The pro-choice community is the common ground position. . .I really wish people would stop pretending that the two sides of this are no abortions ever and all abortions always.

Well said, Jen (the whole post, actually).

I really hate this media story of the two "extremes" in the abortion debate who ignore the vast "middle ground" of America.

Um, who, exactly, are these extreme pro-choice leaders? Anyone know who they're talking about? In my own experience--both personal, and in reading books, etc., by pro-choice leaders--everyone basically agrees with the "safe, legal, and rare" idea, as long as "rare" comes from prevention and support, rather than restrictions and punishment (which it would if "safe" and "legal" was also honored).

Sure, the feminist and pro-choice communities are diverse. If you want to go hunting for someone who thinks abortion is just a casual form of birth control, or doesn't think there are ever any moral considerations . . . I'm sure you could find that person. Though I've never met her or him. And I've never heard that person speaking as a pro-choice activist.

Agreed! The only thing is why we continue to call abortion opponents "pro-lefe" as if feminists and pro-choicers in general are against life. They have framed the language and the debate for long enough, so let's call them what they actually are, which is "anti-choice"!

If you want less abortions you have to give women the tools to avoid getting pregnant when they don't want to be. See? Not complicated.

Word up. You also have to give women the social programs they need (accessible health care, adequate maternity leave, etc.) to make having children they may, in fact, want a financially viable choice.

By the way, I said "leadership" in the pro-life community because I do realize there are people who consider themselves to be pro-life but are not out to control women. However, in my experience, most of those people do support sex ed and birth control, so I consider them pro-choice.

This, I fail to comprehend. Lesser evil? Sure. On our side? Not until they distance themselves, in rhetoric and action, from those who DO seek to control women.

everyone basically agrees with the "safe, legal, and rare" idea

I don't necessarily disagree with "rare," but given the climate I wouldn't cosign it either. I much prefer "safe, legal and exactly as often as necessary."

I think everyone would love to see a world in which there are no abortions--where no women got pregnant unless they wanted to, and where every pregnancy was free from complications. Unfortunately, I don't see us living in that world for a long, long time. That's why I'm pro-choice.

DEFINITELY. This "safe, legal and rare" shit really pisses me off. "Safe and legal?" YES! "Rare?" Fuck you.

Like, is Hillary even pro-choice? She's not liberal, that's for sure. I hope she doesn't win the nomination.
Why are prominent pro-choicers giving the other side ammunition like this!? If they're going to pretend abortion kills a widdle baybee with hopes and dreams, and want everyone to know they think it should be rare, they should clarify that it should be rare in order to spare women from having to get invasive surgery, NOT because "the fewer dead baybees the better."

Conservatives have been advocating an uncomplicated tool to prevent unwanted pregnancy for decades - a dime held between the knees.

(Have you ever noticed that men never seem to have any responsibility in the conception according to the most foaming-mouthed fetal supremacists? It's always some slut girl who couldn't keep her knees together.)

They acknowledge that men play a role in conception, Kate217. But it's only because we stupid women let them, and for that we deserve to be shamed.

I never understood how pro-choice was the opposite extreme of pro-life. It would seem that the opposite of pro-life would be pro-abortion. I always thought of pro-choice as the middle ground, but people sometimes like to think that being pro-choice and pro-abortion is the same thing. It's just pro-life bullshit.

It seems to me that Hillary doesn't understand that, even if somebody wants abortion to be safe and legal, that doesn't mean they want everyone to have an abortion. The majority of people who are pro-choice that I have seen also want less unintended pregnancies. Less unintended pregnancies = less abortions. They would probably support access to birth control and other contraceptives for all men and women.

So, I agree. I do think that pro-choice is the common ground position. Just because we want abortion to be safe and legal does NOT mean we want every woman who gets pregnant to go out and have an abortion.

The only thing is why we continue to call abortion opponents "pro-life"

I get your concern about using the conservative language, Bree. I do use "pro-life" when I'm speaking of the anti-abortion movement, because that's the name they've chosen for themselves. That seems fair. We hate it when they call us "pro-abortion," right?

I'm fine with "anti-abortion" too. It seems accurate, rather than activist (they ARE against abortion, after all). What I use depends a lot on context (who I'm talking to, and what about).

I don't necessarily disagree with "rare," but given the climate I wouldn't cosign it either.

Yeah . . . I get the reluctance to accept the "rare" part of the formula without a very firm understanding of what that means from a pro-choice, feminist perspective: pre-pregnancy prevention, not after-pregnancy restrictions and social condemnation. Still, I think it's a useful political framework.

Clearly, the anti-abortion people can't hear often enough that we aren't all running out and having unprotected sex just so we can have abortions for pleasure. I think the idea of "rare" might give some anti-abortion people just enough reassurance about the pro-choice position that they'd be willing to have a conversation about HOW we want "rare" to come about.

. . . maybe I'm just being wistfully hopeful?

