LOVE, LOVE, LOVE this. Someone should ask Chris Matthews which organization his daughter raised money for last year. Here's a hint: it wasn't Feminists for Life, ALL or a CPC. Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington would like to again extend their thanks to her and her classmates for their donation. At least someone in the Matthews Family has sense.

LOVE, LOVE, LOVE this. Someone should ask Chris Matthews which organization his daughter raised money for last year. Here's a hint: it wasn't Feminists for Life, ALL or a CPC. Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington would like to again extend their thanks to her and her classmates for their donation. At least someone in the Matthews Family has sense.

Now, Matthews' anti-woman stance is well-known. However, I have heard the argument from choice-loving women that we're at a disadvantage on the PR front because "pro-life" just sounds better than "pro-choice," as long as you don't think about the meanings behind the words. Who wants to say they're opposed to life? Of course, that ignores the minor fact that pro-life is actually anti-life. That's part of the reason we want to categorize them as "anti-choice."

I don't know, and I kinda doubt, that this is what Matthews meant, but perhaps he was getting a dig in on the pro-choice side's inability to have a "catchy" name, not a revelation of an anti-choice stance.

Matthews may have a record on saying things that are offensive, but whats wrong with this now? You're taking one sentence that could mean many different things, and imposing on it what you *believe* he means.

Yeah, all pro-choicers hate babies and want to slay them. That's why when I was counter-protesting the anti-choice people outside PP-NYC last weekend we kept getting thumbs-ups and thank yous from people with adorable children in strollers. I mean, Brooklyn Heights. It's pretty much chock-full-o early-30s couples and their adorable children in expensive strollers. And maybe a dog. Either an over-priced small dog from a breeder or a rescue mutt (I love that rescue mutts are becoming trendy, but I digress).

Damn those baby-killers and their offspring.

As someone who has always supported abortions (perhaps for amoral reasons) I find pro-choice and pro-life disingenuous terms. Is it pro-choice to support abortions in the 35th or 10th week of pregnancy? Why do most women make an arbitrary distinction when a child can and cannot be aborted? Personally I support a women's choice to abort up until the baby has a reasonable chance of survival outside of the mothers womb (20 something weeks). Likewise I doubt many pro-choice people would extend women the right to abort in the delivery room or even negligently harm a fetus they plan to carry to birth. Does this make me anti-choice?

Yeah, all pro-choicers hate babies and want to slay them. That's why when I was counter-protesting the anti-choice people outside PP-NYC last weekend we kept getting thumbs-ups and thank yous from people with adorable children in strollers. I mean, Brooklyn Heights. It's pretty much chock-full-o early-30s couples and their adorable children in expensive strollers. And maybe a dog. Either an over-priced small dog from a breeder or a rescue mutt (I love that rescue mutts are becoming trendy, but I digress).

Damn those baby-killers and their offspring.

Gordon_Gekko, the notion of late-term abortions being the result of a woman saying, "Yeah, I've been carrying this thing around for months, eating for two, getting pre-natal care and all that, but now I've changed my mind -- kill the li'l bugger" is a canard spread by anti-choicers. D&E abortions are done when the fetus is found to be non-viable. Read this.

Pro-Choice is the real Pro-Life and it is about time these idiots realise it.

I don't think you can draw any conclusions based on what Matthews said here. His statement doesn't indicate if he's either pro-choice or pro-life for that matter. He's just a making a PR observation that there could be a better label for the choice movement. Is there anything else which suggests that he's pro-life?

I think Matthews has many failings--a large ego & small mind among them--but I don't think he's extremely sexist. He gets the most criticism for acknowledging an inconvenient truth, that Hillary gained tremendous admiration--much more than even other female pols--because of the personal strength she exhibited during the Lewinsky crisis. There are plenty of smart, exciting female pols out there--Sebelius, Napolitano, Boxer, Feinstein--but what sets Hillary's experience apart from their's is the courage, sacrifice, and loyalty exhibited in the Lewinsky crisis that simultaneously elevated her & made her much easier to relate to. Many women in her generation & earlier "had" to put up with a philandering husband. Hillary's grace under fire was the first suggestion that she could take the fire of being commander-in-chief. Matthews may have been inelegant & ungracious in his statement, but I don't think he was inaccurate.

