Just one of Ms Williams quotes that I agree with:

Meanwhile there is an increasing foetus fetishisation in mainstream media - all this "miracle of life" stuff, with six-day-old embryos bouncing around, looking deliciously as if they are playing football with the placenta.

No abortion jokes? I could think of two off the top of my head, that I heard 25 years ago. "Have you heard about the Polish abortion clinic? It has a nine month waiting list." The other one is even worse.

Recommendation: don't Google "abortion jokes".

You don't see stuff like that in the mainstream (or any other) US media because the US media are completely gutless and cowed by religious dogmatists.

There is such a thing as political correctness, and it's a howling wind that comes from the Right.

She says, describing her position:

if you do not consider this foetus human, then it becomes no more of an issue than getting a tumour removed

Sorry, but that's sick. I know women who are pro-abortion, and have had abortions, and felt very differently about it.

Why is it so difficult for us all to agree that the fetus becomes human gradually, not at some magic moment. And that, therefore, an abortion is never completely neutral morally. As Clinton said: abortions should be "Safe, Legal, and Rare". There was a reason he said "rare".

Thank providence for Plan B. Maybe we can get over this abortion-as-birth-control hump and start dealing with prevention of the necessity and adequate social safety nets for those women who chose to carry to term pregnancies they find themselves facing.

I mean, it isn't going away. Even if it's illegal, it will still exist, in every state in the union, somehow, someway, somewhere.

Can we call that the middle ground and work to reduce the need?

BURN THE WITCHES!

Disputo, you owe me a keyboard after the lick the pink crack on the other thread.

Yes. I said that.

How many zygotes can you put on the head of a pin?

I also like Clinton's "safe, legal, and rare" description if for no other reason than prevention is easier and healthier than intervention. Do you brush and floss or just wait till you get a cavity and have it filled?

And even though the right to abortion is a party plank I am absolutely unwilling to give an inch on, for women to use it repeatedly just seems distasteful, disrespectful of life itself. I do know women who've had three, four, five abortions just because they didn't use contraceptives or didn't use them correctly, but didn't want to or get around to having their tubes tied. It's like people who get married a bunch of times - they're really taking that, "Till death do us part" section seriously, aren't they?" It's tacky.

While I'm sure there are many in the Republican party who really believe that abortion is murder, in the upper echelons they vote against abortion rights because they know it will never affect them since it is fundamentally a class issue.

they vote against abortion rights because they know it will never affect them since it is fundamentally a class issue.

And there it is. The heart of the matter exposed.

Green and Global, is it a class issue because of availability, affordability, or something else? Is the legality part also a class issue?

Rich women don't get knocked up becauset hey didn't have a dollar for a condom.

Why do the good threads always come up at my bedtime?

Back in the AM.

I have perceived it more as a feminist than a class issue. My education continues.

I agree with Williams' point that it's not good politics to address abortion in an ideologically honest way. So let's not! If the Dems were to suddenly come and say abortion is nothing less than removing a tumor, we would win -202 seats in the House. Come on. Let's keep abortion legal, and screw ideological honesty. We do it on myriad of issues; why start now?

I liked this bit:

I found it no more traumatic than any other operation I have ever had, no more psychologically scarring, way less painful than anything involving my teeth

The line about refusing novocaine, in order to transcend dental medication, came to mind. But no abortion jokes.

Is the Guardian so much more stimulative than any US paper?

Yes!

I recommend it.

Get your own: 1-888-834-1106 for the Guardian Weekly = Guardian/Observer, WashPost digest.

As long as you don't like the establishment, you'll like this.

There are ideas outside the USA!

Thank providence for Plan B. Maybe we can get over this abortion-as-birth-control hump and start dealing with prevention of the necessity and adequate social safety nets for those women who chose to carry to term pregnancies they find themselves facing.

