Interesting statistics, and I wish more people on both "sides" would adopt the sober point of view hinted at in your last paragraph. It would be nice, however, to see the figures broken down by state or region - there are well-documented regional variations in the availability of abortions, and as long as this is the case, it will be impossible to make too much headway in de-politicizing the issue.

thanks Jon, just click on the link to the report for all kinds of charts and breakdowns, including by state.

"59% were performed at earlier than 8 weeks gestation, and 88% at earlier than 13 weeks."

Good news? Sorta.

It's a damn shame that 12% of abortions still occur in the 2nd or 3rd trimester.

If 100% of abortions took place during the 1st trimester, I would not be so much opposed to abortion. I mean, an undifferentiated clump of cells can be killed without too much moral/ethical hand-wringing. (For the non-religious, at least.)

But when you start sucking the brains out of unborn babies who could conceivably survive outside the womb, and when "pro-choice" groups strongly support such practices, I gag.

Offering the "morning-after pill" OTC could reduce the number of ALL abortions. Which is why I support that measure. Unfortunately, many on the "pro-life" side oppose it...

It's a damn shame that 12% of abortions still occur in the 2nd or 3rd trimester.

And you don't know the reasons why those abortions occur in those trimesters. Could very well be that the majority are for medical reasons.

I would have to say that the pee-stick pregnancy detectors have obviously had an effect on the rate of early first-trimester abortions. You can find out if you're pregnant on the day you're supposed to get your period, a mere two weeks after conceiving. Amazing.

"good news"???

Now that is "rhetoric".

Eric, being one of those deceptive but clever Republicans, I have to applaud your blog. It is true from the first word to the last. As a Republican who believes in pro-choice (as a matter of law), and is against it (as a matter of personal preference), I know that NO party will ever be able to strike down a woman's right to choose (much less a Presidenet). I think your blog was beautifully documented, exceptionally well written, and true. The republicans can go to pro-life rhetoric and family values, a marriage amendment and even prayer in schools (for those who believe it should be there) which appeals to the majority of its supporters, and then blame the Democrats, when none of them materialize on a federal level. They are safe to espouse their values, without impacting the laws already in place. The perfect scenario, a white hat and an empty gun :D

Claire

thanks Claire, and very well put

RJ, I and most Americans agree that the earlier the better for abortion and that preventing conception in the first place, or the "morning after" as it were, is the ideal. Both sides speak in hyperbole but the great majority are in the middle, wishing as Clinton said for it to be "legal, safe and rare."

BB, it is very hard to argue with the no exception pro-life stance because either you buy that it is completely immoral or you don't.

A key angle I didn't really address here tha Claire brought up is that it is a perfectly reasonable position to take to be personally opposed on moral/religious grounds, but to also see that it is overreach for the law to dictate what women may or may not do, within reasonable bounds, with their own reproductive systems.

So, how many people are pro-life? How many are pro-choice?

I'm pro-life, a-thank you.

Oh yeah, since abortion is legal and I'm pro-life, that means I'm still a liberal, right?

Scoota...in answer to your query...LOLOL..or your five queries...no that doesn't mean you are a liberal. It means you are pro-life. I am personally pro-life (although I support a woman's right to choose [at the earliest possible date, preferably during the act, but the morning after as EO mentioned] as a matter of law), and I consider myself a conservative. I am a staunch republican (eeekkkk!, scary isn't it...:D)

Claire

my udnerstanding of the term "pro-life" in this context is that it means you're anti-abortion...if that's the case, then how can you be both pro-life AND pro-choice?
*confused*

Jadestar...it is very easy. I am a strict constitutionalist. I can have a personal preference for something, and still support a law which is legally in place and has been tested time and again. I am not going to have an abortion (my personal choice). I support those who are pro-choice judiciously because it is the law. Give to Caesar....etc.

I also wish non-demoninational devotionals in schools were a regular practice, and that it was acceptable because it was the law. But once again, being a strict constitutionalist, it cannot be allowed. No deity can be brought within 15 miles of any federally funded institution (schools, courts, federal buildings, etc), because it would color them with a Judeo-Christian mindset (which, while that doesn't bother me in the least), is clearly in conflict with the constitution. Now as to the guns....:D The 2nd amendment has been grossly misconstrued by the courts, and by those who think they have a right to an arsenal....I'll go that round. :D

Claire

There are many reasons for these things. And it is a hard pill to swallow for a conservative who appreciates the presence of a deity and that which a deity would smile upon. But our constitution has worked for 200 plus years, and it is what distinguishes us from anarchy and despots who would impose their own values on our way of life.

I think abortions should remain legal. I believe that a parent should not be able to force a teen (say 16&up) to abort, or force a teen to carry to term, either.