I totally agreed with "safe, legal, and rare" as it was put by Bill, but Hillary is taking it out of context in order to sympathize with pro-lifers. The whole issue with including the word "rare" is to suggest we need to provide more than just the legalization of abortion -- it says we need to put things out there to prevent unwanted pregnancy. The gap between pro-lifers and the pro-choice movement lies in the acceptance of reality. The pro-choice movement sees what needs to be done, and the pro-life movement is in denial.

"By the way, I said "leadership" in the pro-life community because I do realize there are people who consider themselves to be pro-life but are not out to control women. However, in my experience, most of those people do support sex ed and birth control, so I consider them pro-choice."

That doesn't make sense. What if I 1) have no problem with most forms of comprehensive sex ed, 2) have no problem with birth control, and 3) want to outlaw abortion? I think those people would call themselves pro-life, not pro-choice, if forced to choose. And there are millions of such people.

Do you just pretend they don't exist? Or do you just lump abortion under "birth control," knowing full well that that renders your point obvious (i.e., people who support abortion are pro-choice).

"By the way, I said "leadership" in the pro-life community because I do realize there are people who consider themselves to be pro-life but are not out to control women. However, in my experience, most of those people do support sex ed and birth control, so I consider them pro-choice."

Hey, if you want to start calling people who want to outlaw abortion pro-choice, I guess pro-choice does become the middle--and all-encompassing--position! What a meaningless post.

'I should ask him to put a condom on. Naaaah, fuck it. I'll just get an abortion later.'

Abortions being rare - that must be what they're trying to prevent, right?

The distillation of a complex issue into two separate, opposing camps is done to a lot of issues in public discourse. It simply makes life easier for the majority of people who do not want or like to think too deeply, as well as for the people who can't waste time with this deep thinking crap because their lives are busy. As much as I, too, would like to see important issues discussed publicly in terms that are not strictly black and white, human nature prevents this from happening.

I'm guessing that if Hillary is trying to find "common ground," she is seeking the votes of moderates, independents, and maybe even disenchanted Republicans, as well as feeding off of Bill's popularity with her choice of words. At this point, she appears to be ahead of the rest of the Democratic candidates, so she might be trying to get ahead of the game by appealing to all. The risk, of course, is that she might alienate herself from the liberal base.

Tom, my point was I don't know any people like that. Everyone I know who believes in birth control and sex ed, but does not consider it their God given duty to control women's bodies only don't believe in abortions for themselves. They're not out there trying to make it illegal. They're trying to make it less necessary. Which is a position that respects the choices of women, regardless of personal feelings. That's pro-choice to me.

Of course I'm sure there are folks out there that feel the way you mention. That wasn't my point.

I feel that many of you are simply attacking her response and overlooking at how the question of abortion was handled in the debate!

Hillary was the only one to receive the question about abortion, neither of the other male candidates had to face this question. And yes, while Edwards had to answer directly on gay marriage, it is not generally as gendered of a topic as abortion. So, of course, the female candidate got asked about abortion. How typical.

What really disappoints me about many of the posts and comments about Hillary on this site is that they are typical comments made about women. In this case, many of you are not taking into consideration that as a politician she has to appeal to moderate voters to a certain degree, especially with the state of the extreme right and the way they have isolated many members of the republican party.

Additionally, you put down women like Patti Smith (see post from today) for not proclaiming feminism, but when Hillary announced herself as a feminist with NOW (so a liberal feminist), she was not upheld for that whatsoever.

Overall, I personally do not understand the discontent with Hillary on this site. I understand that many of you may personally disagree with certain positions she's taken but it appears to me that as a site that promotes strong women in all areas of life, you put her down for many reasons that are gendered, which is exactly what you proclaim to stand against.

Thoughts?

“What really disappoints me about many of the posts and comments about Hillary on this site is that they are typical comments made about women.�
Give an example please?

“Overall, I personally do not understand the discontent with Hillary on this site.�
goinglobal23,
It is as simple as this: Is she willing to standup to the bullies and uphold women’s reproductive rights or not? If she can’t do that in a debate, why should we trust that she’ll do when she gets elected? She needs to court the so-called moderates now, she’ll have to do it once he is elected as well. Or is she going to turn into a radical feminist once she is in office after having fooled all the “moderates�? Are you saying we should stand behind her just *because* she is a woman?

"The leadership in the pro-life community wants to control what women do with their bodies."

No - they want to stop what they consider to be the murder of innocents. The Saudis want to control what women do with their bodies. The difference between these 2 examples is that pro-life people have a noble goal that results in limitations being placed on an individual. The Saudis just put limits on individuals.

Word, goinglobal.

Hillary si a champion of chocie and prevention in the U.S. Senate. Look at the bills she is cosponsoring this year alone. I have no doubt whatsoever that she will act on her commitment to comprehensive reproductive healthcare when in the White House.

Word, goinglobal.

Hillary si a champion of choice and prevention in the U.S. Senate. Look at the bills she is cosponsoring this year alone. I have no doubt whatsoever that she will act on her commitment to comprehensive reproductive healthcare when in the White House.

