme Court ruled that the "Negro" was not a "person", and hence was not entitled to the legal protection that the rest of US citizens enjoyed. That certainly was not the end of the matter, because it was an unjust ruling, based on erroneous information, devoid of compassion, common sense and full of bigotry and, yes, stupidity. Courts are not infallible. And certainly Roe vs Wade is one of the most myopic of rulings since Dred-Scott.

I do agree that women need to know the facts. Those facts included the risk to her own body following a "procedure" and the impact it will have on another human life, the life in her womb. But it is the pro-abortion side, not the pro-life side, which is denying the true scientific and medical facts to women wanting abortions.

And when you say, "I look at abortion as a matter of choice", I would ask you, up to what point? The way it is in Canada? Where it is open season on the unborn child up to full term baby? Or what about Obama's position, which is to allow the baby to die EVEN IF it survives an abortion and is alive on the doctor's table?

And, would you support a Bill that requires abortionists to anesthetize the unborn child to ensure it feels as little pain as possible?

Gershoms Horse.

If you understand T-4, you SHOULD be able to see the parallels in what is happening in our society today. But I suppose, until it happens to YOU you won't ever "get it".

I really look at abortion as a matter of choice: A lot of men and some not so well-meaning women disagree with me. But from my prescriptive, the following is what I base my opinions on:
-No one can force another to give a pint of blood against their will to save another person, even if that person is a newborn baby.
-No one can be forced to donate a kidney, bone marrow, skin or any other tissue to save or improve the life of another person; even if they had previously agreed to the procedure. There is always an "out". The courts have held that every person is entitled to body intergrity, even if another person, who needs the biologic tissue must suffer. No one is a warehouse of spare parts for another person. I believe that notion also applies to women.
-Women are entitled to the same consideration. We are entitled to full information that is free from governmental dictates and coersion; although, some seem to think that women of childbearing age don't qualify for the same consideration.
-Everyone is entitled to know the risk and benefits of any given course of action; not just government approved admonitions. Women should be able to make decision without all the "drama".
-No one would ever think of lying to men seeking medical care; no one could sanction harrassment of men seeking care at the doctor's office and no one would deny a male the right to get a legally written drug prescription filled.
-The fact of the matter, is that the federal government, the state governments and the local governments don't give a damn about women and children [that they can't control]. Women pay a lot in taxes and most of our money goes for programs that benefit men and war-mongering. It seems someone has to enscounce the title "welfare queen, whore, bastard child, lazy, no good bitch, etc" or life just isn't moral any more. The powers to be just want a lesser being to look down on, control, direct and harrass just "because". The church wants it mindless idiots and their money back.
-When women stand up and demand their rights to control their lives, their life's direction, that harassment stop, that the medical industry give respect, truthful information, then we get called all sorts of names by the men in power. I trust women to make their own decisions and I believe they should have legal methods by which to implement those decisions.

mjm1972:

The bottom line is that unless you have two X chromosomes, you cannot fully understand why legal abortion is important. . .and never will.

FYI, I am very well-read in medical ethics and also in Nazi history, including the T-4 program.

With this post I am signing off on this debate. However, this does not mean that you have "won," only that I prefer to expend my energy where it will be productive.

(By the way, I am not "your dear," and VERY glad I am not your wife.)

jclientele.

Thank you for your post. I hope I've answered your concerns in my previous posts today. I applaud and thank you for your concern for those suffering all over the world, and for your commitment to the care of children who are born. There are many people alive in my homeland of Ethiopia today because of people like you who cared enough to sacrifice to help us.

My only point to you is that abused children who are already born are victimized for the same reason that they are aborted before birth.....they are, or they become, a nuisance, and inconvenience, or otherwise something that is unwanted. And if we can get rid of undesirables before birth, when we know they are fully human, it is only a matter of time until we start getting rid of them after birth.

We need to love, cherish, and nurture all children, (as the Universal Declaration on the Rights of the Child confirms) before AND after birth. All children are precious. Lets all work together to protect and ensure that they are all loved.

TextGuru

Thank you for your well thought out response, and for clarifying your position. I appreciate the calm and intelligent tone of your post, even if I might challenge some of it.

I agree with yours and RuthK's point about the rich having greater access to abortions, and the inequality of the application of the law. But isn't that standard with all laws? Its easier for the rich to hire hit men to dispose of their opponents. Its easier for them to smoke a toke, and snort the coke (I'm sorry, its been a long morning, my mind is descending into poetic absurdity). But, as I'm sure you would agree, this inequality is no reason for doing away with those laws themselves. For sure we need to address the inequality and look to ways of closing the gaps.

On your other valid points, such as the deleterious effect on women of having illegal abortions, I would again recommend Dr. Nathanson's books -- "Aborting America" (where he also clarifies the statistics that you are challenging) and "The Hand of God", which is more of a personal account of the internal struggles he went through in being, at one time, one of the key founders of the pro-choice movement, to becoming one of the leading spokespersons for the right to life movement.

You are quite right in seeing my "we" as more universal than merely referring to the US. The USA has its own peculiar dynamics. But universal values, if based on fundamental principles of justice, must be applicable to all people. I was born in Africa, and grew up there under a totalitarian government, so in my thinking, I'm often applying it to my homeland, and elsewhere, not just North America.

While there is scientific consensus on when human life begins (at conception) you are right in pointing out that there is no consensus on when that human life should be ascribed value. The two issues are confusing. And, of course, this is where the rubber meets the road. But what is at stake is the whole "sanctity of human life ethic". Its one thing to believe (as many on this forum obviously do) that human life does not begin at conception, and therefore abortion is indicated to address socio-economic problems. Its another thing to say, "yes, human life begins at conception, but its ok to take it for socio-economic reasons." The former does not violate the sanctity of human life in the mind of the person who is thinking in error. The latter certainly does. It crosses a serious ethical line -- one which makes no logical distinction between humans and animals -- which, I believe, has no logical or rational stopping point. This is Peter Singer! And, having lived under Marxist rule, I have seen first hand how the forsaking of a "sanctity of human life" ethic can fast descend into malevolent chaos. Hitler crossed that line when he agreed that Gerhard Kretschmar (a seriously handicapped child)could be put to death. The rest, as they say, is history.

Of course, historically, US society, despite the separation of church and state dynamic, has always been founded upon an unquestioned adherence to a sanctity of human life ethic -- one of the "self evident truths" (the right to life) of the Declaration of Independence (until, of course, recent decades). That, I believe, is one reason why America has been so successful as a nation. Lose that, and America stands to lose a lot more than it bargained for. By allowing abortions, when we have (through ultrasounds and modern medical technology) the full knowledge of the humanity of the unborn child, we cross that line. And if, as Peter Singer has demonstrated, once that line is crossed, where does it end? If it becomes justifiable to terminate human life for social, political, or economic reasons, society can fast descend to the Gulags, and death camps of elitist run tyranny. This is not scare-mongering, it is sober reality, based upon first hand experience.

Gershoms Horse.

I'm sure you are an upstanding citizen with sterling character. Nor do I have any objections to you and your husband not wanting to be parents. My objections were to your classification of pregnancies as "oppressive" and to the false information that you were putting out about pro-life people...information which is demeaning, and untrue. Perhaps you truly believed that it was true. But it isn't. And it needs to be corrected.

I have lived much of my life under totalitarian rule, and that is exactly why I do what I do. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where we are headed as a society. That bothers me far more than you can imagine.

We do have a lot of common ground in that we both agree that proper family planning is essential. Where we disagree is on the issue of abortion. And I don't deny that, like slavery, child abuse, drunk driving, bullying, and many other moral matters, it is a categorical issue. Certainly slavery was a polarized political hot potato -- one which spawned a civil war. That doesn't mean we can't have an absolute view that slavery is wrong.

This is not intolerance, as you allege. Its a disagreement. Intolerance is a pejorative and insulting term. I certainly tolerate you and your views. I simply don't agree with them. And my disagreement is based on years of research, study, and intense soul-searching. I can disagree with you, and still respect you as a person. I might even become friends with you. But it would be wrong to let false information that you are putting out go unchallenged. You're entitled to your views even if they are wrong. And I am entitled to mine, and to dispute what I believe is error, especially when those errors widen the gap between people on the basis of furthering prejudices.

I guess its some consolation that you do believe that abortions, when undertaken, should be "humane" to the child. But just stop and think about what you are saying. Is inducing "cardiac arrest" humane? By any definition?

And there's a huge difference between refusing to treat patients in an emergency (such as on the basis of sex, color, race, religion, etc) and violating one's conscience on a life and death issue such as dispensing an abortifacient, or violating one's deeply held religious convictions in a non emergency situation. Its one thing to treat everyone without discrimination. But its a different thing to be forced to do something that violates the Hippocratic Oath itself, and cause fatal harm to a living human life in violation of medical ethics itself, not to mention the Universal Declaration on the Rights of the Child.

Medical practitioners, of all people, are counted upon to act in an ethical manner. History is full of otherwise intelligent people who used the defense "I was just obeying orders" when charged with serious crimes against humanity. Does Nuremberg ring a bell? Many professionals entered the medical/pharmaceutical field long before abortifacients were introduced. And one can not deny that these new drugs create an ethical dilemma. I, for one, depend on my pharmacist to give me moral as well as technically correct information on drugs. Lord knows there are many unscrupulous drug companies out there that would make a killing if such ethical professionals with a clear conscience were not there. Doctors, pharmacists, and other medical practitioners should never be robotic cogs in the wheels of our mega-buck corporate pharmaceutical machinery.