What most "compassionate" Christians who are staunchly pro-life to the point of ridiculousness do not understand is that 1: We have an overpopulation problem as it is, 2: just because an embryo or fetus has the potential for sentience does not mean that it is in itself sentient, and 3: that in a country there parents cannot abort unwanted children, within a few generations, the society would crumble underfoot because of all the resent and hate generated by those unwanted childrens' presence.

Dizzy, that's the practical side of it and that counts too.

"We have an overpopulation problem as it is"

Not in the West. In fact, the "problem" is just the opposite...

I would like to draw your attention to a post on this issue that I found touching.

Overpopulation can never be a defense for abortion rights - that is a dangerous road to travel down. Alternative solutions like female education work far better. India, for example, educated the women and empowered them, in effect, to refuse sex - as I shall post in a detailed article sometime - thereby bringing the birthrate down considerably. This was much more effective than the forced sterilization programs of the 1970s

I normally stay away from topics like this, but I just spurted water out of my nose laughing when I read this: "in a country there parents cannot abort unwanted children, within a few generations, the society would crumble underfoot because of all the resent and hate generated by those unwanted childrens' presence."

Like, oh, the United States of America for the first 200 years of its existence?

Surely you can do better than that, right?

/me wipes tears from eyes

"We have an overpopulation problem as it is"

RJ: Not in the West. In fact, the "problem" is just the opposite...

The hell it is. The West is getting way too crowded. And I'm all for abortion if that prevents things from getting worse.

Overpopulation can never be a defense for abortion rights - that is a dangerous road to travel down.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Alternative solutions like female education work far better.

At some point in history, will we ever make MEN share equal responsibility in the unwanted pregnancy rate?

Overpopulation can never be a defense for abortion rights - that is a dangerous road to travel down.

I might agree if only because it's problematical to tie "rights" to practicality.

That said, overpopulation is itself a dangerous road to travel down. You will see a lot of "rights" disappear as the world gets more crowded and resources become scarce. And as any economist can tell you, nothing devalues life more than an overabundance of it.

"RJ: Not in the West. In fact, the "problem" is just the opposite..."

"The hell it is. The West is getting way too crowded. And I'm all for abortion if that prevents things from getting worse."

Check the birth rates, JR. The West is not even reproducing at a rate to maintain its current population.

The only way Western nations increase in population in thru immigration.

And your comment "I'm all for abortion if that prevents (overpopulation) from getting worse" is akin to what the NAZIs believed.

Of course, I'm not calling you a NAZI. Just saying that your position is similar to what someone who loves eugenics might say...

Check the birth rates, JR. The West is not even reproducing at a rate to maintain its current population.

Doing a quick google search on the U.S. birth rate, turns up a lot of right wing sites that speak of the 'death of the west', however, if you skip over these sites that are known for misinformation and go straight to the CIA's government site, you can see that the birth rate of the U.S. is 14.13 births per 1,000 of the population. The death rate is 8.34 per 1,000. This indicates that the U.S. population is growing, although some of that number would be immigrants who give birth here, making their children legitimate U.S. citizens, however they wouldn't be white, which would explain why the right wing websites are all atwitter with misinformation and fear.

And your comment "I'm all for abortion if that prevents (overpopulation) from getting worse" is akin to what the NAZIs believed.

It's my understanding that he is not advocating forced abortion to eradicate an entire race of people. However, by making abortion legal and available, women who cannot support children would have an abortion and then a consequence of it would be a lower population. A consequence, not an intent.

The best way to curb abortion rates is for the Right to quit trying to force women who cannot support children, to bear children, and to be more forceful in requiring the man to fulfill his obligations. Make the term 'deadbeat dad' obsolete and there won't be many needs for abortion.

Also, support same-sex marriage. We will never abort our children because we don't have them by mistake.

People are concerned about the birth rate, but AFAIK, fears about underpopulation are based on extrapolation of current trends. That is, based on the way things have gone over the last X years, in Y more years, more people will die than be born. Even then, the first country to face that, IIRC, will be France, not America. We're doing "okay," neither overpopulating nor underpopulating in any significant way.

I'm curious about the best way to handle "deadbeat dad" situations. I'd be all in favor of hard prison time for non-support, except that those men would still not be supporting the children.

I'd be all in favor of hard prison time for non-support, except that those men would still not be supporting the children.

I would be willing to bet that the number of men who commit this moral crime would decrease significantly, although not altogether. Personally, I favor social programs to help women who are struggling single parents, and with harsher laws for deadbeat fathers, the number of women who would need this support would significantly decrease as well, saving taxpayers millions as we do our moral duty to help those in poverty.

However, these much needed social programs are another target of the right, who want to squelch them without doing anything to make the men more accountable.