“The difference between these 2 examples is that pro-life people have a noble goal that results in limitations being placed on an individual. The Saudis just put limits on individuals.�
Buffy, you’re wrong. The Saudi’s have the noble goal of protecting their nation’s faith. It’s just a side effect that to keep men and women from inning you’re forced to put some limits on individuals.

I don't support candidates just because they're women. Feminism doesn't demand such nonsense and it's a foolish thing to believe.

I don't see any gendered insults in Jen's writing. Nobody's attacked her for not living up to "feminine" ideals, or demanded more from her because she's a woman. Wh

I don't support candidates just because they're women. Feminism doesn't demand such nonsense and it's a foolish thing to believe.

I don't see any gendered insults in Jen's writing. Nobody's attacked her for not living up to "feminine" ideals, or demanded more from her because she's a woman.

By the way, I said "leadership" in the pro-life community because I do realize there are people who consider themselves to be pro-life but are not out to control women.


This is mincing words. If you would not chose an abortion yourself, yet wouldn't make it difficult or illegal for a woman to get one, you ARE pro-choice. The way you phrased it is like "I'm not a feminist but..." way.


Let me break it down for you. If you are "pro-life", really it's "anti-choice". Pro-lifers are for state enforced pregnancies, because what is the other way to phrase it when the state makes abortion difficult or illegal to get? That IS controlling women. That IS making into law that women do not have the right to choose not to be pregnant and do not have the right to choose when they will become pregnant.
To me, there is no greater a "pro-life" stance than to have the position that every child should be a wanted child. That life is too precious to force parenthood on anyone. Every parent should be able to look at their child and say, you were very much planned and very much wanted and the father is someone I very much wanted to be your father. I take a child life far too seriously than to put them in a position where I had one when I did not want to be a parent.

And by the way, to all of you who say, a woman can just give up a child for adoption. Hey, pregnancy is not some sort of craft kit that you do in your spare time. There's real risk healthwise and financialwise involved and it takes you months to get over a healthy one. If you give up a kid for adoption, then people judge you and you could even lose your job in the judgement of being the sort of woman who could give up their child. No man is forced to donate blood, let alone a 15 month investment in their body's time. Abortion rights is partly based on privacy, where people have the right to decide what will be in their bodies and what they will do with them.
If you are against choice, you ARE for state-enforced pregnancy. Think about it.

No - they want to stop what they consider to be the murder of innocents... ...pro-life people have a noble goal that results in limitations being placed on an individual.

I don't buy that for a second. The leadership of the pro-life movement have made it clear over and over that their agenda isn't really about innocent lives- it's about punising dirty sluts. It's disingenuous to suggest otherwise, and completely ignores the number of pro-life leaders who've made this agenda blatantly clear.

you put her down for many reasons that are gendered, which is exactly what you proclaim to stand against.

Thoughts?

I am not sure that I've seen anyone here attacking Hillary for any gendered reasons. Maybe we do expect her to be more pro-choice and pro-woman that she is because she is a woman. Maybe that is a gendered area, but overall, I think the majority of us who do not support Hillary Clinton's candidacy do so for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with her having or not having a vagina. Personally I happen to think she's a Republican who happened to marry a Democrat and figured out that the Dems would be her only shot at a real fun so she decided to stick with the Dems.

sojourner - The point is to get elected. Courting the moderates and undecideds is a way to get yourself elected. Do all politicians make good on their campaign promises once in office? Of course not.

This all reminds me of a Simpson's episode that got to the bottom of the whole "abortion debate" a lot quicker:
Kang (as Al Gore): Abortions for all!
Crowd: Booo!
Kang: Fine, abortions for none!
Crowd: Booo!
Kang: Ok.... abortions for some.... minature american flags for others.
Crowd: Yay!

I agree with some others here that Hillary is using her word choice to draw in voters who might not consider her otherwise, and I can't really fault her for that. Nobody's perfect in politics. The country's in a very conservative trend so whoever wins this election will have to use that rhetoric to get votes. It's unfortunate, but it's part of the legacy left by Bush.

If you think that abortion is murder, why must you think that it should be legal? If you think that murder should be illegal (which one one here disagrees with), why exempt abortion?

In the eternal struggle between the right of a woman to bodily integrity of the right of her child to be alive, why must the former rights always prevail? Why, if you happen to believe that 9 months of pregnancy is a helluva lot better than having your brains sucked out, are you a bad feminist or not a feminist at all? If abortion is, to you, tantamount to rape or murder, why must you condone that "choice?" I don't give men the "choice" to rape women, nor fathers the "choice" to molest their daughters - and I would not be content with saying, "Well, I just hope that people don't do it." Yet I'm supposed to condone abortion or else not be a feminist.

Didn't one of the bloggers here just write a BOOK about how people should be comfortable calling themselves feminists? That there's no real litmus test for being one - it's not like you have to believe x, y, and z before you get a special little feminist badge? Yet everyone here presumes to say that you can't be a feminist if you don't believe in a "woman's right to choose."