And one more point. Don't just read excerpts from Dr. Nathanson's books (which can be taken out of context). Read the entire thing.

mjm

Thanks for pointing out the logical faults in my argument. I need to refine it.

What I mean to discuss is the definition of a human being, which is indeed tied to defining "when life begins." I continue to think that there is not consensus, scientific and social, about whether or not life begins at conception and that until we reach that consensus, we cannot legislate the beginning of life.

The definition of a human being is a slightly different matter. Again, there is disagreement about exactly when a person can be defined as a full human being. In our society, today, that definition is by consensus at birth and an indeterminate time before birth. According to current abortion policy, abortion is not considered the taking of human life. When, then, does an unborn child become a human being with the full rights and responsibilities covered by the definition of a human being? I don't think that there is consensus about this as yet. I will take your arguments into consideration about how Christians derive doctrines about when life begins. I am not dismissing them -- I am just saying I will think about it.

I agree with you about our laws being derived from rational and scientific thought. I think that religious people should also have the option to refrain from abortion, and to choose abortion. When I said, "Therefore, I believe that the federal and state governments should leave the definition of "when life begins" to individual human beings who have the liberty to adhere to religious traditions, or to refuse to adhere to religious traditions," I should have added "within the current regulations about how to treat children and the consensus about post-birth human beings." Thanks for helping me clarify that point. I don't believe that religious societies should have full liberty to define the beginning of human life past birth and then *also* the liberty to kill children with the consent of the law.

I am not comfortable with Dr. Singer's argument about infanticide, but I think that his position is evidence that there is not consensus about "when life begins," and when abortion is the taking of human life. I think his position supports my argument that we have a long way to go to reach consensus.

I would challenge you to present evidence that abortions skyrocketed after abortion was made legal in the United States. I have examined the evidence, and I have found that there is no data about abortion before 1969-73. Data about abortion was not collected in a scientific manner in the US because abortion was illegal. I think it's hard to prove that rates skyrocketed without such data.

I agree with you about renewing the definition of "personhood," and with this statement "Granting legal status to the most vulnerable members of our society would be a long needed application of this progressive thinking." However, I don't think that there is consensus worldwide about whether or not unborn children can be defined as persons. I would love for us to work on this as a world community. I don't think the answer is as easy as you make it seem, however.

I'll clarify my terms, also: When I say, "society," I mean the social and legal entity of the United States, and I exclude international bodies and other nation-states. I also exclude religious bodies, though they have an influence on public policy.

When you use the word, "we," it seems that you are referring to a broader group than the USA as a legal entity. You would like to create rules that apply to all humans, not just those citizens of the United States. When I discuss abortion policy, I try to focus on the United States' laws, because I think discussing public policy, including access to contraception and abortion, are matters of public policy and legislation.

Your point about laws forming the guidelines for action is a good one -- but there is a big difference between individual human morality and public policy. Sometimes they come together. Individual human morality prohibits murder, and extending that through the universal declaration of human rights to all human beings is a good thing. However, RuthK makes an excellent point about the practical application of law -- abortion law is never applied equally to the rich and the poor. There was no consensus among the rich about when human life begins that allowed them to follow the law when it was inconvenient for them. Therefore, when we speak of the practical and humanitarian effects of banning abortion, we must consider both the unjust application of the law and the deleterious effect of obtaining illegal abortions on women -- the death and mutilation. From a public policy perspective, abortion should be safe and legal in order to prevent the abuses that result from illegal abortions.

mjm1972 - I am pro-life. I abhor war. I oppose the death penalty. I am disgusted that we allow children all over the world to die from starvation and lack of health care.

I respect your legitimate distress at the taking of life by abortion. I recognize that it is an important and sincere concern that I cannot dismiss, especially as a pregnancy nears term and the fetus could be viable. I have less of a problem with early embryonic abortion. This is purely emotional, not scientific or philosophical. Unwanted children are often severely abused or neglected, which bothers me a lot more than early abortion at the embryonic stage.

I do not feel in a position to tell women that they must bear a child that they cannot or will not love and cherish. Who benefits from that? On the day when we guarantee that every child born will be loved and cared for, then perhaps I would consider a ban on abortion.

Meanwhile, let us reduce the need for abortion as close as we can to zero through education of men and women, free contraception, making adoption easier and providing spiritual and financial assistance to parents who need it.

mjm1972:

You wrote:
"Why are you so afraid of your femaleness? Femininity is beautiful. Having children is a miraculous affair. There is nothing oppressive or abnormal about having a baby. Its a beautiful experience, and one that can bring so much meaning to life."

As always, one barely has to scratch the surface to reveal the CONDESCENDING, MYSOGYNIST attitude of most male abortion opponents. FYI, long before we were married, my husband and I discussed "the children question" in depth and agreed, for many of the same reasons (which are complex and no one's business but our own), not to reproduce. Would you say that because he does not want to be a father, my husband is "afraid of his maleness?" Whether male or female, not everyone is meant to be a parent; those who possess the insight to know this and take appropriate preventive measures should NEVER be criticized. Life has never been a "one-size-fits-all" affair. If you think it should be, you would be very comfortable in a totalitarian society.

Regardless of whether or not you are willing to admit it on a conscious level, most anti-abortion males are intent on social control and maintaining their own economic and class privileges. In recent years, the only anti-abortion politician in my state who also supported human rights was a Catholic feminist; nearly all the "positive" abortion opponents I have known were nuns I met while attending a Catholic college. Unlike many anti-abortion politicians, members of Catholic religious orders practice abstinence and help those living in poverty.

Just as you think Planned Parenthood is propaganda, I have read excerpts from Dr. Nathanson in the past and think HE is propaganda, especially considering his "no exceptions" attitude. Regarding abortion methods, I have thought for YEARS that they should be as humane as possible, such as causing cardiac arrest via needle injection before fetal removal. In our discussion, YOU are the one making abortion a polarized issue; I have already described it as "a necessary evil" and unplanned pregnancy as something that should be prevented.

FYI, I work as an administrator in an academic medical center. For the most part I love my job, but knew before accepting it that I would have difficulty working in a center known for its animal research, an issue that has left me "on the fence" since age ten. When I agreed to work at the medical center, I knew I would have to contend with my own ethical conflicts. The same is true for physicians, who cannot refuse patients in emergencies, and for pharmacists, who sometimes have to dispense prescriptions of which they may not approve. In essence, it's part of the job description and the responsibility of being a licensed professional, which pharmacists learn long before their own licensure. If someone doesn't like it, he/she should have selected a different career path.

FYI, you may be interested to know that I am a regular blood donor, listed with the National Marrow Donor Program, and a children's-literacy volunteer. I sponsor a child through Childreach/Plan International, and donate what I can to a shelter for homeless families. Just because I have never wanted children of my own does NOT mean I neglect responsibilities to future generations.

Again, I expect that you will have another negative reply. Your insults and intolerance make common ground very difficult to find.

TextGuru and RuthK

I apologize, TextGuru. I addressed that post to you, when it should have been addressed to RuthK. So I take back my chiding of your not answering my questions. I'll await those with baited breath.

jimmyjazz.

Your statement: "In the same way, it (religion) approaches the abortion question in search of an easy and obvious answer. To understand how a lack of access to abortion oppresses women requires more nuanced thinking than to understand how abortion harms a fetus. Thus, religious people come down on the pro-life side, because they don't want to be in moral limbo–they want to know the correct answer RIGHT NOW..." bears more scrutiny.

You are partly correct in saying that people are moral but lazy in their thinking. But the danger of your statement above is that there is an implied assumption of intellectual elitism. For sure people need to study the morality of any given issue, and think things through. And I think pro-choice people are as guilty as any of "taking the easy and simple way out". Often they merely accept as gospel truth the pseudo-science of men like Carl Sagan (who trumpeted the now thoroughly debunked "recapitulation theory" of the embryo in the womb. or the easy "get your hands off my body" approach, which totally ignores the mammoth moral significance of that tiny life in her womb.

Also, take the issue of slavery. The quick and simple answer is that "it is wrong". Yet 150 years ago, there would have been many intelligent people who would say, similarly as you have argued that "religious people come down on the abolitionist side, because they don't want to be in moral limbo–(understanding all the economic and social nuances that make slavery healthy for a society) they want to know the correct answer RIGHT NOW."

And intellectual elitism has historically proved quite dangerous. It was this "we know better than you because you're too stupid to understand" mentality which sparked the Inquisition. It was the intellectual hubris that prompted Vladimir Lennin to "crack the eggshell" (which gave his Bolsheviks open season on peasants and anyone who opposed him), It justified Stalin's purges, Mao's so-called "cultural revolution", and much more.

The Nazi scientists who experimented on Jews and other "useless eaters" of the Third Reich, were all highly educated, and convinced of their racial and intellectual superiority.

Of course I'm not saying that this is where you are, only pointing out what is down the road if we follow your logic to its conclusion. And make no mistake about it, abortion and its twin evil eugenics, are the darlings of our corporate and financial elite (who, interestingly, happen to own most of our mainstream media). Of course no one will openly admit to supporting eugenics nowadays (mainly due to the excesses of the Nazis), but many US corporations did support it prior to WW2. And, absenting any backlash from people of goodwill, its only a matter of time before it becomes fashionable again.

tetti_tetti...