However, by making abortion legal and available, women who cannot support children would have an abortion and then a consequence of it would be a lower population. A consequence, not an intent.

Lower than what? The result of an abortion is no different than the result of effective birth control, from a population standpoint.

As a pro-choice feminist, I have to say that I literally recoil when I hear abortion and overpopulation mentioned in the same breath. They are not related. The decision to end a pregnancy is a personal choice that a woman makes, sometimes with the counsel of others, sometimes not.

Population/Overpopulation is an entirely different matter and has nothing to do with abortion rights. As soon as abortion becomes a "tool" for anything at the societal level, it ceases to be a decision each woman has control over. So hearing that argument is no less frightening than hearing arguments that all abortion rights should be abolished. Abortion is a personal thing, not a societal thing.

No offense, but why doesn't it surprise me that men are discussing the "use" of abortion this way?

Good point, bhw. The only reason I got into that conversation was to dispute the connection to Nazism. I didn't see JR saying it would be a tool for anything at a societal level, but perhaps I misread. I agree that once it is used for society's 'gain' (for lack of a better word), then it does cease to involve a woman's right to choose. And that would be horrific.

Personally, I don't think the population is too much, we have a lot of land in Wyoming, Nevada, etc. that people can go to, if they don't want to live in a big city. I don't see abortion as anything to do with population control. I just thought JR wasn't thinking along the lines of 'forced abortion', so was disputing that analogy. Apologies for any offense.

I agree that abortion should not be any kind of tool, and should have made the point long ago. I dont' believe anyone was actually advocating abortion AS a tool, but rather speaking of, as Steve said, consequences rather than intent.

Back to the central justification for legal abortion: the state simply doesn't have the right, in my opinion, to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her own body as long as the other entity is viable, ie, cannot exist apart from her. It's a privacy right.

When I mentioned practicality, I mean that abortions ARE going to happen whether they are legal or not and it is much better that they be safe and without undue (which doesn't mean no, necessarily) stigma attached. And that attempting by force of law to force women to have children, even when they are unwanted, can only increase social pathology.

I hope I have been more clear and precise: I do not approve of abortion as a casual means of birth control, I do not believe it should be ever taken lightly, and should be basically seen as a one-time second chance.

Thanks for responding, Steve and Eric, particularly after my "men" comment. As long as we're still talking about abortion as a personal issue and not a societal one, in terms of the reasons for keeping it legal, I think discussing the consequences/results is valuable.

and in #27 graph 2, I of course meant "not viable"

If abortion isn't the killing of an unborn baby, then it isn't a bad thing at all. It's no worse than an apendectomy or a tonsilectomy.

And if it isn't a bad thing, why shouldn't a woman have 1 or 2 or 3 or 5 or 10 abortions? What's the big deal?

See, this is why abortion is such a divisive issue. A "fetus"/"unborn baby" is either "a life of great value", or "a mindless glob of undifferentiated cells".

If it's the former, abortion is an inexcusable horror. And if it's the latter, it's of no importance whatsoever.

Simply suggesting that it's a "bad" thing, but should be allowed anyway is a pretty difficult moral line to walk, IMHO...

Or, looked at another way, saying that abortion is a "woman's unalienable Constitutional right" and should forever remain legal and easily accessable, yet hoping that the practice is "rare" in the same breath (like BJ Clinton did) is an untenable position.

Why should the practice of an inalienable Constitutional right be "rare"?

Because it means that there was an unwanted pregnancy and then a subsequent unwanted medical procedure.

Prevention is the key.

So the fetus/unborn baby is not a variable in the equation?

Not if you prevent it from existing in the first place. ;-)

I see what you're saying, RJ, but just because we have a right to do something doesn't mean that everyone has to agree that it's a good idea to do it. We have lots of rights that people can abuse, such as, say, the right [for straight people] to get married and divorced as many times as they want. Most people would say that it's not a good thing when someone is on husband/wife number 5 or 6 or higher, but it's still legal and it should be [for everyone].

So in that sense, we might say that divorce/remarriage should be safe, legal, and rare, as well, shouldn't it?

As for the fetus/baby in the abortion equation, it still, for me, comes down to the woman. I can honestly say that I get really, really frightened by the idea that some day there might be a federal restriction on my ability to get an abortion. I have no plans of ever having an abortion, and circumstances would have to be dire for me to get one, but it's a right I like to know is there if I need it. Why should the government be able to determine when my circumstances are dire enough?

Having been pregnant twice and watched the ultrasounds and followed my children's development week by week in one of those annoying pregnancy books, I can say that yes, the idea of abortion after 15 weeks or so makes me squeamish. But I have to balance that feeling with the right of the woman to control her own body, and to me, that right wins out every time.