And I say that having been a big fan of how she's handled the unprecedented sexism she faced as first lady.

For me, one of the worst political sins is expressing a view which threatens liberty. Sure, we must live with laws which restrict our freedoms, but there is a difference in having traffic signals which regulate the flow of traffic in order to make our streets safer, and someone wishing to legislate their own ideas about morality.

Although many laws are morality based, almost all of them also serve a common sense function of making our society more livable, e.g. murder and robbery are "wrong" but the primary reason for laws against them is to safeguard life and property so that people can have some reasonable expectation that when they leave their homes to go to work they will be able to spend their hard-earned cash and not be killed in the process.

I know plenty of "pro-life" people, and some are close friends, but on this issue we simply do not see eye to eye, and I have stopped arguing with them because the discussions go nowhere we haven't already been many times before. Every now and then I attempt to point out how this intrusion in to people’s private lives goes against their generally conservative views. I am not sure, but I think I may be having an effect on a couple of them.

Thankfully, a large majority of our population support a woman's right to choose.

david

Gekko, no one has 35 week abortions. There's no such thing. At that late date, labor can be induced if the baby is non-viable. Do you actually know anything about pregnancy? Anti-choicers love to bring up late term abortions, but they're almost always done for the saddest of reasons: there's something terribly wrong with the fetus and the woman wants to be spared months of carrying a pregnancy when she knows she's going to end up with a dead or dying child. I'm 25 weeks pregnant, and I cannot imagine what that could be like, every day being reminded of what you have lost as people smile at you and ask if it's a boy or a girl and if you're excited. Occasionally late term abortions are done if the mother's life or sanity is at risk. No one chooses to have those abortions, they're forced. They're also rare. Anti-choicers love to make it seem like women realize they can't fit into their jeans anymore and decide to have an abortion. It doesn't work like that.

Matthews is guilty of many things--a large ego and small mind among them--but I don't think he's extremely sexist. Certainly this clip sounds like a PR observation on his part, and indicates no particular stand on abortion.

As far as his most famous 'sexist' comment goes, it was an inconvenient truth. What most distinguishes Hillary from other prominent female pols was the courage, strength, and grace under fire of the Lewinsky crisis. Other women--Sebelius, Boxer, Feinstein, Napolitano--are smart and gifted, but none have endured the public searing Hillary did.

Both this public roasting & the private one foisted on her by Bill have endeared her to 18M supporters. Matthew's formulation in this regard may have been inelegant & ungracious, but it was not inaccurate. Her grace under fire, in fact, was the first suggestion that she could exhibit similar resolve in directing fire as Commander-In-Chief.

Matthews is guilty of many things--a large ego and small mind among them--but I don't think he's extremely sexist. Certainly this clip sounds like a PR observation on his part, and indicates no particular stand on abortion.

As far as his most famous 'sexist' comment goes, it was an inconvenient truth. What most distinguishes Hillary from other prominent female pols was the courage, strength, and grace under fire she exhibited during the Lewinsky crisis. Other women--Sebelius, Boxer, Feinstein, Napolitano--are smart and gifted, but none have endured the public searing Hillary did.

Both this public roasting, and the private one foisted on her by Bill, have endeared her to 18M supporters, seeing in her struggles a reflection of their own public & private fights.

Matthew's statement in this regard may have been inelegant & ungracious, but it was not inaccurate. Her grace under fire, in fact, was the first suggestion that she could exhibit similar resolve in directing fire as Commander-In-Chief.

As a Buddhist, I am pro-life. And as a Buddhist, I am also pro-choice.

I hate how those opposed to abortion force us into this black/white thinking whereupon you cannot identify as both and pigeonhole pro-choice as anti-life. They set up this false dichotomy whereupon if you support a woman's life and her right to make medical decisions for her and her body, you're by proxy, pro-killing of babies.