Alright, here's the next question. Do you agree with the law, as it stands in Canada, that allows for the life of an unborn child to be terminated, for any reason, right up to the time that it "proceeds from the womb"? If its still the woman's body (which, of course it isn't), then are you saying that its justified to kill a 9 month gestated unborn child as long as the mother wants that to happen, for any reason at all? That's the logic that follows from your statement.

And here's the next question after that. If its ok to kill a 9 month gestated baby, why would it not be ok to kill a newborn? Or a 1 year old? Intrinsically, what difference is there?

Barack Obama is already on record as saying that he would approve of allowing doctors to kill (or neglect them so they die) babies who survive late term abortions. If the baby is already out of the mother's body, and therefore can, in no logical way, still be considered a part of it, then why should that baby not enjoy the right to life that the rest of us do? Or do you disagree with Obama?

TextGuru

I noticed you conveniently ignored all the questions I raised.

All laws are not enforceable 100%. Laws against prostitution, illicit drug use, murder, stealing, etc never end those crimes. But the law is a teacher.And it helps to show society what is and what is not, morally acceptable. And abortions skyrocketed after the laws were changed to make it legal.

And while laws protecting unborn children are needed, and mandated by the Universal Declaration on the Rights of the Child, perhaps the first priority is to grant "personhood" to the unborn child. It was not that long ago that black people were not "persons" under the law, and hence could be enslaved and abused at the whims of their owners. Women, as well, were not considered "persons" in some western nations until recently. Granting legal status to the most vulnerable members of our society would be a long needed application of this progressive thinking.

As for your last point, I agree. We do need to promoted correct information and contraception (as opposed to birth control, which includes abortion). Perhaps a starting point would be to heed the words of Confucius who, when asked what it would take to achieve world peace said: "insist on the exact definition of words".

jclientele. Abortion is not like divorce. In an abortion, both members suffer; and one of those always suffers fatally.

TextGuru wrote
"To me, there are two important aspects of the abortion debate:

1. The public discussion about when life begins, and

2. The public policy around population control, human rights, and legislating when life begins."

In an earlier note, I disagreed. I still do.

As a said before, I am old enough (72) to remember when abortion was supposed to be illegal. It never was except for the poor. Sex was never mentioned in schools. There was little or no public information on the subject. Most upper and middle class children had access to information, good medical care, and an understanding of how to plan their families. If need be, they also had the money for a safe, illegal abortion. None of this was available to the poor.

For myself, I grew up in a non-functional family. The stories and gossip I heard were frightening. We should not learn about sex from gossip or on the streets. I was certainly not alone in this.

To me, the two most important aspects of the abortion debate are:

1. Anti-abortion laws were not and are not enforceable except against the poor. How could they be enforced against people who can pay for a safe, albeit illegal abortion?

2. How can we ensure that correct information and birth control methods are available to everyone so they can plan their lives?

Every child needs to be wanted and loved by at least one adult person. Normally that would be the mother.

Nobody should ever be forced to have an abortion. Nobody should ever be forced to give birth to an unwanted child. Abortion is not so much like war, but like a legal divorce. It is sad and unfortunate, but banning it leads to more suffering.

The idea is to reduce the incidence of abortion by promoting contraception and sexual responsibility and by providing a safety net for children who are born into bad circumstances.

Even if life begins at conception, it's still the woman's body and her decision to stop the pregnancy. Case closed. Next question.

TextGuru.

I agree that women need access to both reproductive education and safe access to contraceptives (not abortifacients). And this is common ground which can allow most of us to work together.

But your reasoning on the other points is faulty.

Ok, lets use your own argument and give you the benefit of the doubt, although I must say I am quite skeptical about your statement on the ancient Hebrews view of when human life began. Christians take their view from both science and the account in the Gospel of Luke where the unborn child, John the Baptist, in the womb of Elizabeth, greeted the unborn child Jesus , in the womb of Mary, by leaping, and hence welcoming Him to earth as the Messiah. You can read the account in Luke 1.

But lets assume, for argument's sake, that there is a religious body which believes that human life does not begin until some male relative says so. And lets say that male relative doesn't show up for say a week before birth, or a week after birth, or a month after birth. At what point would you step in and say, this is no longer a "personal or religious issue", the state has an obligation to protect?

If you think I'm being absurd, its not all that far-fetched. In Canada already there are no laws restricting abortions at all. They can be performed for any reason, up to the time that the child "proceeds from the womb". Are you ok with that? If not, at what point does society step in? And on what basis?

There are those among our elite even now who are arguing that parents should have the option of viewing their newborns before they are granted the right to life. (We wouldn't want any "unwanted" children would we?) One such academic who is calling for this is Peter Singer, of the prestigious Princeton University. Dr. Singer uses the same argument that pro-lifers use -- that human life begins at conception. (I should point out that contrary to what you allege, there is, in fact, consensus among the scientific community that this is the point where the individual is first created, with his/her own unique DNA). But Singer turns the pro-life argument on its head, and states that since society has already accepted the "right to abortion", and that since there is intrinsically no difference between killing a newborn and a killing a pre-born child, then to spare the world of unwanted children, infanticide is as justifiable as abortion. And Singer is no fly-by night philosopher. When he sneezes, the politically correct crowd catches a cold.

Are you comfortable with Singer's views? Would you allow people who believe that human life does not begin until after birth to act on that? And what about those societies that still do not view girls as fully human...or at least with any human rights? Do we leave that up to them as well?

The only consistent point at which there is virtual scientific and medical consensus on the beginning of human life (regardless of what any religion teaches) is the point of conception. And while religious considerations are important, our laws should be based primarily on scientific and rational thought.

To me, there are two important aspects of the abortion debate:

1. The public discussion about when life begins, and

2. The public policy around population control, human rights, and legislating when life begins.

I would like to remind readers that "when life begins" has not been a static category throughout human civilization. During times of high infant mortality, "human life" has been defined as beginning as early as 8 months and as late as seven years. Even the ancient Hebrew religion upon which most Christian pro-lifers define their perspective of "when life begins" did not grant full humanity to infants until they were named and claimed by a male relative. That certainly bears little resemblance to their "Biblical" stance today.

Given this history, does our society have a right to define "when life begins?" I would argue that we have not won that right until we have significant public consensus about when life begins, and we certainly do not have such consensus right now. Therefore, I believe that the federal and state governments should leave the definition of "when life begins" to individual human beings who have the liberty to adhere to religious traditions, or to refuse to adhere to religious traditions. This means that I believe abortion should be safe and legal so that the real option exists to act on a different definition of "when life begins."

That said, I believe that abortion and birth control is a matter of public policy. Overpopulation is a serious threat to our planet and to our individual communities. This trend can be demonstrated through repeated historical studies. Therefore, public policy should support political policy that encourages women to make the most informed and empowered decisions possible --including access to safe, legal, affordable contraception and safe, legal and affordable abortion.

Numerous studies have demonstrated that when women have access to both reproduction education and safe, legal access to contraceptive options, they make good decisions about both family size and reproduction timing. This seems like an easy answer to the abortion public policy problem -- let's refrain from defining the "beginning of human life," and give women the power to make their own decisions.

Gershoms Horse....

A good book to read on this whole topic is "Aborting America" by Dr. Bernard Nathanson. He was one of the founders of the pro-choice movement in the 1960's and early 70's. He tells about how he and his colleagues set the stage for the Roe-vs-Wade decision by deliberately fabricating evidence of abortion statistics, using pseudo science and false data, employing emotive imagery (coat-hangars) to create sentiments of revulsion, and other psychologically manipulative methods to create popular sympathy for a change in the abortion laws. But then he saw an ultra sound. And since then he has changed his tune. Also, the so-called "victim" in Roe-vs-Wade, (the poor woman who "so badly" needed an abortion), now testifies that she was duped and unwittingly manipulated into the whole thing. She is now one of the pro-life movements most vocal supporters.

That book again is "Aborting America", by Bernard Nathanson

I honestly had difficulty determining if your first post was serious, due to the far fetched statements you were making. I guess I should have known better. Since many pro-choice people get their information solely from outrageously biased sources that make no pretense of objectivity, many are bound to have prejudiced views. But yours did take the cake! Some of the points you made above are based on similar spurious "evidence", while others are subjective opinion, not based on any empirical data at all. You can state that pregnancy is "OPPRESSIVE". I disagree. I think its natural. For sure unwanted pregnancies are often gut wrenching and challenging, but not as oppressive as being killed. What kind of oppression, other than torture, -- and certainly certain types of abortion procedures are just that, torture! (such as saline abortions, where the baby's skin is literally burned with chemical burns, or other types where the baby is cut into pieces before extracted) -- is worse than being killed? Especially when your only crime is having been conceived through no fault of your own? To kill the innocent, and to do so in a painful and egregiously inhumane manner, that is quintessential OPPRESSION!

I read the article you suggested. I guess I just don't get it. Why do you have a problem with pharmacists, doctors and other medical practitioners being able to practice according to their consciences? Would you force an orthodox Jew to eat pork? Would you force a Muslim to convert to Christianity and face Dallas, rather than Mecca when praying? Religious freedom my dear! Its the American Way! (or at least was a few years ago).