So for me, the goals are a) to get men and women to be smarter about contraception so that fewer and fewer abortions are needed in the first place and b) to continue making [better and better] morning-after medications available, ideally over the counter, so that pregnancies can be prevented from developing even if couples were stupid about contraception.

very good analogy about divorce, bhw, and "rights" don't necessarily mean something is "right," simply that it's up to the individual rather than the government

RJ, your dichotomy between "worthless" and "fully protected" doesn't hold: neither is true. All life is to be valued and protected unless there are extenuating circumstances, and in this case tose circumstances are the right of the woman to make decisions about the internal workings of her own body, within reason, which basically means viability

BHW, I agree that "the morning-after pill" should be sold OTC. That would surely prevent hundreds or thousands of unanted pregnancies each year.

And, as someone who is non-religious (except when I'm in trouble, haha), I don't have much of a problem with abortions in the first trimester.

After that though...I tend to view it as infanticide. And infanticide is one of the most vile crimes a human being can ever commit.

So...color me ambivalent about one of the most divisive issues of our time. :-/

All very interesting and thought provoking comments. I am simply of the view that a woman should be allowed to abort an unwanted child at whatever time she decides to. I may be naive but I truly believe that before a woman comes to the decision that she is prepared to remove the life growing inside her, she must have given it serious thought. Plus, abortion is very risky and not an easy process. It may have long term consequences too. For a woman to decide to put herself through this, it must have been thought through. Once she arrives at that decision, she does not need a man or the Government to tell her she can not do it. She is the one whose life will be changed irrevocably. Yes, it's unfair on the men because we want them to share the blame of the pregnancy or pay child support or what have you but we don't want them to have an influential say on our choice to keep or abort. Yes, it's unfair but that's just too freaking bad. Women bear a lot of unfair things too. One unfair thing for the men won't hurt. As for the Government, they shouldn't even have a say other than to provide decent hospitals to carry out the abortions.

Once you weigh the fact that a man can stop a woman from having an abortion, and sit idly by while her body goes through changes, she goes through labour where she could die heaven forbid, or suffer some other complications..you weigh that against a man having the right to stop a woman and you just think, the woman's gotta choose.

Must state that, due to religuous background I am against abortion but I think those with no such held beliefs must be allowed to do what they must. Also, I can not say hand on heart that had I arrived at that position in my teens or early twenties I woulld not have done the same. Damn catholicism:) However, now in my late twenties, one can safely say that should I be with child now, I would be happy to have her(I insist on a girl first) with or without the father by my side. I marvel at people who have abortions late in life but then again each individual has their particular reason for choosing whatever route they choose to take.

I note that I said "a woman should be allowed to abort at whatever time"..Now, that sounds horrendous if she is 8 months far gone..but it is highly unlikely that any woman 8 months along will suddenly decide to abort. My problem is with these limitations placed on the thing. As far as I am concerned, if we are going to judge when a child is a living being and not just cells, we might as well stop right now because if you know doctors and scientists you will know there are a 100 different opinions as to when exactly this child is a living being give or take a couple of weeks.

I'm sorry. If a woman is allowed to abort when she is 15 weeks gone, she should be allowed to abort when she is 19 weeks gone too and not be looked at as some some sort of infant killer.

Solution..use condoms, use morning after pill..even with condoms, try getting the fella to sprinkle outside the garden. Unless one is ready to have a child, this whole idea that kids today have of sex being "sweeter" without condoms is beyond me. My young cousin says "Do you enjoy candy with the wrapper on"..Perhaps I have been having the wrong kinda sex but in my experience 90% of the time I forget that a condom is being used. I figure female teens today must have real sensitive skin in the garden and their male counterparts real sensitive skin on the hosepipe. Either that or they just don't know how to do it right.

Hi Sandra, welcome back. I basically agree with your sentiments, and I am very glad to hear you make the distinction between personal conviction and public policy.

My only real disagreement would be in the restriction area - I do not think it's unreasonable for the government to put restrictions regarding viability - which is a fuzzy and moving target I agree - other than in the case of danger to the woman's health.

For me the "right" to abortion stems from privacy issues and the woman's "ownership" of her own body taking precendence as long as the other life cannot exist on its own. When you cross that barrier I think the moral and legal situation changes.

I just hope those that get abortions can live with the innocent blood on their hands. To those who have sacrificed a life on the alter of abortion I have this to say. There can be no excuse for taking this life. You are irresponsible and a murderer. You can make all the excuses you want but in the end if you have an abortion you will answer to God. He is forgiving only if you realize that it is wrong. If not and you are the type that thinks of abortion as a casual thing you can expect his vengeance to be visited upon you!

You're a murderer too, Fred, by your own standard.