Finally - Anna is right. Unless anyone wants her political position described as being "pro-baby killing," don't run around calling people "anti-choice" or "pro-forced birth." In that balancing of rights, "pro-choice" and "pro-life" describe that which each side holds as the right which should trump.

oenophile:

If you think that abortion is murder, I think you're woefully uninformed, or misguided, or dishonest. Murder is the unjust, unlawful killing of a person. That you and others make exceptions for things like rape and incest suggests that you don't think it's murder at all, but, rather, that you're concerned with how the pregnancy occured. That's not about the fetus- that's about the woman. When you compare abortion to murder or to rape, you insult the victims and survivors of those crimes, as well as women who've gotten abortions. When you try to suggest that women who get abortions are somehow the same or comparable to rapists, molesters, or murderers, you intentionally and offensively misrepresent the situations. Over and over people have explained who offensive and insulting that comparison is, and over and over you keep bringing it up. That's why you're accused of being anti-woman and anti-feminist.

A woman trying to maintain control of her body and making the choice that is best for her is not the same as rapist forcing his body on another person.

It's not.

If you refuse to see that and continue to use such blatantly offensive and insulting comparisons, then I expect that people will continue to think of you as anti-woman.

If you continually use an insulting and inflamitory comparison that doesn't make sense in an attempt to push an offensive and harmful perspective, people are going to continue to call you on it.

Didn't one of the bloggers here just write a BOOK about how people should be comfortable calling themselves feminists? That there's no real litmus test for being one - it's not like you have to believe x, y, and z before you get a special little feminist badge? Yet everyone here presumes to say that you can't be a feminist if you don't believe in a "woman's right to choose."

1. I'm not Jessica.
2. Even if you are a feminist and are generally pro-woman, that doesn't give you a pass for saying offensive things that are patently harmful to women. If anything, it raises the bar. I expect someone who self-declares as a feminist not to do things that actively harm women.

Unless anyone wants her political position described as being "pro-baby killing," don't run around calling people "anti-choice" or "pro-forced birth."

You can call my position whatever you want. It doesn't make you right.

I support a woman's right to choose the best options for herself, whether that's abortion, keeping the fetus, giving the baby up for adoption or whatever. I support her choice to select birth control. I support her right to choose all manner of reproductive options. That's pro-choice.

The "pro-life" crowd do not. They are actively opposed to letting women make choices. They support forcing women to undergo unwanted pregnancies. That makes them anti-choice and pro-forced birth.

I don't try to force women to get abortions.

The "pro-life" crowd do try to force women to remain pregnant.

In that balancing of rights, "pro-choice" and "pro-life" describe that which each side holds as the right which should trump.

That's patently untrue. If it were really pro-life, then you wouldn't make rape exceptions. It's probably most accurate to think of it as "anti-woman-having-sex-unless-it's-for-procreation" but that's a bit wordy, don't you think?

personally, oenophile, id rather have my brains sucked out in a short period of time and die, than be forced to spend 9 months in pain and discomfort risking the possibility that the fetus or i will die anyhow, carrying a fetus i deeply resent being forced to carry. and if they suck out my brains, the fetus dies too, cos thats how it works. and you can go on and on about how we're limiting peoples ability to call themselves feminists by saying pro-life isnt a feminist position, but that doesnt mean youre right. feminism is about empowering women to make informed choices, something the pro-life movement opposes. so yes, the pro-life movement is in fact anti-feminist. nobody in the feminist movement will ever force you to have an abortion, we only ask you not force us to carry a pregnancy to term if we choose not too. if you cant respect the ability of an adult woman to make an intelligent informed choice regarding whether she is capable of carrying a pregnancy to term, you arent a feminist. becos feminists trust women. period.

jessilikewhoa, WORD.

That there's no real litmus test for being one - it's not like you have to believe x, y, and z before you get a special little feminist badge?

While I do have a hard time personally with the thought of surrendering my own body for the sake of what I consider to be only a potential human, I do agree one thousand percent with the enthusiasm of some to subject women to this litmus test and "objectively" make an analysis as to whether the person is truly a feminist.

Word also to global23...

On NPR the other day they featured Iowa voters, and had an interview with a male "blue collar retired plumber." His thoughts on Hilary? He spoke genuinely that he's pretty sure he's going to vote for her because she's the most intelligent. I could actually hear in his voice that her gender didn't matter whatsoever. This made me almost weep with joy. No matter what your views are on her personally, THIS kind of response from a "regular" guy in Iowa is what really counts.

If you think you're going to woo moderates with extremism, that's nuts. You might as well vote for Nader.

“Buffy, you’re wrong. The Saudi’s have the noble goal of protecting their nation’s faith. It’s just a side effect that to keep men and women from inning you’re forced to put some limits on individuals.�

Sojourner, excellent point.

Saudi restrictions on their society are wholly based in religion – they “know� what’s best for their people and they run their society accordingly.

That sounds *exactly* like the U.S. pro-life movement to me – guided primarily by religion, eager to pass laws to align society with religious beliefs.

don't run around calling people "anti-choice" or "pro-forced birth."