I am prolife and don't like the label anti-choice. I don't believe those that are pro-choice are anti-family, anti-child or anti anything else the pro-life movement tries to label them as. As a Christian,I believe all life is precious. I personally could never get an abortion. I'm one of those rare pro-lifers that actually thinks abortion should be legal. I've read the accounts of women who got abortions pro Roe v Wade and they were heart breaking. There are many hypocracies in the pro-life movement which is why I tend to distance myself from them. they are pro-baby but not pro-woman at all. Some of the extremist don't seem to regard the life of the mother at all. I've been accused of being pro-choice by them but trust me I'm not. I want abortion to restricted as posible. Only in the first trimester and with spousal and parental consent when neccesary. this pro-lifer doesn't want to go back to the pre Roe v wade days.

Pagal--if you believe abortion should be legal, despite wishing to never have one yourself, then you ARE pro-choice. You choose not to have an abortion but don't wish to deny other women the choice to have one. See how that works?

Haha, bet me to it boltgirl. First of all, you cannot be pro-life and support choice. It does not fit within the definition of pro-life, and is precisely why I like the word anti-choice (NOT just to offend, hence not using it with "pro-life" people)

But even more contradictory is your claim you don't want to "go back to pre-Roe vs Wade" but you want women to have to get PERMISSION to abort. What the fuck? You don't think that's just setting women up for abuse or back to the good old coathanger to avoid being beaten or cast out by your family? Hell, even with a supportive partner I would seriously consider home-aborting to avoid that shit (if I could find chemical abortificants).

I use birth control. I am in a position where I could afford and support a child. If my birth control fails I WILL abort and I will feel sad but I refuse to bear a child. End of story

I'm so glad to live in Australia where women have guaranteed access to safe abortion clinics. I hope this never changes.

Pagal, I don't think any woman should be denied the right to manage her own womb. If I hadn't been able to have my abortion 2 years ago, I know it would have ruined my life. I was suffering from depression, in the throes of a breakup from the loser who got me pregnant, and was in no way set up emotionally or financially to have a child. If I'd been denied an abortion, considering the bleak mental state I was in, I probably would have ended my own life.

Being forced to bring an unwanted baby into the world is cruel, both to the child and mother. And I think we already have enough unwanted people in the world, don't you?

Abortion debate aside, I don't really understand why anyone would get a coathanger abortion (pre-Roe days). Wouldn't it just be easier to give the baby up for adoption than to put your own health at such a high risk?? It really doesn't make any sense to me.

Rachel & Pagal: if you're only pro-life for yourself, then you're not anti-choice. You've made your choice, and you accept the right of others to make choices different from your own.

But, Pagal, what good do you think it does to force women to jump through hoops to get an abortion? The entire business that "Oh, if only women who were going to get abortions knew that they were going to get abortions!" is ridiculous and insulting. And why the hell would you want spousal and parental consent laws? The only choice that is relevant is that of the woman herself! They should be making sure that getting an abortion is her decision, and the only other people involved are those who she's chosen to get involved.

Abortion debate aside, I don't really understand why anyone would get a coathanger abortion (pre-Roe days). Wouldn't it just be easier to give the baby up for adoption than to put your own health at such a high risk?? It really doesn't make any sense to me.

Sunshine007, I'm sure others will offer more possibilities, but here's a short list:

- It's a young girl who fears her parents will abuse her or throw her out of the house if they discover she has had sex

- It's a woman with a controlling boyfriend or husband who wants her to be tied down with lots of children, but puts little thought into the care and feeding of said children

- The woman is a sole struggling breadwinner for a family, or just for herself, and can't afford to lose the job she has

I never understood the concept of "parental consent" laws for abortion. It makes no sense to argue "oh, she's under 18, so she's too immature to make a decision about whether or not to be a parent --- but absolutely mature enough to be responsible for another human being." WTF?

Anyway, guys like Matthews are so in love with this romanticized notion of masculinity that they can't see past their own penises and have perspective.

I find it extraordinarily bizarre.

Sunshine, there are many women out there for whom just being pregnant is cause for concern. ShifterCat listed them succinctly already, so I won't bother repeating.