People have died in need of a blood transfusion, while you still had blood in your veins. Or, people have died in need of food, while you still had food in your cupboards. Or, people have died in need of an organ transplant, while you still had two kidneys.

What's that? You don't think anyone has a right to take those things away from you unless you donate them willingly? Well, I just hope you can sleep at night, with all those dead people on your conscience.

The (in general - excepting Claire, whose name seems to fit her logic; good arguments) conservatives all bitch long and loud about having to pay taxes to support all the scumbag minorities, unmarried 'whores', welfare queens, etc. who are constantly breeding babies, and yet they don't support abortion. Interesting mental gymnastics, that. Very excellent thread.

I wonder how many pregnancies fred m has experienced

Just posted this on another thread, here is how I see it.

Basically, I put it down where the two groups set their boundaries, defining and valuing -and all negative rights that go with it- a member of our social group that has equal moral consideration.

For the Pro-Life it is the human life not personhood that is the defining criteria for a membership in our group that has equal moral consideration.

For the Pro-Choice it is when personhood is reached along the developmental cycle of our species that sets membership in our group that has equal moral consideration.

The problem Pro-choice group has-notice I'm not using the potential human argument- that they think that this criteria is as arbitrary as race or sex, as even the zygote is a unique human life at the earliest stage of the human lifecycle. (this differentiates from even a skin cell or sex cell as they are part of an unique individual not a unique individual in itself which the pr-choice accepts as well)

Now given the Pro-choice have set personhood for those we grant equal moral consideration, we find inconsistencies in their position. Currently in Western societies who allow abortion, they give personhood rights to infants, the mentally handicapped and some of the elderly who have age related cognitive problems, even tough they do not have a fully functioning 'personhood' or in some cases self-awareness. BTW more rights and better treatment is afforded to non-human animals than is granted to humans in the early stages of development.


To be consistent the pro-choice group if they use personhood with a combination of not causing pain, could kill, experiment, make use of this group for whatever purposes was thought beneficial, if it was done without causing pain. Say we painlessly kill and make use of the body parts for those with severe mental handicaps or experiment on unwanted new born babies after they have been lobotomized.

Now I imagine most if not all Pro-choice would find this repugnant, well that is the where the Pro-Life people are coming from. They see those from the Pro-choice making an arbitrary decision for inclusion for equal moral consideration, excluding a section of humanity based on developmental and cognitive criteria which they are inconsistent on anyway. But not only that, they see human lives albeit at the earliest stage of development, being used as spare body parts and experimentation material.

While there are subgroups on both sides, the consistent Pro-Lifers would still allow life-threatening abortions, but others -especially when the adoption option is so under promoted as a viable alternative- would be outlawed. (To be consistent IVF would be heavily curtailed)

So I think it can be argued at least on this subject Pro-Lifer's are morally consistent whereas the Pro-choice are inconsistent and hypocritical

Have to run I'll respond to replies later.

Only by your standard Vic. Your argument is like a cup full of holes! A fetus is a human life with a soul! Youre camparing blood donation and organ donation(those who arent donors) to abortion?!! Its comes down to a choice. Whether you choose to be a murderer or not to. The baby's life comes first. No exceptions. Its taking responsibility for yourself. I think even the most unfeeling calous and unrepentant human being eventually has to deal with their repressed guilt. At that point you either rationalize it with one of a list of excuses so you can survive or you face up to it and realize it is taking an innocent human life.

The person needing a kidney transplant is a human life, Fred. By denying that person your kidney, you are a "murderer" just as surely as any woman who refuses to let an unwanted fetus take advantage of her womb's life support services.

If you think every fetus must be carried to term, support research to develop the technology so you can do it yourself. Don't force other people to do it.

After all, society lets you selfishly keep both of your kidneys, unless you freely choose to donate them.

And Fred, you kidney's soul is kinda like a fetus's soul. Unmeasurable, unlikely, and unimportant.

Surely your "god" wouldn't really let a "soul" be lost forever just because of a miscarriage?

How about that? Is "god" a murderer when a woman has a miscarriage?

Isn't your "god" powerful enough to send that soul into a fetus that is going to carried to full term? He would know these things, right?

C'mon Fred, we're talking about your all seeing, all powerful, all forgiving "god".

Oh and, great post Eric. Enjoyed your writing completely. Thanks!

Bennett, you are the one who claims the soul is lost forever. Were talking about abortions. A miscarriage has nothing to do with choice. She does not choose to have a miscarriage. However she DOES chose to abort the fetus. God also has the power to stop the abortions. It is because we have a choice to do the right thing. He has given us the power from the very beginning. This nation has alot to answer for. We have legalized murder...and can only expect his wrath spilling the blood of the unborn who are defensless. To kill a defenseless human being is a cowardly and ruthless act. Show me more excuses Bennett and anyone else for killing an innocent life. Try to rationize them and see how foolish your excuses become one after another.