Hear, hear. I don't like abortion, I don't want my tax dollars paying for abortions, and I don't think it should be legal in the third trimester, but the Republican approach to the issue is STUPID STUPID STUPID. I agreed with Clinton, and I've always believed that effective prevention (including sex ed) and post-pregnancy aid would do far more to reduce abortion than any moronic ban enacted by the pro-Lifers.

As far as I'm concerned, if the perfect contraceptive is ever invented, the government should be give it away free in every drugstore, clinic, and school in the country, and the abortion debate will be over forever.

The reason, Kevin Drum, that it is politically unviable to be publicly ideologically honest about abortion, is that 90% of the public disagrees with you. While the majority of people are pro-choice, the number who do not see the issue as at all difficult or morally complicated is very small. Extremist positions tend not to be politically viable. If Democrats want to stop hemorrhaging votes on this issue, they have to realize that most people in the U.S. do not agree with their position and be willing to accomodate other viewpoints, something liberals pride themselves on being good at. I'm pro choice, but Williams is doing the exact same sort of self-righteous fulminating that diehard right-to-lifers do. You can't just throw up your hands and wonder why the unwashed masses don't just see the light and agree with you, which is what far too many ardent pro-choicers do.

Sorry, I meant to say "if Democrats who are extremely liberal on abortion" - most Democrats are, of course, pro-choice (if reluctantly in many cases).

The most remarkable thing is that Zoe Willaims has written a decent article upon any subject whatsoever. Leaving that snark aside there's a few minor points that still need to be made. The UK does not have abortion on demand. It has it only in the case of physical or psychological damage to mother, problems with the child etc. That's why the two doctor sign off.

Now, that is so liberally applied that it's an irrelevance but it is wrong of her to put forward the argument that abortion is a right (in the same way that it is in the US under Roe v. Wade).

I'm in another camp ideologically but that's a different matter. I also agree with the view upthread that the reason her view (tumour etc) isn't practical politics is simply that a vast number of people don't actually share that view. Even if I agreed with the view, I'd still recognize that it isn't practical politics.

But Kevin, she DOESN'T talk about abortion. Except to say:

"I got a lot of weirdos sending me pictures of tiny bloodied babies' fingers, Photoshopped on to a pair of abortionist's rubber gloves, with captions along the lines of "Just a collection of cells? Tell that to the baby". Those were pretty lurid, but also amusingly put together."

Ho ho hee hee ho ho hee hee!!

Bloody little finger! Little crushed skulls!!

Ho ho hee hee ho ho hee hee!!

Splattered little eyeballs!! Bloody little mouths open in agony (which does happen with a 2nd trimester abortion) !!

Ho ho hee hee ho ho hee hee!!

...............

THIS is why we don't talk about abortion, Kevin. I'm awfully glad that pro-choice advocates DO speak of it as a necessary evil.

It will probably be a while before Hallmark comes up with a "Have a Happy Abortion" card.

captcrisis:

I think what Zoe Williams was snickering about was the fact that some pro-lifer actually sat there and photoshopped stuff that looked like a poster for a French slasher movie.

If it's so gruesome on its own -- why enhance it with out-of-context imagery?

What's snicker-provoking is these pious pro-life and anti-cruelty people going for the most over-the-top, sensationalized shock value they can.

Sort of like those PETA videos of tortured laboratory animals ...

Bob

And even though the right to abortion is a party plank I am absolutely unwilling to give an inch on, for women to use it repeatedly just seems distasteful, disrespectful of life itself. I do know women who've had three, four, five abortions just because they didn't use contraceptives or didn't use them correctly, but didn't want to or get around to having their tubes tied. It's like people who get married a bunch of times - they're really taking that, "Till death do us part" section seriously, aren't they?" It's tacky.