And some of those "birth control" methods are clearly abortifacients. They are unethical from any moral standpoint. As for other methods of birth control, if people don't agree with them for religious or whatever reasons, why force them to have to dispense them? To force someone to do something against his/her conscience is, by definition, oppressive. How can you honestly say you value freedom of religion if you want to force people to act against their religious convictions? You are clearly contradicting yourself.

Your statement: "Regardless of which argument is brandished, the ultimate thesis statement of most antiabortion politicians is that women matter less than fetuses", is entirely YOUR opinion. And that's all it is. It can certainly not be substantiated from any surveys, studies, or empirical documentation. You are entitled to your opinion, and that's fine. But I'm here to tell you that you are way off base. Politicians who are pro-life are, for the most part, far more sensitive to women's rights, and social justice, than are those who would victimize women further by telling them that there is "nothing wrong" with having an abortion....that its only "tissue" that is being removed. Then when that poor woman discovers the truth, having to live the rest of her life with terrible remorse and possibly further psychological and medical complications. Meanwhile, the males involved get off unscathed.

And the 'syndicates" that I'm speaking of is the abortion clinic industry itself, which is a multi-billion dollar scam which hurts women as much as it destroys innocent human life.

And it is women who are talked into abortion (usually by some powerful male in her life) who is "enslaved to the fate of her reproductive system. Why are you so afraid of your femaleness? Femininity is beautiful. Having children is a miraculous affair. There is nothing oppressive or abnormal about having a baby. Its a beautiful experience, and one that can bring so much meaning to life.

But let me ask you a question. Assuming that abortion remains legal.

Would you at least support a Bill that would require that the unborn child is anesthetized before it is sucked out, burned out, or cut in pieces in the womb before being expelled in order to ensure that the baby experiences as little pain as possible?

Doom n Gloom - if you're still reading this thread, I'd like to meet you. You said once you're in Columbia, MO, and so am I. Please feel free to email me: rachelnoelle4@hotmail.com.

"I don't think the abortion question is about religion, except insofar as most religious people think that God doesn't like it because it destroys a human life. What kind of a god worries about the destruction of some unviable human tissue but designs human reproductive systems with a 50 percent attrition rate? What kind of god gives males the choice to conceive a baby but doesn't give females the choice to reject it? What kind of god allows older children to starve so that younger ones may be born, or permits babies to be born to a life of want, violence and fear?"

Having grown up in a deeply religious home, I can say that the abortion question certainly *is* about religion for many people. I know a girl who is now openly lesbian, and very liberal in most regards, but is still pro-life for religious reasons. And as far as the more conservative religious people I knew, I do understand the argument that banning abortion is a matter of maintaining power over women, and that the religious argument is a mere justification. I understand, but I don't accept it wholly. The fact is that most protestant Christians (the backbone of the pro-life religious right) *do* use birth control and *don't* try to force women into unwanted pregnancies. Most of them have the same 2.5 kids as their more secular neigbors in the rest of middle America.

Most people are moral, but also very busy, and somewhat mentally lazy. Religion is about satisfying people's innate moral sense without requiring of them much moral effort. Thus, it lauds charity, but doesn't approach the bigger question of why there is always a segment of the population whose continued existence depends on charitable rich folk. In the same way, it approaches the abortion question in search of an easy and obvious answer. To understand how a lack of access to abortion oppresses women requires more nuanced thinking than to understand how abortion harms a fetus. Thus, religious people come down on the pro-life side, because they don't want to be in moral limbo--they want to know the correct answer RIGHT NOW. In the same way, it takes less insight and mental effort to see how the state takes away personal freedoms than to see how the corporatocracy does the same thing many times over. So most religious people consider any questioning of the 2-party/capitalist status quo to be anathema.

I don't think it helps to question the sincerity of religious people. Of course, if there is anywhere that this can be done, then a progressive community like CD is it. But if you find yourself out there talking to Christians themselves, don't take this tact. Remember the weight of the counterinfluence they have on them that will totally overcome any effect you might have. Every Sunday, they go to a place where a large group of people, including one very educated man with a doctoral degree and excellent persuasive speaking skills, reassure them that being "simple like a child", and following a short little laundry list of universal virtues and vices, is a better path to creating a moral world than, say, getting to the root causes of international conflicts or crime or domestic abuse. Deep thought, they are taught to believe, is merely an excuse to keep sinning a little while longer while denying the obvious truth of what right and wrong are. Fundamentalist religious people are simpletons, *deliberate* simpletons, but they are overwhelminly sincere about their desire to be good, moral people. They really do believe they've found a path to creating a better world, silly as that belief might be. This ridiculous way of thinking goes all the way back to the Apostle Paul, btw:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%201;&version=31;

Well said mjm. Sigh. Just because someone is pro-life doesn't automatically make them ignorant, uneducated and lacking in compassion for other human beings. Most of the folks I know (pro-life or pro-choice) are involved in providing care and support to those who need help through food pantries, medical missions, working at free clinics for those without insurance or health care, teaching reading to adults, etc. It is a shame that the rabid fringes of both points of view are incapable of avoiding painting those with whom they disagree with a broad brush of intolerance. This becomes such a single issue thing. Those of you who only grumble (on either side)...get out there and do.

mjm1972:

1.) I am grateful to learn that you support birth control. Whether the methods you support are reliable or not is an open question; since I do not know what they are, I cannot say. However, I am very glad that I had the foresight to have a tubal ligation five years ago, a procedure which guarantees both that I will never need an abortion and that anti-birth-control legislation cannot affect me directly.

2.) Regardless of which argument is brandished, the ultimate thesis statement of most antiabortion politicians is that women matter less than fetuses, even less than early-stage embryos. Abortion may be wrong, but for women to be enslaved to the fate of their reproductive systems is an even greater wrong.

If your chromosomes are XY, pregnancy will NEVER affect your body, therefore you cannot even IMAGINE what it would be like not to have the OPTION of abortion. You "owe an apology" to all women who want to control their own bodies. . .and this includes the great majority of women across the span of recorded human history, regardless of religion, generation, or nationality.

3.) If women are indeed encouraged by the "syndicate" (do you mean the MAFIA?) to have abortions for someone else's profit, how do you explain the number of American women who attempted self-induced procedures prior to Roe v. Wade, often causing their own deaths? Considering that the infertility industry is certainly about profit (many infertility treatments are not covered by medical insurance, and can cost thousands), do you also think that infertile women should accept their collective inability to reproduce?

4.) Abortion may "victimize" some women, yet being forced to go through an unwanted pregnancy victimizes and OPPRESSES women (as I wrote in my first post, there are not ANY good options in this situation).

5.) Nearly all male abortion opponents that I have encountered in my life are, at the very least, paternalistic. Just as not every man wants to be a soldier, not every woman wants to be a mother, sometimes for extremely complex medical, personal, social, and/or political reasons. To argue otherwise is at best condescending and at worst mysogynistic.

6.) Regardless of resource distribution, world overpopulation creates environmental problems such as increased atmospheric CO2. . .from too many human (and non-human) beings who are merely BREATHING. Also, most countries with "good human rights" (such as those you named, Holland and Japan) do not outlaw abortion.

7.) Abortion is like war: its occurrence can be reduced, but never entirely eliminated. Such is the story of human history.

8.) Regarding my earlier comment about the "National Review." No one values the freedoms of speech and religion more than I, yet debate is one thing, and attack (such as writing "surely you can't be serious" and being accused of "pure slander") is another. I created the "permanent underclass" hypothesis after carefully considering many antiabortion politicians' ethical inconsistencies (yes to capital punishment and wars of aggression, no to abortion and children's benefit programs). If you ask low-income families with children, I guarantee you that at least some will agree.

9.) Since you seem to want to have the "last word" about this article, I presume that you will have a critical response to this post. Please remember that just as I cannot convince you that abortion is a necessary evil, you cannot convince most American women that they should not have the right to have one.

FYI:
http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2008/02/07/news/south_dakota/0f2b029ee7f1fd23862573e800172da9...

Nader4prez.

Your body doesn't interest me in the slightest....and I certainly don't want to control it. But society already DOES control your body. You can't legally put crack in it, you can't legally put heroin in it, you can' legally sell it for sex, and when you drive a car, you are legally obligated to fasten your seat belt to protect it. Your body is already owned by the state, and you and your pro-abortion colleagues have been duped into thinking you can now kill your own child with no long term consequences to your body. Your body is putty in their hands. But if you are carrying a baby in your womb, that baby is not your body, its its own individual body, distinct from you. And that child needs protection and love.

You're assumption that if babies who were killed were allowed to live, that they would all be abused, starving, and criminals. That's simply wild and outrageous speculation that can not be backed up by any scientific data. Its similar to the fear-mongering that went on in North American ports prior to WW2 when the ship St. Louis, full of Jewish refugees pulled up seeking safe haven. The popular thinking of the day was "if we let these Jews ashore, they'll take all the jobs from our own people and ruin our economy." Not one port let them off. Over 900 Jews were sent back to Europe, many to die in the death chambers of the holocaust. Such speculation is not the same as rational discourse.