Bla bla bla. Round and round you go. God is all powerful, no we have a choice, no he's angry and will punish you, no he will forgive you if you repent.

We have a choice to do the right thing, but not to enjoy life. We must suffer and bow down to him but not worship idols. Aw fuck, it's all superstition, don't ya know?

In 100 years most people will look on this stuff in the same way we view "seven years bad luck for breaking a mirror."

So sorry that you have bought into the shaman's fantasy. You can live in fear of the Thunder God if it makes you happy.

Gods come and gods go. The only real choice we all have is to be happy, love one another, be creative, and get over the need to believe in some "god" who "loves" us, but allows AIDS, Hookworm, Cancer, Altzhiemers, and Malaria to cause endless pain.

I choose reality.

from the religious standpoint, I can understand where the soul is the sticking point, and I am a Christian, but I still think the rights and wishes of the mother must prevail (within reasonable limits) in a secular society

And thanks Bennett!

I find it supremely ironic as well as repulsive that those who argue most fervently against abortion are invariably men, who will never have to undergo pregnancy, birth, or being saddled with the kid for 20 years afterwards. Their bodies are not involved, and their lives aren't either, unless by choice most of the time. They don't get stuck living in poverty, they don't suffer from adverse physical effect brought on by pregnancy or childbirth, they don't suffer from social consequences, and they aren't additionally burdened by having religious bullshit dumped on them by the male-dominated heirarchies of every damned religion on the face of this earth. Until and unless men can have an embryo transferred to their own bodies, gestate it, deliver it, and are willing to take it on for the rest of their lives, NO MAN has ANY right to say ANYTHING about how any woman handles a pregnancy. Period. End. What's that old saying: you no play-a da game, you no make-a da rules. So Fred, take your 'soul' crap and shove it where the sun don't shine. Your bombast is a pitifully transparent smokescreen for religious control.

I'm all for a woman's right to choose. It's the woman's body and ultimately the woman's decision. It's her life. And I'm all for her controlling her life as she sees fit. Perhaps its time for the "pro-choice" people to take on the mantle of "pro-life" because it seems to me that we're more FOR life than against it.

Wow, lookat Nancy go! Heart on her sleeve. ALmost makes me wanna weep for her great burden. Maybe she should keep her panties on and her legs down rather than skyward.
Then theres always the ice schlong she keeps in the freezer next to the pudding pops. She probably has alot in common with the old icebox seein as she ready to chuck a good kid in the rubbish to save her career.

I'm still confused as to how people think they can run around having sex like maniacs yet not have to suffer the concequences of that???

I'm still confused as to how people think they can run around having sex like maniacs yet not have to suffer the concequences of that???

By being male.

OMG, Nancy, right on! Those men who are most fervently opposed to abortion are the very poster children for why the right to choose should remain in force. Abortion is a very tough issue, I won't deny that. But the preservation of a woman's dignity and well-being far outweighs the necessity to bring every pregnancy to term. Society does more damage to the woman who has had to make the unfortunate decision to terminate her pregnancy. Most women don't make the decision lightly. Most women suffer scars long after the procedure.

In order for men to truly understand what it's all about they should be forced to endure the pain of a kidney stone the size of a cantalope going through their penis. Right now, Nancy, hundreds of men just cringed at reading that sentence. If men were as respectful of women as they are for the phallus, the world would be a much better place.

Pro-Choice = Hippocrites
They wouldnt have wanted to be aborted but its ok to have an abortion. Then they come up with all the worst case scenarios to justify killing babies.

I wonder why the nes doesnt cover the story below>

http://www.wnd.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44779
Because the news is Pro abortion!!

They wouldnt have wanted to be aborted but its ok to have an abortion. Then they come up with all the worst case scenarios to justify killing babies.

This is an issue that's too volatile to debate rationally because the extremists on both sides refuse to look at the big picture. I'm not fond of abortion. I find it a very sad alternative. But I believe that as a man I have no right whatsoever to dictate what a woman can and cannot do with her body.

It's easy to demonize those who have had or assist in abortions as 'baby killers' but the truth of the matter is that it's a hell of a lot more complex than that. It's not a simple issue with a simpler solution. Once government intervenes in reproductive freedom it precipitates the loss of other basic human rights.

Insofar as not wanting to be aborted, it really wouldn't have mattered because I never would have known that I was aborted because I would not exist. The spirit does not enter the body until the first breath of life is taken by an infant. At least that is what I believe.