Yes - they are "pro-forced birth".

What else is the conclusion?

If you can't get an abortion, and there are legal prohibitions.....you are forced to be pregnant!

You are forced to give birth!

What else it the conclusion? It isn't calling someone something. That is what happens if anti-choice, pro-life people are working to make it illegal to get an abortion -- state enforced pregnancy, forced-birth. Yes, it is ugly. But forced birth it is.

I disagree with the notion that one must be pro-choice in order to be a feminist. (Never mind that I'm pro-choice myself)

Basically, it comes down to the question of the value of a fetus (or embryo, if we're talking that early, but I digress). If a person comes to the conclusion that a fetus is equally valuable as a real human being, it can logically have a right to live which supercedes the woman's right to do what she will with her body and life. This is not necessarily the conclusion, of course, or organ donation would logically be mandatory for all people, but, again, I digress. You don't have to hate women to prize the life of something you consider equal to a human being.

If a person comes to the conclusion that a fetus is equally valuable as a real human being, it can logically have a right to live which supercedes the woman's right to do what she will with her body and life.

I'm sorry, but in that case, the fetus is deemed more important than the woman because its right "supersedes" the woman's right to bodily integrity. And how valuable is your life if you can be deprived of the right to make your own choices about your own life just because you had the misfortune to be born with a uterus? The right to bodily integrity is absolutely fundamental, it doesn't become optional because you're a woman. So, yes, pro-life means that you prize the fetus more than the woman who's carrying it. Ergo they're anti-woman.

werechick, to me pro-life means someone who is fighting to make abortion illegal, to me pro-life means pro-life activist. if a person thinks abortion is wrong and excercises that by not getting one themselves and by explaining why they think its wrong to anyone who wants to listen, i wouldnt say they are anti-feminist. but i absolutely believe that if someone tries to pass legislation to limit the rights of another woman to make informed decisions as they apply to her own life, then the person trying to push that legislation is anti-feminist.

if it explains it better, im also opposed to mandatory hpv vaccination, as again, i think the feminist position is to trust individual women to dictate their own realities.

i just dont think making broad rules that control large groups of women is a feminist choice.

i dont think being opposed to abortion means you arent a feminist, just trying to make your opposition into law that controls other women's personal agency means, yes, in fact, you are not a feminist becos you do not trust women.

becos if anyone knos when life officially begins, it would make sense to me that it would be the person incubating that life.

If a person comes to the conclusion that a fetus is equally valuable as a real human being, it can logically have a right to live which supercedes the woman's right to do what she will with her body and life.

The problem is whether you see such a conclusion as being pro-woman, anti-woman, or neither. I don't see any way to view such a position as anything but anti-woman, since it places the value of the fetus over that of the woman. It doesn't place the fetus' value at the same level as other human beings, it actually places the value of the fetus over the value of women.

You don't have to hate women to prize the life of something you consider equal to a human being.

I'm not saying that all pro-lifers hate women. I'd say that there are a number of possibilities:
1. They hate women.
2. They don't care about women.
3. They care about women, but care less than they care about fetuses.

I don't think that any of those are particularly good though.

If a person comes to the conclusion that a fetus is equally valuable as a real human being, it can logically have a right to live which supercedes the woman's right to do what she will with her body and life.

Not to be flippant, but there's an easy test for this. If I am somehow keeping an equally valuable individual life prisoner in my body, then extract it and let it go it's own way. That doesn't work, right? Because it's not viable. It isn't a separate entity yet. It may be, it may not. I may have a miscarriage, I may not. The fetus may have a birth defect, it may not. The anti-abortionists seem to follow the chain of thought that it can be argued that the fetus will probably be carried to term, so it will eventually be an individual, which is the same as being an individual right now. Except that's really dishonest reasoning. A caterpillar will probably be a butterfly, that doesn't mean it's one at the moment.

That kind of discussion twisting seems to characterize a lot of the anti-abortion movement. You want to talk about flipping a concept, the hypocrisy of the "pro-life" movement is that it's not actually for life. It's not anti-war, anti-death penalty, and it's not for helping the kid's post birth survival rate. It's against abortion, period, the end. That is it's defining value.

It's a similar argument twist for abortion equaling murder. Why don't we investigate miscarriage as an accidental death? The reason we don't have miscarriage funerals is not because we're lacking a birthdate for the tombstone. It's because it's not the same thing. Aborting something that may be a person someday is not the same as brutally killing a separate individual with separate families, plans, hopes and dreams. I don't trust people that make this argument because it's deliberately ignoring reality.

I think the reason that the anti-abortion movement goes through these backflips is because their argument is a tough sell. The exceptions for rape and incest are included because it sounds better, it makes the imperialistic argument easier to swallow for the fence sitters, but it betrays the core idea. "I'm against abortion unless you have a good enough reason." is an even harder argument to make because it's so clearly based on personal opinion but that gets white-washed as compassion.