Well, tacky ain't illegal, or most Protestant Christianity in this country would be a capital offense. Strictly speaking, I agree with you on this point, but I have even less patience with the variety of dumbass who wants the legal code to reflect their feelings-- this is supposedly a advanced nation of laws, not an Oprah episode-- than the kind who has multiple abortions, especially since people who can't seem to think far enough ahead to prevent pregnancy wuld be even scarier as parents. I know that the only thing most Americans seem to like more than being left alone is not leaving others alone, but it's really past time to get down to brass tacks here and discuss it as a matter of law, not a matter of social approval.

Devil's Advocate wrote: "If Democrats want to stop hemorrhaging votes on this issue, they have to realize that most people in the U.S. do not agree with their position and be willing to accomodate other viewpoints, something liberals pride themselves on being good at."

I've never seen any evidence that Democrats are "hemorrhaging votes on this issue." Moreover, most people in the U.S. do, in fact, agree with the official Democratic Party position and disagree with the Republican Party position.

As for "accommodating other viewpoints," given that the Senate minority leader is anti-abortion, I'm not sure what point you think you are making.

I don't know.

The class issue is well explained and probably could be the basis for open political discourse. Someone more diplomatic than the author could probably also lay out political arguments concerning significant birth defects, rape, incest, young women, economic and educational hardship, women's rights in general, etc.

I'll agree though that the tumor bit won't be showing up in pro-choice TV ads any time soon.

I have perceived it more as a feminist than a class issue. My education continues.
Posted by: JS

I'd say it's both. The crux of the right's anti-abortion crusade is their attacks on abortion clinics, i.e., where women can get abortions inexpensively. After all, Eric Rudolph didn't bomb the office of an OB/GYN on Park Avenue.

Where are the freepers?

It's the kind of thing you never see in the mainstream U.S. media, because, as she says, "there are no votes to be won supporting abortion in an ideologically honest way, and lots to be lost."

Actually, I've seen things like it in the mainstream US media before on more than one occasion, so, in addition to not believing the explanation, I don't believe there is anything to explain in the first place.

Further, I think the reason its rare in the mainstream US media (and in mainstream political discourse in the US, as well) is not because there are no votes to be won, and lots to be lost, but instead for the same reason that there are no votes to be won, and lots to be lost: very few people have the unconflicted feelings on abortion that the author has—sure, one result of that is that there are no votes to be won, another is that there aren't a lot of people who would be speaking "honestly" if they did what Williams seems to want. Williams (and, apparently, Kevin) seems to mistake "supporting abortion in an ideologically honest way" with sharing the particular narrow version of pro-abortion ideology that Williams has.

Even among supporters of abortion rights, that's far from universal. Williams seems to think everyone who supports abortion but doesn't trivialize it the way she does is "dishonest", but there is a big difference between dishonesty and simple disagreement.

As to the first point in the article, until this past summer I had never known anyone who had had an abortion.

But that's largely because I'm 24, and we have a higher (relatively) practice of contraceptives.

I had an abortion in the 90's and I was relieved.

I was not traumatized and have no regret. OK, I regret that I didn't have this pregnancy when I was older and married and able to take care of the child. But now I have a lovely daughter, born at age 45, so I guess god decided not to punish me.

This is just SO nobody's business, except for the woman and her doctor.

My biology professor in college (many years ago) described the fetus as a parasite - not a symbiotic relationship between the fetus and the mother, but a 9 month long parasitic one. While pregnant, the woman derives no benefit from the pregnancy (possible later protection from breast cancer if breastfeeding, etc.) and may be harmed by it. No fetus survives without the mother, so the tumor analogy is not inaccurate.

What do they call an abortion in Prague? A canceled Czech.

No abortion jokes? I could think of two off the top of my head, that I heard 25 years ago. "Have you heard about the Polish abortion clinic? It has a nine month waiting list." The other one is even worse.

Then there's Sarah Silverman's joke: "I want to have an abortion...but I'm having a hard time getting pregnant."

Wonderfully honest article. Thanks for linking to it.