And yes, I've seen many children who have no bonding. The reason that is the case is similar to the reason many children get killed in the womb....our society is becoming more and more narcissistic. Its "me first". Children get sluffed to the side; their best interests are seldom taken into account. That needs to change. We need to end corporate abuse, abuse of all children -- whether born or born -- we need to get tougher on drug pushers (and their puppet politicians who support them)who create "crack heads"

Nor do all forms of birth control prevent fertilized eggs from implanting. There are many ethical methods of birth control that don't involve the killing of a created human life. And I don't mean just condoms...which have a rather unfortunately high failure rate.

As for adopting and supporting millions of kids; I've spent most of my life doing just that...raising money, awareness, and trying to mobilize people to reach out to the starving, the poor and the needy. Again, the conventional thinking of the pro-choice movement is that pro-life people only care about the child in the womb. The fact is that we care about all human life...from conception to natural death.

mjm - So if live starts at conception, wouldn't birth control, which you suggest we give people, actually be abortion? It stops the egg from implanting itself and that egg has it's own DNA as you state. What kind of FK'd up garbage are you smoking?

What everyone is upset about is that your "pro-Life" buddies are trying to stop all forms of birth control, except for condoms since they can't figure out how to stop that yet.

You are upset by the number of abortions going on? What if every child was brought to term? How many children would we have on welfare? How many starving or abused because their mother is a crack head prositute? How many in foster care with no chance of adoption or bonding with anyone? Have you ever seen a child that has no bonding? Do you realize the criminals we would have in our mist?

What about the cost of all these kids being in foster care? Are you willing to adopt and support Millions of kids so you can have control over my body?

The Bible says that life begins with the first breath!! I wish they would stay out of my life and read the book they are supposedly representing.

hey charliej If "life is sacred in all its forms" then you must stop killing all insects, eating all meats, and most plants that are killed by harvesting. You must stop dusting and getting rid of those mites. You must stop getting parasites off you and your animals and for heaven's sake, stop swatting those mosquitos. Do viruses and bacteria count too?

BreeMass, I think birth control pills could be a factor to increased chance of cancer. Not only that, the hormone is excreted in the woman's urine which gets into the water systems and has affected the fish.
The pill has not really been around that long for definite conclusions, same as cell phone use. The coil works to prevent a very young pregnancy from advancing. Condoms and the diaphram have a high percentage of error. Actually, I think birth control could use a lot of improvement. I think planned parenthood is a good idea and I would hope the whole truth is given out when someone comes for services.

thegreatrockyhill...

But it aint true, so it IS slander.

In fact, those power elites which you refer to behind closed doors are not, as you allege, pro-life. They are almost all anti-life. Abortion, euthanasia, and eugenics are the shibboleths of the so-called "New World Order". Just take a look at the steering committees of groups like the Bilderberg, Tri-lateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, etc. These are the real power boys of finance, oil and wealth (and notice they are almost all men. And virtually without exception, they support abortion.

But even if it were true that we are all monsters, or shape-shifting alien reptiles, the character of any "anti-choicer" as you call it (which is a pejorative misnomer....we are "pro-life", we believe in free choice, just differ with you on when that choice should be made, and we support choice for the child to live, which you don't)is irrelevant to the ethics (or lack thereof) of abortion. Would you justify making illicit drug use legal just because in the opinion of some drug pushers those "anti-heroin use" fanatics believe in the Easter bunny? Is slavery justified just because the leaders of the abolition movements don't floss their teeth properly or listen to KC and the Sunshine Band?

Abortion always kills a living, distinct, and innocent human life. That is intrinsically evil by any definition. It is not merely an "unfortunate" occurrence. It is not merely "sad". It is a grotesque abuse of power and an egregious act. It is one (or more....usually a father, boyfriend, or male relative) forcing his/her will on an innocent, helpless human life. And it makes no difference who opposes it, or who supports it, it is evil in and of itself.

What you and the other pro-choicers here fail to comprehend, (and which is why, in a free society, your side is destined to lose) is that once conception occurs, a human life is already brought into the world. He/she is distinguishable from the mother. He/she has seperate DNA, a genetic code that is distinct. He/she is NOT a part of our bodies anymore. The child, while dependent upon the mother, is distinct and separate from her. Therefore it is not an infringement on her body to carry a child to term. In fact it is unhealthy and unnatural to a woman's body to abort. And as a society, I can't think of anything more unspeakable than a woman demanding the right to kill her own offspring.

The Universal Declaration of the Rights of the Child states in its preamble that nations have the obligation to provide legal protection for ALL children: BEFORE and after birth (emphasis mine). The USA, is in flagrant violation of this universal declaration.

Rather than dissing, slandering, and otherwise assassinating the characters of pro-life people, we all should be working towards a more harmonious society, alleviating the dreadful poverty which drives many women to having abortions, providing universal health care, eliminating the obscene wealth for the very few (mostly men) created by the whole atrocious and avaricious abortion industry, and making TRUE sex education (not the simple "hand out the condoms and let them mate like savages approach", which some suggest) and birth control available to all.

But lets not use straw men, slander, false accusations and sophistry to cloak the evil that is always inherent in the taking of innocent lives.

The Great Rocky Hill - Thanks for all you've written. I would like to add to your last statement a fact that Americans always seem to find startling: When all other variables are controlled and accounted for, such as age, ethnicity, religion, etc, American women are more likely to suffer an unintended pregnancy simply by virtue of being American (this is in comparison to all other industrialized, "first world" nations). The two reasons generally given for this are 1) the lack of access to healthcare, America being one of the only industrialized countries in the world that doesn't have universal coverage and 2)the lack of open, honest and scientifically sound information about sex, reproduction and contraception.

I agree with all on this board that birth control should be a common ground between the pro-choice and the anti-choice camps. But, again, this is based on the thought that all anti-choicers are rational, which, unfortunately and tragically for the women in this country, they are not. To be fair, there are more moderate anti-choice people who are all for birth control and I give credit to them despite our differing views on abortion itself. But many, I would hazard to say most, are not and their agenda is to keep women from having sex at all outside of marriage and for procreational purposes only (remember, their opposition to birth control doesn't stop with married women). So as much as I would like to reach across the aisle, I find myself continually rebuffed and repelled by the inability of most of the anit-choice camp to respect women as autonomous, capable individuals with the right to make their own health and reproductive decisions. And I refuse to back down and surrender the right to my own body.

OffensivePeculiar made this statement:

"if uninterrupted, conception results in the birth of a human being 100% of the time".

Just as a matter of medical fact, 80% of conceptions never make it to term for myriad natural reasons. 80% of these are lost within the first few eeks of pregnancy.

Mjm1972 - It isn't just Catholics who oppose birth control. Opposition to birth control ranges across the spectrum of the anti-choice movement and hardline anti-choice Protestants are just as much against birth control as the Catholics. I say this as a volunteer for Planned Parenthood who spends a few days a month getting screamed at and demeaned by anti-choice Protestants who openly and, without a hint of irony, try to convince women going into our clinic that birth cntrol kills babies and causes cancer.

mjm1972...

Lack of ability to reason?

How reasonable is it to deny women reproductive freedom?

Do you honestly want women getting abortions in back alleys or doing it themselves?

If anything I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt by suggesting that your intentions are bad.

"Which "anti-choicer at the very top even comes close to believing what you are alleging?"

Do you think they'll actually own up to it? They're not stupid. They know what the consequences of banning abortion are, and they're wealthy and connected enough to be above the law, so if they or someone they know needs an abortion, they'll get it.

And it 'aint slander if it's true.

Again, I'm no misanthrope. I'm no blasphemer. I'm a male. I was raised Catholic. I don't hate babies or sex (I dunno what that is anymore. How can ya what you're doing without?). I want as few abortions to happen as possible. But I still want it to remain legal, and I want that decision to be left up to the person carrying the fetus in her belly.

Is it unfortunate when a woman has to terminate a pregancy? Yes. And if that makes me an asshole for feeling that way so be it. I guess I'm also an asshole for thinking it should be left legal and private.

I think it's sad when someone has to put their dog or cat to sleep too, but sometimes it has to be done.

Here's another thing. If there are women who are having "abortions on demand" (urban myth ala 'welfare queens?'), then that's all the more reason why abortion should remain legal. A person like that shouldn't be bringing babies into this world anyway.

Give everyone access to birth control, REAL sex instruction (no 'abstinence' jazz) and free education and health care and I'm sure you'll see the abortion rates plummet because you'll simply see less women getting pregnant unwillingly. Hell, you'll probably see the euthanasia rates drop too because people will be healthier and less likely to become terminally ill. You'll probably see less people put to death because there will simply be less violent crime.

Socialism is pro-life sans force.

The great rocky hill....

Your statement: "I don't think that all anti-choice people are wild-eyed religious fanatics who want to subjugate women and perpetuate a class war. The anti-choicers at the very top are. The footsoldiers however I think are being duped...." is also slanderous. Which "anti-choicer at the very top even comes close to believing what you are alleging? I know a lot of them and have never met anyone who even begins to resemble that calumny. If setting up "straw men" is all you can do it is a clear sign of lack of ability to reason. Do you not have any ethical or moral arguments other than to make false accusations about people who disagree with you?

Let's ensure a good life for the post-born before we start worrying about the pre-born! Something tells me that if we did, more pre-borns might make it to post-borns.