Freudias, the pro-lifers are having a field day with this story. They use this situation to demonize all choice advocates. Frankly what I find most interesting is that the mainstream newspapers mention nothing about cannibalism. Those charges are being made by the staunchest "pro-lifers" who advocate bombing abortion clinics and killing doctors who perform the procedure. If this story is indeed true I would think that the press would have a field day with it. After all the mainstream media is more interested in sensationalism and ratings than in reporting real news. But then again so are the Christian news organizations.

I love how you pulled that one out of your hat. Just because a guy shoots up a clinic the pro aborters use him as a spokesperson for pro lifers. Feeble at best....Keep the lame arguments and excuses coming Pro aborters.....

>>So, how many people are pro-life? How many are pro-choice?<<

I'm pro-death and pro-abortion too. And I'm a Republican. I'm just a little more honest than the party as a whole about it.

Eric's initial point is very well put. Republicans as a group and as a party may talk a lot about saving the unborn, but the reality is that when push comes to shove most of them want to keep it legal.

Dave

Just hope I never date anyone like Nancy.
How many abortions is too many? Nancy? anyone. How about some more ho's. Some slutbags can weigh in and let us know how they psyche themself up to drop a kid in the toilet.

Sammy: I love how you pulled that one out of your hat. Just because a guy shoots up a clinic the pro aborters use him as a spokesperson for pro lifers. Feeble at best....Keep the lame arguments and excuses coming Pro aborters.....

You just shot yourself in the foot, dude. Pro-choicers used an extremist pro-lifer to push their cause while pro-lifers did the same thing with this idiot doctor in Kansas. The demonizing is a two way street, sammy, and nothing but nothing gets accomplished this way.

Dave: Eric's initial point is very well put. Republicans as a group and as a party may talk a lot about saving the unborn, but the reality is that when push comes to shove most of them want to keep it legal.

So true, Dave and Eric. The Republicans will talk the talk but they dare not walk the walk. If they were to succeed in overturning Roe v. Wade, they would be setting their party back a hundred years. The religious right and pro-lifers would lead you to believe differently but the first death at the hands of a butcher in a back alley abortion would put the nail in pro-life's coffin.

Sammy: How many abortions is too many? Nancy? anyone. How about some more ho's. Some slutbags can weigh in and let us know how they psyche themself up to drop a kid in the toilet.

Sir, these comments are blatant evidence of insensitivity to the issue at hand. Where's the hate the sin not the sinner line? It doesn't apply to abortion, does it? And the line about dropping a kid in the toilet happens all too often to women who have miscarriages. Your crude and cruel remark totally disregards the feelings of those mothers who wanted their babies and lost them in such a horrible way.

I feel that you owe those who you have offended a sincere apology for the remarks made. That, my friend, would be the Christian thing to do.

Bennett and Fred have both misunderstood me, although they oppose each other in just about everything else.

Let's assume for a moment that a fetus has a soul. Religious folks like to believe this gives the fetus a right to life. So let's suppose the fetus really does have a right to life, and see where that leads.

Until the fetus becomes viable outside the womb, its soul exists in a body that cannot survive on its own. Without access to another person's body, the fetus will die and the soul will go wherever our souls go when we die.

This situation is very similar to the situation of a person needing a kidney transplant. Please notice I am not comparing the fetus to the kidney! I am comparing the fetus to the person who needs a kidney. That person has a soul, if anyone has one, even if we are all pretty sure the kidney does not.

Without a new kidney which can only be gotten from another person, the kidney patient will die, and their soul will go wherever souls go. (Medications and dialysis can prolong life for people with kidney failure, but they are no substitute for a new kidney.)

Does this mean the kidney patient has a right to someone else's kidney? If my blood type is compatible, (or Fred's is compatible) should the law require me (or require Fred) to donate a kidney?

At the moment our laws say no to this. Fred and I both have the right to keep our kidneys. We can donate them if we choose, but the kidney patient's right to life does not include a right to take Fred's kidney, or mine.

This is how the fetus can have a right to life without having the right to occupy the womb of an unwilling woman.

If Fred wants the law to force the woman to carry a fetus to term, then logical consistency would require him to also want the law to force him to donate a kidney. After all, the kidney patient has a right to life too, and a soul no less precious than the soul God entrusted to the fetus.

(P.S.: Silas is right. Sammy owes Nancy an apology, and it wouldn't hurt for Sammy to apologize to everyone else who has been subjected to those really creepy comments.)

I am very alarmed at the tone of some of the comments and feel I need to say something.

Not all women end up pregnant because they couldn't keep their legs together or because they forgot to take their pill. Some end up pregnant because they were raped. By men.