For the longest time, the church believed that life began at quickening - when the mother could feel the baby move. It was arbitrary but so is the idea that fusion of egg and sperm is the moment a human life begins. I'm pinning my hopes on the neuroscientists to give us a less arbitrary answer. Just when does individual consciousness set in? The answer may be startlingly late.

Why is it so difficult for us all to agree that the fetus becomes human gradually, not at some magic moment. And that, therefore, an abortion is never completely neutral morally. As Clinton said: abortions should be "Safe, Legal, and Rare". There was a reason he said "rare".

Well, they should be "rare" as long as birth control rarely fails, as long as people rarely have unprotected sex, as long as women rarely find themselves pregnant without meaning to, and as long as women rarely have to face the prospect of raising a child without enough money, support, or a partner. But as long as we continue living in the real world, with its various imperfections, then there is no reason why abortion should be rarer than any other medical procedure.

And even though the right to abortion is a party plank I am absolutely unwilling to give an inch on, for women to use it repeatedly just seems distasteful, disrespectful of life itself. I do know women who've had three, four, five abortions just because they didn't use contraceptives or didn't use them correctly, but didn't want to or get around to having their tubes tied.

What would you prefer: that someone you regard as thoughtless and irresponsible continue to have abortions, or that someone you regard as thoughtless and irresponsible carry the pregnancies to term and raise three, four five kids in a home with a mother who can't or won't plan ahead?

" I'm pinning my hopes on the neuroscientists to give us a less arbitrary answer. Just when does individual consciousness set in? The answer may be startlingly late."

Of course, the answer might be startlingly EARLY.

Don't tell them that, captcrisis -- they have to believe it is a parasitic tumor -- no matter what!

Well, they should be "rare" as long as birth control rarely fails, as long as people rarely have unprotected sex, as long as women rarely find themselves pregnant without meaning to, and as long as women rarely have to face the prospect of raising a child without enough money, support, or a partner.

If you didn't understand that the major meaning in the idea point that government policy should be driven to make abortion "safe, legal, and rare" was that, indeed, in addition to permitting abortion, government should work to make sure effective birth control is available, accessible, and people informed in its use, that women have the tools and understanding to make unwanted pregnancy rare in the first instance, and that society provides the economic and social supports so that people who want to have and raise children have the economic means and social support networks to do that, well, then you've completely failed to grasp the concept.

I'm pinning my hopes on the neuroscientists to give us a less arbitrary answer. Just when does individual consciousness set in? The answer may be startlingly late.

"Consciousness" hardly has a single, universally accepted (even less universally accepted as morally relevant to this consideration), objective definition such that empirical research could answer unequivocally when it starts.

For certain operationalizations of "individual conciousness", ISTR that tests show that it isn't for several months after birth, but I expect that most people would reject those out of hand as appropriate for a dividing line, not because they are arbitrary, but because the result is unacceptable.

You know, America condones all sorts of killing--execution, warfare--so condemning abortion because you consider it murder is hypocritical.

To me, abortion is a power issue. A woman should have control over her body. Giving birth should be her decision and no one else's.

Women should be proud to terminate unplanned preganancies or pregnancies they know they are unfit to nurture. The state should create fertility boards to review the capability of newly pregnant women to be quality nurturing parents. If they are found to be unfit, they should be offered free education and assistance to bring them up to a high standard or offered free abortions. Those who choose abortion should receive a substantial reward for not bringing a potentially social high cost person into this world.

Social conservatives want to humiliate and bring shame on women who choose aboriton. Society really ought to do the opposite and villify those who are unfit to have and raise children and find a way to prevent them from reproducing or at least provide remedial nurturing skills and resource assistance.

just for the record, there IS a very funny movie about abortion issues called "Citizen Ruth."

From the Guardian piece: Ethically, this is a far dodgier and more repugnant position than mine, which is that I am entirely pro-abortion because I do not consider it murder; if you do not consider this foetus human, then it becomes no more of an issue than getting a tumour removed.