Clandan, whenever a guy waxes poetic about "the absolute miracle of life", those of us for whom the "miracle" involves serious physical discomfort and pain, the possiblility of life-threatening complications, and the reality of permanent consequences to our health and well-being, not to mention a personal commitment to 18 years of unpaid labour and ongoing expense to raise the "miracle" to adulthood are just a tad sceptical. Funny, nobody got offended when Freud said that women were just suffering penis-envy.

Like most people I don't like abortion. In fact I wish it didn't happen.

I also wouldn't like to be in the position of one who has to make that decision. That decision belongs to THE WOMAN and not to the State.

Unfortunately if you are pro-choice you are treated like an accessory to murder.

I'm a male. I was raised Catholic. I don't hate babies, but I do hate Bush.

Abortion needs to remain legal. It shouldn't be a political issue.

Being pro-choice doesn't mean that I'm pro-abortion. I wish that no woman would ever have to have an abortion ever again. I also wish that we'd never have to execute another murderer or euthanize another terminally ill human or animal.

Banning abortion will only create more problems than it would solve.

I remember the late great talk show host Tom Snyder once saying about the abortion issue something to the effect of "Why can't the pro-life people just say 'They know not what they do,' and leave it at that?"

I don't think that all anti-choice people are wild-eyed religious fanatics who want to subjugate women and perpetuate a class war. The anti-choicers at the very top are. The footsoldiers however I think are being duped.

Gershoms Horse....

So you WERE serious! Wow. Ok. And I didn't know this was an exclusive blog, available only to those who were pro-choice on the abortion issue. Maybe its time to consider reading alternate views that don't always reinforce prejudices and stereotypes. Sometimes broadening one's mind can further someone's enlightenment and understanding. That's why freedom of speech and religion is so important.

Your contention that the "religious right" opposes both birth control and abortion is not entirely accurate. It is only the Catholic church which opposes birth control. I do not, and most of my pro-life colleagues do not. By setting up a straw man, you might win an argument here or there, but you do not further understanding or the cause of justice.

Also, while I support birth control (as opposed to abortion) your contention that the world is overpopulated, and that overpopulation is a threat, especially to human rights, simply is not supported by the demographic data. Consider the world's worst human rights violators -- places like Sudan, Zimbabwe, North Korea, Equatorial Guinea...all of which have very low population densities. Similarly, those countries with the highest levels of population -- like Japan and Holland, are democratic with good reputations for human rights. The whole "overpopulation" scare is propaganda that started with the likes of Henry Kissenger (and his NSSM 200 document) and the fear mongering of Paul Ehrlich and the "Club of Rome". The problem is not overpopulation, it is a disequilibrium between resources and consumption. And blaming over population for it all feeds into this deliberately created hysteria, and plays into the hands of our miscreant corporations and power elites. We do need careful and rational family planning. But there is a huge difference between preventing a pregnancy (which is where freedom of choice should be applied, and I support that 100%), and killing an innocent human life. Abortion does just that.

If you attended a Christian church, surely you have read the very first commandment that God gave to mankind "Be fruitful and multiply". I would say, if God did not want women to get pregnant, why would He make the creation process so enjoyable? (Not that this has anything to do with abortion, and the moral arguments against abortion certainly do not have to rely on any religious source).

As for your opposition to those who want to legislate, its like saying "I respect people who believe that slavery is wrong. They shouldn't own slaves. But they shouldn't impose their views on others who see nothing wrong with it." On moral issues where life and death, severe human suffering, and the sacredness and integrity of human life are at stake, it is a moral imperative to defend the innocent and protect the weak from suffering.

Your comments about anti-abortion people wanting to create an "underclass" is pure slander. Its the kind of thing that creates hatred and irrational fear, and does nothing to further rational debate and productive dialog. I can assure you, what you have charged is absolutely and categorically not true.

I think you owe pro-life people an apology.

mjm1972:

1.) I do not have anything against sex, provided that both sexual partners are consenting adults. I DO have a problem with unplanned pregnancy. PREVENTION is the key.

2.) The fact that the "religious right" opposes abortion AND birth control should be evidence enough that the ultimate goal is to keep women oppressed. Those who truly oppose abortion (and support women's rights) support birth control. To not do so is a serious logical inconsistency, unless women AND men are encouraged to practice abstinence during most of their fertile years (unless one is a member of a religious order, this is unlikely!). Also, the most extreme "religious right" politicians want to criminalize abortion even in pregnancies resulting from rape/incest or involving serious maternal health risks. The not-so-subtle subtext written in such proposed policies is that women should be second-class citizens.

3.) FYI, I once discussed the "permanent underclass" issue with a close relative who describes himself as moderately opposed to abortion, and he said, "Could be." (Unlike the "religious right," he opposes abortion AND supports birth control). At least in my state, anti-abortion politicians often cut funding for programs designed to benefit all children, such as public schools.

4.) As a species we CANNOT support uncontrolled population growth, either economically or environmentally. Also, overpopulated societies often lead to decreased human rights (e.g. China).

5.) In general, I respect people who oppose abortion for themselves. However, I do NOT respect people who want to legislate against abortion. People who support abortion rights do not always abort their own unplanned pregnancies, and people who oppose abortions sometimes have them. In my life, I have known both.

6.) Although I am not Christian, I attended a mainstream Christian church weekly as a child and know very well the story of the virgin birth: if God really wanted more people to be pregnant, wouldn't God cause more virgin births? (Of course, most religion eschews logic.) To become pregnant, it still takes two to tango!

7.) Considering many of your political views, why do you post on Common Dreams rather than, say, the "National Review" website? Chances are you'll find more like-minded company there.

Gershoms Horse, your piece is full of canards. I'm trying to determine if you are writing with tongue in cheek or if you are serious. Surely you can't be serious. But in the unlikely event that you are......

Please reconsider the following statements:

1. "The "religious right" want to "keep women barefoot and pregnant"?

Really? On what authority, survey, documentation do you base this?

2. "If God wanted people to reproduce, sex would not be necessary?"

What do you have against sex as a means of reproduction? Perhaps I'm unique, but I don't, in fact, find it all that unpleasant an experience. If you do, I guess I can understand where you are coming from.

3. "...the primary purpose of the political anti-abortion movement is to guarantee a permanent underclass and ensure a supply of cheap labor."

I must say you do have a vivid imagination. I hate to break it to you, but the primary goal of the "anti-abortion movement" is to ensure that all members of society, whether they be black, white, native, born or unborn, or whatever, enjoy the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

As for the statistic that Planned Parenthood put out, that 70% of abortion opponents are male....that's a lot of smoke for sure. On this I'd do what Bill Clinton claims to have done with his toke...."don't inhale".

Fact is, women are victims of abortion, whether legal or not. Abortions benefit men. Irresponsible fathers, scared boyfriends, and other men get off scott free, while the woman pays the price of the abortion for the rest of her life. And look at who is benefiting financially from the abortion industry racket? Its mostly male doctors and syndicate owners who are literally "making a killing".

The vast majority of women, when shown ultra-sounds of their unborn child, when clearly presented with the facts of the full humanity of the distinct being their womb, chose life. Abortion helps men; it victimizes women.

1.) Just as China forces abortion, Romania under Cesescu banned it. No government should do either.

2.) When a woman experiences an unplanned pregnancy, NONE of the options available to her are good ones. All are emotionally traumatic to some degree.

3.) Practice abstinence or use RELIABLE birth control. If you are a woman who does not want to be pregnant in the future and has medical insurance that will cover the procedure, have a tubal ligation.

4.) George W. Bush has a greater chance of someday needing welfare benefits than of EVER needing an abortion. To paraphrase a Planned Parenthood ad from a few years ago, 70+% of abortion opponents are men, and 100% of them will never be pregnant.

5.) Abortion has always been a women's issue, yet is equally an economic issue: the primary purpose of the political anti-abortion movement is to guarantee a permanent underclass and ensure a supply of cheap labor.

6.) Those who oppose legal abortion (and the key word is LEGAL) should know that some support abortion because parenthood is an immense emotional and financial responsibility, and should not be entered lightly (even by long-married couples) or accidentally.

7.) As I mentioned during a class at my Unitarian Universalist congregation in recent years, I believe that God created SPIRITUAL life, not PHYSICAL life. Even Christianity has only one story of a virgin birth; if God wanted people to reproduce, sex would not be necessary.

8.) Note to Concerned Teen: please wait to have sex until you're finished with high school AND in an emotionally-committed relationship. Until then, "fly solo."

9.) Finally, abortion is a long-term safety net for the Democratic party. As long as Democratic candidates support Roe vs. Wade, they think they can oppose the public interest on nearly every other issue. The "religious right" may want to keep women barefoot and pregnant, but DLC Democrats want to keep women scared.

Kathleen, Proverbs says no such thing. You are confused about the story of a man who "spilled his seed" rather than impregnate his dead brother's wife as custom required him to do.

Doom and Gloom, I wish I had been aborted. Life sucks.

Interesting Caroline, that you find yourself unpersuaded by the argument that human life begins at conception; when if uninterrupted, conception results in the birth of a human being 100% of the time.

I also find it interesting how you elevate yourself as the arbiter and set up straw men.

"I can't accept, either as a matter of personal conscience, or of my commitment to my neighbors and the planet we live on, that we should invest scarce resources, argue endlessly and fruitlessly, and punish women, neglect children and forestall medical research in order to keep every fertilized ovum alive."

You seem to have great impact! You are committed not only to your neighbors' survival, but the survival of the entire planet! Fairly impressive!