Often they are left to deal with not only pregnancy but HIV as well. Do you expect those women to carry that pregnancy to term? And if so, are they expected to care for that baby, love it and nurture it and raise it to adulthood (assuming of course that they themselves don't succomb to the AIDS virus first)? Maybe not, perhaps that would be expecting a bit much.

Of course there is always the adoption option but I don't think there are too many people keen on adopting an HIV positive baby.

Now by all means throw statistics at me, tell me that pregnancy as a result of rape is scarce, that statistically it's barely a blip on the radar. That yes, there are folks who want to adopt HIV positive babies but I'd put money on the fact supply exceeds demand.

One might concede that abortion is acceptable but only in the case of rape, which is fine for those "some nameless, faceless attacker jumped out of the bushes and attacked me" scenarious. But what about those scenarious where the women know their attackers? She says it's rape, he says she consented? Do you postpone the abortion until the case is proved?

It's so easy to make generalisations, to judge countless nameless, faceless women, brand them murderers for doing what was best for them (and their families), for making the most difficult decision any women can make.

But take it on a case by case basis, hear the story of each and every woman who has ever had an abortion (for what ever reason) and then come back and let me know how your generalisations are holding up.

Of course, what do I know, I live here at the bottom of Africa and perhaps rape and HIV are only african issues?

Here comes the "HIV" card! An, oh its so rough in south africa!!!

My apologies JebS for wanting to add something to the discussion. Tell me, what part of South Africa do you live in? I only ask because while I'm fortunate enough to live in a nice town where crime is a relatively minor problem not all my fellow South Africans are as fortunate.

Oh heavens, what am I thinking? Of course HIV and rape are things that only happen in Africa and America is immune. How fortunate for its citizens.

My point, as you seem to have missed it, is that there is a lot that women have to consider when even thinking of having an abortion. It's a tough decision, even if rape and HIV are not involved.

It's so easy to judge and brand a woman a murderer when you haven't even heard her side of the story.

Jeb S is a male, and therefore never will be at risk. He can afford to be an arrogant asshole about your rights, body, and risks. Would that he and all of his mindset would get raped themselves so they could get a little idea what it's all about.

sure, it's time for another go-round on the Wheel of Abortion - I'll take "baby-killers" for 100, please.

If we are going to do this again, please try to address the merits of the POLICY - thanks

My apologies JebS for wanting to add something to the discussion. Tell me, what part of South Africa do you live in? I only ask because while I'm fortunate enough to live in a nice town where crime is a relatively minor problem not all my fellow South Africans are as fortunate.

Thank you for bringing up South Africa's plight. My doctor is from South Africa and we talk about the situation there quite often. Nelson Mandela showed great courage when he started speaking out about AIDS after losing his son to the disease. That was a start.

In the meantime, the Roman Catholic Church would have South Africans believe that abstinence is the only answer to stop the spread of AIDS. That is too simplistic an approach to a complex subject. Now let me bring all this back to the original subject matter. In talking about abortion one cannot discount the issues of rape. One cannot turn away from the ravages of sexually transmitted diseases. Abortion, in and of itself, is a difficult issue to discuss rationally. Perhaps the best way to truly deal with it is by placing it in the hands of the woman and her doctor. An individual decision deserves the respect of individual dignity. It's easy to throw the religion card out in the fight but where's the compassion for the one who ultimately makes the decision?

>>Jeb S is a male, and therefore never will be at risk. He can afford to be an arrogant asshole about your rights, body, and risks. Would that he and all of his mindset would get raped themselves so they could get a little idea what it's all about.<<

JebS may be an idiot, but as a male he CAN still be raped and he can certainly get HIV, in fact if he's raped he's more likely to get HIV from it than a female can. And given his general attitude I wouldn't be surprised to hear he ended up somewhere where male rape and HIV run rampant.

Dave

Dave Nalle and Nancy seem to be the same person. Nancy you are not very bright are you......see above posts. She has the same post with 2 differnt names! Maybe its a hermaphodite!

Well, Dave, I don't know about you, but I find it pretty funny to be accused of being you. However, this person is obviously in need of a good shrink and some strong anti-psychotic medication; either that or maybe they have Tourettes?

Dave is actually my less curmudgeonly, mainly conservative, Bush-boosting side of my split personality. The Nancy side has a better sense of humor and tends to anarchy w/occasional spots of nihilism.

I Am the Walrus

And a lot of people call me a Nacy boy. Poor Dave.

Maybe Nancy is a transexual that used to be a guy...Ooohh gross!

Hey. I know a tanssexual. And she said she gained her sanity when the penis was removed. Maybe it's the penis which is the root of all male emotional problems.

Would that all our problems could be solved by transplants; a lot of us here could probably benefit from some kind of transplant, brains if not gender.
Pity qualities like compassion or tolerance aren't corporeal enough to be transplantable.