A fetus is not a person, that's why we call it a fetus. If you believe it's deeply and morally wrong to abort a fetus, that's fine. You have every right to believe that with every fiber of your being. Go ahead and argue the point, shun anyone that disagrees with you. But it's still based on your beliefs or opinions which really don't mean anything for a total stranger. The anti-abortion argument boils down to "I think it's wrong, and what I think is way more right and important than what you think. Thus you shouldn't be allowed to do it." If you think your beliefs supercedes the beliefs of others, you're not for equality, let alone feminism.

I would like to share my (extremely minority) viewpoint on reproducing as a means of illustration.

I believe it is morally inappropriate to reproduce at this time, especially at more than the replacement rate of ~2.1 children per woman. I believe humans hold a sacred duty to protect our planet and environment for future generations and for all species by ceasing our indiscriminate reproduction. I believe there are many selfish, unreasonable reasons to reproduce and few good ones.

In my perfect world:
1. Boys and girls would be reversibly sterilized at puberty.
2. Non-reproduction would be the default.
3. Reproduction for each individual would be carefully considered and strictly regulated.

Would I endorse laws that helped to enforce my vision of a perfect world? Absolutely not. Here’s why:
1. I acknowledge that other people are not required to subscribe to my moral views.
2. I realize that acting according to my moral code would represent, for other people, a transgression of their own morals and ethics.
3. Failing to promote my moral views is costly. However, seeking to control your morality and your reproduction is a greater moral transgression than doing nothing at all.

Universal and voluntary access to all effective means of reproductive control, including abortion, is a good middle ground for me because:
1. It allows me to live according to my beliefs.
2. It allows you to live according to yours.

Note that by denying me universal and voluntary access to all effective means of reproductive control, including abortion, you would be setting me up for forcible transgression of my moral code.

I do not mean to pass judgment on any of you happy parents out there or to demean your moral and reproductive choices. Peace and power to you and yours.

Bodily integrity may

However, to make the assertion reasonably consistant, organ, blood and bone marrow donation would be mandatory.

I agree a lot of pro-life ness is really anti-woman, and anti-sex with particular emphasis on the woman's half of the equation. Otherwise, "sodomy" wouldn't be a big deal to them, in fact, it would be a sacrement.

But the core notion that life > bodily integrity isn't necessarily misogynist.

In my perfect world:
1. Boys and girls would be reversibly sterilized at puberty.
2. Non-reproduction would be the default.
3. Reproduction for each individual would be carefully considered and strictly regulated.

Whoa. I thought I came up with this idea. :)

I sign on to the pro-choice camp for exactly the same reasons I disagree with Peeper's case.

Our highest aspirations as human beings revolve around our freedom to make choices, and not to have choices made for us. If you don't want to have an abortion, don't have one. If you don't believe in premarital sex, don't have it.

So when I read a sentence like "Reproduction for each individual would be carefully considered and strictly regulated." I get serious chills. I agree with the notion that the planet has too many people, but hold that the only way to overcome that is to work to ensure that people understand the implications of having lots and lots of babies, and have the means available to prevent it.

I don't want James Dobson, or anyone else, regulating my daughter's freedoms. Reproductive or otherwise.

If you think that abortion is murder, I think you're woefully uninformed, or misguided, or dishonest. Murder is the unjust, unlawful killing of a person.

Get a clue. What is the fetus? Not a human? A dog? A frog?

Hate to sound like a bumper sticker, but if it's not a baby, YOU'RE NOT PREGNANT.

Once sperm meets egg, a human has been created. That's just basic biology. If you want to support abortion rights, even though abortion is the deliberate killing of a human, go right ahead - but PLEASE acknowledge what you are supporting.

If artificial wombs were available, I would completely support every woman's right to use those. I think birth control if freakin fantastic (even though I have no need for it). I hate rape and think that rapists should be subjected to the death penalty. In short, I fully support a woman's ability to control her reproduction - but that doesn't extend to condoning murder as the mechanism by which such goal is achieved.

It's not anti-woman. I don't think that men should be able to get out of parenthood by kicking their girlfriends in the stomach, even though that would accomplish the unalienable right to decide how and when to become a parent. If you disagree, is it because you want to punish men for having sex? Or is it because there's something wrong with the chosen mechanism?

I don't think that the ends justify the means. Y'all do. That doesn't make me a non-feminist; it just means that I'm not so blinded by "a woman's right to chose [to kill her child]" that I endorse the "right," simply because it is always exercised by women.

If men got pregnant, you can be I would still be anti-abortion. So why is it sexist?

FYI: there's six times as many post-abortive women in the National Right to Life League as there are in NARAL. Who has the feminist side? There's more pro-life women than pro-life men. Are they just all stupid, or is there something misogynistic about abortion - the idea that the weakest members of our society can be disposed of by the stronger, for their convenience?

You are clearly impassiones about this, oenophile, but you are not being entirely fair about what constitutes biological fact.

Paul G, I fear you've missed my point, which was that, regardless of what I think is ideal for the world and for other people, it is not my right or responsibility to dictate it to them.