Right. Destroying a 32-week old developing human being is "no more of an issue than getting a tumour removed." With dishonest (or amoral, if she truly is being honest about her opinion, which I find hard to believe) rhetoric like this, no wonder pro-life forces are dominating the debate.

What's that, you say, hardly any abortions are performed at the 32-week point in a pregnancy? Quite right. But Williams doesn't qualify her statement. She paints with cartoonishly broad brush strokes (similar to WashingtonMonthly.com favorite Don P).

Pro-lifers get accused of inconsistency, of course, whenever we advocate this or that exception to fetal-protection arguments. But that's because, dolgurnnit, sometimes the moral calculus gets mirky (when, for instance, the woman's health is endagnered by the pregnancy). But at the end of the day, a fetus ain't a lump of cancerous cells. By refusing to allow for even a teeny-weeny bit of moral concern about the procedure (an understandable, but ultimately self-destructive strategy), extremist abortion rights supporters like Williams are painting themselves into a corner. When Roe finally is overturned, nobody is going to take their over the top arguments seriously; and they're going to need every argument they can muster, when they actually have to make cogent and forceful arguments to voters.

The British TV show "Absolutely Fabulous" joked about abortion at least twice. When introduced to Saffy, Patsy's older sister says "Never mind, too late to flush it now." Particularly memorable was that one scene where Patsy rants about wishing Saffy had been aborted. "I said abort abort abort! Chuck it down the pan! Bring me a-" "A knitting needle?" "A KNITTING NEEDLE!!!"

I joked about abortion when I was a teenager. Now that I know more about the subject, I don't find it a laughing matter -- except in the context of brutal female humor like AbFab.

The ban against abortion is a power issue, although not necessarily power just over women's bodies. Combined with the way unwed members are treated (which ultimately encourages young people to marry before they're ready, to people they probably shouldn't marry), I think this is part of the encouragement that people be wedded in couples and build families that can be then controlled more easily by churches and other social institutions. Men as husbands also fall into this power struggle.

The Guardian piece is, uh, interesting. And it has clearly stimulated debate. But. . . .I am pro-choice, though I have never had an abortion. And I find the author's idea that abortion is no more "difficult" than any other medical procedure pretty ethically repugnant. Because, like it or not, you can't get around the fact that every fetus is a *potential* life.

This is not to say there that there are *never* any circumstances where abortions should be performed. And, as one of the comments said, we live, especially in this country, in a decidedly imperfect world. Many "pro-life" types are not only anti-abortion, they are also anti-birth control(in my state of Washington, pharmacists at present have the right to refuse to sell women a "morning after pill" if they are opposed). Which means that, despite what Williams claims in her article, many women have unintended(please, not "unwanted", because these women may very much wish to have a child --- at some point)pregnancies simply because obtaining birth control can be a "minefield", especially if you're young and "on your own", as many of these women are.

Finally, I should note that while I never had an abortion, I *did* have one of those "unintended" pregnancies. My daughter now finishing law school, and looks to become a very successful young adult. Sure, it was difficult, raising her as a single parent most of her life, and sure, I had doubts as to whether my ultimate decision was the "right" one, but all that shows is that *any* pregnancy, intended or unintended, generates complex feelings in any woman who gets pregnant.
Anne G

What is so grating about the framework that grudgingly accepts abortion as a "necessary evil," one that can be validated only if the woman feels a proper share of guilt and regret, is that it deigns to tell women how they should think, which is only one step removed from telling women what they should do. In other words, it is to reject that the only arbiter of how a given woman feels about abortion is the woman's own appraisal of the morality of the procedure. And that is the real sin committed by women who don't feel guilty about abortion -- they aren't captive to the reigning self-designated arbiters of morality.

Kevin,
I think for discussion purposes we should have a more open forum for it, but as for the writer personally...I think she's typical of those people who put no value on people, but rather sees them as mere stepping stones.
In other words, the moral equivalent of a Republican.