And as for your strawman; there are 'scarce resources' which in your opinion are not to be wasted. I would be interested to know what resources are scarce and how in providing that a human life is not snuffed out, they are wasted. And please tell me how 'women are punished' by giving birth. Additionally, how does giving birth 'neglect children' and 'forestall medical research'?

And then there are more strawman. You suggest first off that the baby in the womb is 'unviable human tissue'. You also suggest that 'God designed females with a reproduction system that has a '50% attrition rate'. You also suggest that 'males may choose to conceive a baby' but females don't have the choice to reject it.

You're obviously unfamiliar with the creation of man and man's fall. When God was finished with his creation and the pinnacle of his creation, man (meaning both man and woman), He not only said it was good, He said it was very good! All negative things in the world, including your unsubstantiated 50% attrition rate, are due to the sin of man. Oh, and by the way, he gave us the 10 Commandments so that we could easily identify sin.

As far as the male being able to decide to conceive and the female having no choice in the matter; there's always the females alternative... "no." Unless you are dealing with a rapist, that will stop conception every time.

The strawman continue to fall. 'God allows older children to starve?' It is man's rejection of God and the gifts (children) that he gives them that causes children to starve. Again, it is man sin that creates the environment to want, violence and fear.

But I could not agree more with this next sentence.

"Just because we humans have always done badly doesn't excuse us from trying to do better, for ourselves, because we are all one family."

And there is a way for us to do better for ourselves. But, would I be wrong if I said I am inclined to believe that you have dismissed that solution out of hand?

Also, your theology is deeply flawed. "... a God worthy of human experience?" Your ideas of God are far below who he truly is.

I do not despise your conscience Carolyn but I do pity you.

In closing it appears from what you write, that you know as little about the Constitution and the foundational document from which it springs, the Declaration of Independence as you do about the Bible from which both documents spring.

nellemason,

your womb envy comment is akin to name calling. what is your point?

Its quite unfair to paint pro-life people as brainless Catholics, males with power trip problems, or religious fanatics. The fact is, there are many scientific, medical and ethical reasons which mandate a "pro-life" view. As scientific knowledge of the child in the womb increases, as more and more people see ultra-sounds, as the full humanity of the unborn child becomes widespread knowledge, it is only logical that people will choose the pro-life position. Its one thing to be "pro-choice" on abortion when you believe (as the author of this tendentious article clearly does) that the unborn child is merely "tissue". Its quite another thing to believe a woman has the right to a power trip of her own and kill a living, distinct human life.

On this issue, science and modern medicine are on the side of the pro-life cause. As opinion polls are showing, more and more young people in particular are gravitating to the obvious....that unborn children deserve the right to life. The sophistry and spurious arguments of the abortion providers (many of whom stand to lose a lot of money without the abortion industry) no longer wash. Just as African Americans in the past were not regarded as "persons" under the law -- a ruling made legal by the Dred Scott decision in the mid 1800's, and which, in part, sparked a civil war to undo, unborn children deserve full legal protection as "persons" in a loving and caring society.

Larry B, you have a serious case of womb-envy!

Dear Caroline,

I get the impression from reading your article that you are a bitter old woman. Misery loves company and you try to make a lot of company. You hate Bush. You hate men. You hate God. You hate Catholics. You even hate babies. You have a dim view of the world. Everything is so sad and bad with all those private corporations and nuclear weapons and hungry masses and men habits.

My goodness. I really do feel sorry for you. I will do everything I can to help you out. I hope that one day there will be a morning for you. A glorious morning where you will notice the sunrise and the absolute miracle of life. On that day, I hope that you will realize that there is more to life than adding fuel to the bitterness of other women and protecting the rights of those women to pay someone else to kill their own babies.

Just before we go all warm and fuzzy about adoption in this discussion, as a mother of three I couldn't imagine handing one of my babies over to strangers and just walking away as if nothing happened. As an adoptee, I can tell you that it's nice that our birth certificates are no longer stamped "illegitimate", but biology and blood connection to family DO matter. Knowing who your REAL mother and father are IS important. Adopted children grow up without roots. Check out www.bastards.org

Anyone who has not already read Chris Hedges article on this site "What's Sex Got to Do With It ?" should read it in light of this article about abortion, especially the comments -- note the strong sense of male entitlement present in both the article and the comments -- what's sex got to do with it ? um, maybe because it tends to make babies ? but you would NEVER get a sense of that from Hedges' article, even tho the particular situation he addresses seems to have resulted in one of said inconvenient objects (oops, i meant to say adorable baby).

The egg is NOT out there looking for sperm to fertilize, quite the opposite, so why is it always the egg's fault ?

Disturbing isn't it? Most of the people that are anti-choice are also rabidly pro-capital punishment. They will kill a doctor to save a fetus and then kill the person that fetus will grow up to be.

The chimp-in-chief states that we should 'Err on the side of life' when it comes to abortion. Why doesn't that apply to capital punishment? Why do we continue this blood lust?

Whoops. I forgot. The Book of Proverbs says "it's better to spew your seed upon the ground then plant it in the belly of a whore". Silly me.

"Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great.
If a sperm gets wasted, God gets quite irate."

It's a no-brainer. Women either have control of our bodies, or we don't. I say if the anti-abortionists want to ban abortion, then maybe we ought to get really basic and just ban male masturbation as well. After all, a sperm cell is half a zygote, which eventually becomes an embryo, or a fetus, and then "life in the womb". Wouldn't male masturbation then sort of be mass murder? It will, of course, require a massive ratcheting up of police presence to enforce such a law, but lots of people are going to be out of work anyway and will gladly accept lower pay as a means of being able to put anything on their credit card debt. It's something to think about, anyway.

Alas, rebelnow , I think I have the answer for that.

Because the rabid pro-fetal lifers are only pro-life that they deem worthy.

I do not think that the run-of-road pro-lifer has completely thought through the idea of making a seconds-old embryo having equal rights as that of a born person. Does that mean that there needs to be a 'period police?' To make sure that there hasn't been an involuntary manslaughter? Yes, I know that this is a rather tackless, but if they are honest about it, what would be the LEGAL punishment of miscarriage? A couple of years in prison??

I think that most pro-lifers are woefully ignorant of what all can go wrong in a pregnancy - both to the mother AND to the fetus. Just saying that it is ONLY nine months is badly simplifying a complex situation. Yes, most pregnancies can go to completion without bad complications, but for those that DO go wrong.... what when?

WHY? Because the forbidding of abortion also means that abortion CAN also be compelled.

I think that one South African country recently did a 'complete ban of ANY abortion procedure or any procedure that would kill an embryo'. The pro-lifers were loud in their cheers, but I noticed that there was dead silence when the problem cases started appearing, like the woman with a doomed etopic pregnancy. The doctors were legally forbidden from helping her. The results of that etopic pregnacy are going to be depressingly predictable - leaving her ALREADY born children without a mother, a place to live, etc...

But I forget, WHAT woman? Only the pre-born matter.

But, with regard to the Dems and Repubs, this whole thing is a 'phony issue'. Both sides use it to try to pretend there's a difference between them.

But, note very carefully that even though the Republicans have control of the White House and both houses of Congress for six straight years, they did very little to change the realities of life in America about this. Likewise, when the Democrats have the power, either from a majority in Congress or control of the White House or both (like in 1993-94), they also do very little to change anything.

When the Dems and Repubs start talking about abortion, its all bull to distract people away from key issues. They can pretend there's a real difference on this issue, while distracting people away from the basic facts that trade policy is the same between them and foreign policy and wars are the same between them.

Given that Obama sounds just like a Republican, and the Republicans are just running a nasty smear campaign, its no surprise that they both will start talking about abortion.

God has always been about power. Religion has always been used to promote the power of some individuals, and crush any power that others might have.

You can see this in some of the discussion above, where people try to assert that they have the power to determine a key decision in someone else life on 'ethical and moral choices'.

You do need to understand both sides of any argument. What is missing in many of these discussions is the common ground that can be found for even this issue. I don't hear any one saying we want to increase the number of abortions in this country. We should all be talking about how to reduce unwanted pregnancies. I know it is hard to find common ground on that one but we can only do it if we keep listening and keep talking (and stop yelling).

My own view is that abortion is bad (I did not say wrong), but I don't speak for you, your sister, your mother, your daughter or your wife. We all have to live with the consequences of our own ethical and moral choices.

Good article! She said what most of us have thought for a lot of years! Where do these pro-life people think they have the right to tell the rest of us what to believe? That to my way of the thinking is the height of arrogance. They are being guided by their religious belief's. I personally lost every ounce of faith I ever had in religion the last election when these supposed holier-than-thou religious figures put a lying, cheating, stealing, corrupt scumbag(Bush) right back into office so he could do their dirty work for them. It told me all I needed to know about the religious in this country. And it isn't good! They are just as corrupt as the man they put into office. They can make abortion illegal again. But, it isn't going to ever remove the stain of corruption from their holy vestments that was left by Bush's kind. I won't ever darken their doors again. I have more ethic's than these people obviously have.

A noteworthy aspect of this power grab by our President is that Senator Obama has clearly stated his objections whereas, to the best of my knowledge, Senator McCain has not yet commented. This is a nettlesome issue for him. If he goes publicly against the President, his evangelical base will get mad. If he does not distance himself from this high-handedness, the so-called "Clinton-women for McCain" may leave him in droves. I have no sympathy for his dilemma.