Get a clue. What is the fetus? Not a human? A dog? A frog?

Oenophile- this is intellectual dishonesty. You're not engaging fairly or honestly here. We've been over this many times now.

Human != Person

How many times are you going to act like you're unaware of the difference?

Further: Even if the fetus were a person, that doesn't make killing it murder, since it's not necessarily unjust and it's certainly not unlawful to get one.

If you want to support abortion rights, even though abortion is the deliberate killing of a human, go right ahead - but PLEASE acknowledge what you are supporting.

I've made my position very clear. I have absolutely no problem pointing out that the fetus is alive, and that it is human. What it is not, is a person. I'm quite clear on what I support... are you?

but that doesn't extend to condoning murder as the mechanism by which such goal is achieved.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I don't think that men should be able to get out of parenthood by kicking their girlfriends in the stomach, even though that would accomplish the unalienable right to decide how and when to become a parent. If you disagree, is it because you want to punish men for having sex? Or is it because there's something wrong with the chosen mechanism?

Can you honestly not see the difference between a man walking up to the woman carrying his child- a woman who exists completely independent of him and who does not rely on his biology for any of her life functions and assaulting her, and a woman wanting to remove the fetus from her body? The fetus that is causing serious changes in her physiology, and that survives solely through the use of her body parts?

If you say you can't see how those two situations aren't even remotely similar, then I repeat: you're woefully uninformed, or misguided, or dishonest.

If men got pregnant, you can be I would still be anti-abortion. So why is it sexist?

It's anti-woman because you're endorsing a policy that absolutely hurts women. It's that simple. You can pull up a hypothetical like that and try to justify that it's not anti-woman, but you're pulling up a hypothetical that's impossible.

If you endorse a policy that says that anyone who was born with a womb has to serve X years of demestic servitude, that'd be anti-woman too. You can say "Well, I'd support the policy even if men were born with wombs!" but that's stupid. Men can't get pregnant, and they aren't born with wombs. Citing that as a hypothetical doesn't prove anything. Any bigot can do that- "Well, I don't support the right for heterosexuals to marry the same sex, either. I'm not a homophobe, I just don't think that any same sex couples should marry. Homosexuals can still marry- they just have to marry someone that isn't the same sex."

There's more pro-life women than pro-life men. Are they just all stupid, or is there something misogynistic about abortion

That's a false dichotomy. It could just be that they're all wrong.

Oenophile: endorsing equality as an abstract principle while simultaneously opposing policies designed to produce intergroup equality is the very definition of modern-symbolic prejudice.

Modern-symbolic prejudice enables people to surreptitiously subvert true intergroup equality, while still maintaining an egalitarian self-image.

Saying, "Women are wonderful and competent, but I am the best person to make decisions about their abortions" sounds a lot like modern-symbolic prejudice.

That might be why you are finding people are perceiving you as anti-feminist or anti-woman. Not that I said that. I don't know you. But you might want to consider this.

"Hate to sound like a bumper sticker, but if it's not a baby, YOU'RE NOT PREGNANT. Once sperm meets egg, a human has been created. That's just basic biology."

No. Once sperm meets egg, the process of creating a full human has begun. That's just basic biology.

There is not BAM! -- immediately a baby. Or even a fetus. There's a fertilized egg, which becomes a blastula, which becomes an embryo, and so on.

I mean really, if we were going to take the view that the moment an egg is fertilized it's a full human being, I'd be expected to mourn and put the contents into a tiny coffin every time I have an especially heavy period -- 'cause hey, that could have been a very early miscarriage.

Portraying a fetus as being either a "living breathing person" or merely a cellular mass with the potential to become a human is sort of narrow minded. Saying that the combination of a sperm and egg is a human is clearly (no offense oenophile) ridiculous. But it is equally ridiculous to assume that upon birth a baby instantly goes from being a cellular mass to a human. The average baby is born after ~36-40 weeks of gestation, so I will assume that we all agree that producing a "human life" takes at a maximum 36 weeks. However, on rare occasions, babies have survived premature births at 21 weeks of gestation. Does this phenomenon mean that a fetus becomes a "human life" after 21 weeks of gestation? If not, would disposing of such a child be alright? Also, if a baby is postmaturely born (a baby can survive up to about 2.5 weeks past 40 weeks before the placenta begins to degrade) would it be alright to to abort it, despite it being as developed as other babies that had already been born?

The main reason for this post was to point out that whether or not something is "alive" is not black or white like many of the previous posts seemed to indicate. I'm not saying that late term abortions (D&X are the only abortions used after 20 weeks of gestation) are necessarily murder, but its certainly something to think about.

I would also like to point out that the premature births i spoke of would require some assistance for their survival but its mostly due to the fact that their lungs have not produced enough surfacant to inflate.

The main reason for this post was to point out that whether or not something is "alive" is not black or white like many of the previous posts seemed to indicate.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. The fetus is obviously alive. It grows and metabolizes- which are the two basic tests for "life" as far as I'm aware. The fact that the fetus is alive is pretty much a given, else the woman wouldn't be seeking an abortion, yeah?

THe question is: "Why does that matter?"

The answer is: "It doesn't."

Life isn't a special magical status that prevents us from ever harming the living thing. We harm living things all the time, and nothing about the fetus grants it special privleges above and beyond what any other person should have.

I would also like to point out that the premature births i spoke of would require some assistance for their survival but its mostly due to the fact that their lungs have not produced enough surfacant to inflate.

They require help: but not from one particular person, and certainly not from one particular person's organs.

"I'm not saying that late term abortions (D&X are the only abortions used after 20 weeks of gestation) are necessarily murder..."

Considering that late-term abortions are only done in cases of the fetus being found non-viable (as far as I know -- can anyone confirm or refute that for me?), I'd say that they're a form of very early euthanasia.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. The fetus is obviously alive. It grows and metabolizes- which are the two basic tests for "life" as far as I'm aware

generally, five basic "tests", as you put it, are used to determine if something is alive. I agree that the Fetus could be considered alive (only because each cell could be considered alive) in a biological sense, but I was sort of referring to whether or not the fetus was developed enough to be considered a human, or "person" as one user stated in an earlier post.

THe question is: "Why does that matter?"
The answer is: "It doesn't."

Saying that whether or not the fetus is a "person" is irrelevant is ridiculous. This would imply that killing someone who makes your life unpleasant is "your choice".

They require help: but not from one particular person, and certainly not from one particular person's organs.

After 20 weeks of gestation, which is the period of time i was talking about, the only technique employed is D&X abortions. In many cases, the chemicals used to dilate the cervix induce labor. So, if you are within the limit of viability, why not just deliver the baby? Once you have delivered 75% of the baby, is it really easier to make a blind cut in the baby's head (the doctor can't see where hes cutting raising the risk of perforating the uterus) than to just wait 5 more seconds for the baby to fully emerge? Also, if they were to deliver the baby, they wouldn't have to deliver the baby feet first, which is significantly more hazardous for the woman than delivering the baby in the typical position.

Considering that late-term abortions are only done in cases of the fetus being found non-viable (as far as I know -- can anyone confirm or refute that for me?), I'd say that they're a form of very early euthanasia.

haha if this is true I'm gonna feel like an idiot. I have read about some D&X abortions being carried out for other reasons but they are all sort of old cases. Also, with all of the political bias on this subject, they may just be fictional pro-life horror stories.

“Saying that whether or not the fetus is a "person" is irrelevant is ridiculous. This would imply that killing someone who makes your life unpleasant is "your choice".�
Ah! No that’s where you’re wrong. It simply means that if someone needs your body to survive, you have the right to deny them the use of your body. If that means that they are going to die if they can’t use your body, then too bad for them. That’s not your responsibility.

sojourner, thats what I'm saying. If you just leave out the final step in D&X abortions, there is a very good chance that the baby WILL SURVIVE without depending any more on the mother.

there is a very good chance that the baby WILL SURVIVE without depending any more on the mother.

No. No, there isn't. In fact, it takes extraordinary care and a great deal of luck to save the life of a baby born even nine weeks premature. Talk to the parents of premature infants about how touch and go the whole situation was. "A very good chance" is overstating the case immensely. Given that many of these procedures are done on women who wanted to have babies, and are having to forego that deep desire due either to extreme fetal abnormality or severe health risk to herself, if it were possible to have these babies, they would.

I'm not saying that late term abortions (D&X are the only abortions used after 20 weeks of gestation)

A fetus at 20 weeks of gestation has a ZERO chance of survival.

No. No, there isn't. In fact, it takes extraordinary care and a great deal of luck to save the life of a baby born even nine weeks premature.

Exactly!

If you just leave out the final step in D&X abortions, there is a very good chance that the baby WILL SURVIVE without depending any more on the mother.

And who will pay for and provide the care this incredibly fragile baby needs? Assuming, that is, that there is access to the care to begin with. Will the woman be forced into that too?

The typical baby adopted from overseas costs the family b/t 40,000 and 400,000 dollars. That should cover the costs of nurturing it. Also, about premature babies having no chance of survival, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_of_viability
the normally accepted limit of viability is 23 weeks, if you look up premature births you'll find reference to some babies having survived births at 21 weeks of gestation.

"Limit of viability" means that it's just possible with the very best medical care and good luck, not that it's likely.

Saying that whether or not the fetus is a "person" is irrelevant is ridiculous. This would imply that killing someone who makes your life unpleasant is "your choice".

It doesn't imply that at all. What it states, outright, is that the fetus' being alive doesn't matter because the woman's right to control her body would outweigh any rights the fetus might have, because no person has rights against another person's body.

And yes, a fetus can survive at 21 weeks, but it's ridiculously rare, and extremely expensive. Who is going to pay for that? And who is going to care for the child? Women rarely get abortions that late unless there are serious medical reasons they're looking for one. At 20+ weeks, it's almost always because of serious medical conditions.