No one has the right to tell me anything about my body. Because it's my body. Whose body? My body. Whatever living thing exists within the boundary of my skin is either me or mine--and only MY mind can decide what to do with MY body. Nobody outside the boundary of my skin has any idea what it is like for me here inside my body. Nobody has been "here" before; in fact there was no "here" before I got here. Nobody outside the boundary of my skin can deliver a "right" or "wrong" that includes my body.

Take your hands off my body!

Maybe the following analogy will make it easier for you to understand: My body is the subservient populace and I am the autonomous despot. If part of the populace is moving towards secession (via the vaginal tract, for example), then that's their perogative. But my perogative happens to be that I will destroy them before they get out.

Gotta understand the "moral rights" mindset. All abortion must be banned. The unborn should be allowed to be born, to be a child, to go up to adulthood, so they can be sent to kill and die in war. We need more cannon fodder.

BreeMass,

Just to be clear I am not against choice, I just think abortion is an avoidable tragedy. I do not think the government has a role here.
We may never agree with the far right about birth control but we might still agree on helping young people understand how to evaluate the potential consequences of their decisions or how to resist peer pressure so they can make up their own minds about sex without coercion. Both sides in any debate have to tune out the extremist rhetoric to be able to listen for that common ground.

Thanks for listening.

Ms. Arnold: My heavens, you are hot today! Go girl! Couldn't have said it better my self. Thank you.

No man has the right to say anything about women's abortions.

No Imaginary Friend has really said anything to the people who are against women's rights to do as they please.

It isn't that God is dead --- it is that one is still not there.

Dear Caroline Arnold,

Well done dear Lady. Whatever you do, do NOT stop. Keep at it. I have spent 43 years of my life serving in and with the US Army. On seven occasions during my military career I took the Oath to Defend the Constitution of the United States Against All Enemies, Foreign and Domestic. The greatest threat to Our Freedom and Country is Not terrorism from abroad, but the Terrorism of the Religious Radical Right. They are the DOMESTIC ENEMY.

I guess that here in Canada, we've been very fortunate to have had the courts settle the question of abortion back in the early 90's.
At that time, the Conservatives were in power, and their base was pushing them to pass legislation restricting abortion. The Conservatives obligingly passed a bill, but it was overturned by the Supreme Court because the law violated the Bill of Rights, which had been passed in 1982, when Canada repatiated its Constitution from Great Britain.
The ruling made it difficult for the Conservatives to find a way of re-wording the law so as to bring it in line with the sexual equality provisions of our Bill of Rights, and so it has been effectively been removed from the field of Canadian politics as a political football.
It was a sad day when the ERA Amendment to your constitution failed, because it's demise gave the religious right a foothold that they otherwise could not have ever attained.
I'm very glad that at least here in Canada, diversionary issues such as abortion and gay marriage are off the table. It means that there is more of a possiblity that our elections can actually be about real issues and therefore have real meaning.

Why is it that the most fanatic advocates against abortion, who want to "preserve the sanctity of life", also tend to be the same people who willingly march those same grown up fetuses off to useless wars, and are willing to bomb, mutilate, and disembowel innocent women and children with wanton callousness.

I live in the South so I'm subjected to billboards intended to shame women who would consider abortion. One asks, "Aren't you glad your mother didn't abort you?" This presumptious rhetorical question implies that everyone is just delighted with being alive and driving down the interstate. My answer is "No, I'm not glad" that my mother, who tried to get our small-town family doctor to abort me back in the 1940s, failed to persuade him. She knew she was in over her head, being 19, having just had a baby 18 months earlier, and having an alcoholic irresponsible husband. So I was left to fend for myself and quickly became the amusement for my pedophile maternal grandfather. I think my mother knew what kind of life she was bringing me into, and she wanted to spare me it. I only wish she had succeeded. Girls younger than 10 who lose their virginity and suffer other tortures at the hands of family members are extremely common in every socioeconomic group. Our mothers were not prepared to protect us in any way other than by aborting us. This is just another reason why abortions must remain legal.

Thank you all for having very clear opinions, facts, and most of all, information to back up those opinions and facts. I've watched all of the people here hash over 'politics' 'precedents' and 'religion', and I can honestly say you all have good points. However, I seem to be missing something.

I've gone through the local Family Planning classes, gone to several seminars in school about how 'sex is bad' and 'abstinence is the only way' for things to not come crashing down about our ears, And I don't like the fact that, as a healthy, hormonal seventeen yer old girl, I am not immediately informed to all my options before things go pear-shaped. I've been paying atention to this 'issue' throughout the bush administration, since I was old enough to care. and I have to ask...Who made it an issue?

If it is every womans right to choose for themselves what goes on in her body, then shouldn't we be informed as to PREVENTATIVE methods? Why should we know about contraceptives only after we're pregnant, or might be pregnant? why shouldn't the men around us have the respect for us to ask if we want to get pregnant and act acordingly? It apalls me that not only female education lacks, but so does male education. a condom can only work if you know how to use it, and have acess to it. and the same thing works for abortion. If it's going to happen anyway, legal or illegal, why not make it so that a woman can have a safe abortion and not one done in an unsanitary place?

To me, this argument's not about religion, power, or politics, those are just the avenues that we use to argue over the matter. What it boils down to in my mind is a few people getting squeamish and trying to make that thing dissapear. And as long as people remain affraid, then things are going to continue this increasingly muddy downward spiral. So, for my generation if you please, come to a consensus soon so that me and mine can get on with life without this shadow hanging over us? I'm not even legaly alowed to vote on it, but it WILL affect me. and my classmates, and my children, if I ever have any. if not for us, then for them? People shouldn't be affraid that the world's going to depopulate because of abortion. There's six billion of us on the planet now, and we could do with fewer numbers.

In conclusion to my ramble, i'd like to see less argument and more solutions. Why not make abortion obsolete with the use of condoms and contraceptives? and if someone dosen't like it, fine, let them not like it. Noone has the right to deny anyone a choice, and it's moraly wrong to me to even atempt to do so. Action, not reaction, is the only way things are going to change, and for better or worse, I can't say. It just would be nice if there was less talking and more do-ing. And that dosen't only go for abortion.

Thank you for seeing all sides, but for the sake of my peers, can we stop arguing?

Until we stop turning a blind eye to other mothers' beloved children starving to death in far away places and cheering other mothers' beloved children marching off to kill and be killed (preferably also in far away places), don't even attempt to talk to me about abortion.

Making abortion illegal along with banning birth control and keeping young people in the dark about sex, perpetuates poverty, period, for men and women alike. It's also a wedge issue and is a vote culler for The Right.

They want to keep most people poor and have women generate more cannon fodder.

Believe me, the elites will be able to get abortions if they want or need one.

I will be perfectly honest, I don't like the idea of abortion. I feel the same way about euthanasia. It's highly unfortunate when any woman has to terminate a pregnancy just as it is when someone's life needs to be ended. But it's a part of life. All we can do is try to make it so that a few people as possible will need to ever have to make such a difficult decision.

RUTH K: Excellent post.

This issue is given disproportionate emphasis because it lends an aura of "righteousness" to those that would otherwise have no moral ground of any form to stand on as they are also FIRST to clammor FOR war, capital punishment, "a strong domestic police force to fight crime," etc. And it's about 2nd class status for women, however it's dressed up. Another egregious insidious example of Mars rules.

There used to be a restaraunt years back at the side of the road in the interior of BC...It advertised "Chicken and Chips" on a big sign 29 cents.

What a bargain..you stopped for Chicken and Chips.

You got a boiled egg, and a little bag of what the brits call potato crisps.

In any case the fact is that Abortion was not made illegal in the United States until the mid to late 1800's . Prior to that it was ignored.

The fact is it was commonly practiced throughout history. Polynesians used it as a means to control the population size as example, because the Island they lived on could only support a finite few.

The fact is that when abortion was made illegal in the United States, Chemists and traveling salesmen sold Cures in bottles for "womans ailments" which were means by which women could abort a child.

The fact is that abortion was not something the "nasty Liberals introduced" to destroy our values. It has been around for thousands of years.

The fact is that the Roman Catholic church changed its stance on abortion many times in its history and once claimed it not a sin unless the fetus grew to the stage where it quickened.

There is no easy answer. People will always have doubts as to whether it right or worng and a lot of those doubts are simply because of the enviroment in which we were raised.

The best answer, IMHO is to let the woman have the final say.

PK

It's about power -- the power to impose one's will on another. All I can say is that for me, the willingness to excersize that power is at the very moment of the most fundamental kind of morality.
Nobody likes abortion. A forced abortion is of the most heinous of acts. It is also one of those things which, since it cannot be prevented, can only be opposed by persuasion and long-suffering. The price of coercion is very high and commonly disregarded without including any sense of giving others to their freedom, judgment and responsibility.

Well stated RuthK--

The government needs to stay out of a woman's body. Period!
So let me get this straight: Viagra - Yes; Birth Control - No. Geez!

Very nicely stated RuthK.

All things have life and a fetus no less. Today, when we are approaching the real possibility of human extinction in a few short years, focusing on abortion seems myopic. To me, we have a choice between life and death. There is no middle or muddle ground. Choose death at your own risk.