A 16 year old cousin had an abortion in the mid-60s. Her parents had to commit her to a state mental institution(nothing wrong with her) for a few months in order to legally get it.

Why is it so difficult for us all to agree that the fetus becomes human gradually, not at some magic moment.
Posted by: JS on October 27, 2006 at 2:35 AM | PERMALINK

That's because some fetuses never do become human. They become Republican instead.

If someone believes an embryo is a parasitic cancerous tumor why does not the belief have as much legitimacy as someone's belief that it is a human being with a soul?

Jasper thinks a majority should have the final say of what individuals can do about their own pregnancies and reproductive capacities. S/he thinks this way because typically a majority does think an embryo develops into a cherished child. Using democratic means to impose beliefs does not protect minorities who hold differing views, which is why our founding fathers created limits on the power of the majority.

Jasper would not accept a majority opinion that required mandatory abortion, like they have in China. S/he only holds the view that the majority will promote her beliefs. If s/he thought otherwise, s/he would be calling for minority protection from the majority.

Jasper, no one is going to make you have an abortion. Not in the USA. EVER. Stop trying to make others not have abortions with coercive state police powers with your tryanny of the majority.

I was pleased to read the analogy of the cancerous tumor to an embryo in the Guardian article. It is a point I have been making for years. Tumors have all of the genetic material and will to live that embryos do and both have accelerated replicating cell growth. Why are they not treated with the same respect for life? Tumors are made of the stuff we call human and they are alive.

Please note, even after giving birth, a cancerous parasitic tumor of an unwanted child continues to grow and causes serious problems for both the parent and society for decades.

belief that it is a human being with a soul?

If the fetus has a soul, then it can be sent to hell. Assuming that a fetus cant be sent to hell because it cant do anything(evil or not), how can it have a soul?

"As to the first point in the article, until this past summer I had never known anyone who had had an abortion."

I bet you did know someone who had an abortion but you didn't' know she had it.

There is still a lot of shame in unwanted pregnancies, especially in "good girls" who let their families think they are "saving themselves for marriage."

Very strict, religious parents result in daughters hiding sexuality.

If a fetus has a soul and goes to heaven first class if aborted, then shouldnt all truly loving fundy parents abort all their kids? They can honestly repent in their dotage when hellfire seems nigh.

That was truly the best article I've ever read about abortion. Thanks for posting it, Kevin.

cmdicely,

What if the government policy was to make abortion "safe, legal, and rare" by making sure there was only sex inside marriage? As for economic and social supports so that people who want to have and raise children have the economic means and social support networks to do that too, I have no problem with that.

The catholic church holds that unbaptized children, including children who die before being baptized, go to limbo - not heaven. They have original sin (so they can't go to heaven) but have done nothing wrong (so they don't go to hell). A headline a few weeks ago said they catholic church is currently reconsidering the whole limbo thing.

What if the government policy was to make abortion "safe, legal, and rare" by making sure there was only sex inside marriage?

Then government would be stupid.

I bet you did know someone who had an abortion but you didn't' know she had it.

True... I only have a couple of acquaintances that admit to having had one, and statistically speaking, there are probably many more. However, that is as it should be, because it's their business, not mine, and while it's fine if they want to share that information, they have no obligation to me or anyone else to disclose or ask permission beforehand.

I only found out a couple of years ago that a great-aunt who had been dead for over a decade had never had children because of a botched illegal abortion in the twenties, and that side of my family isn't exactly circumspect. I also suspect that a virulently anti-choice relative-- one who is in all other ways very pragmatic-- probably took that position after having had an abortion herself, but I'm not going to ask her unless she decides to push me too far on the issue (and even then I'd treat it as a semi-rhetorical question).

Many argue that abortion is (or should be) a private matter, entirely up to the woman involved. It's about control of her own body, they say.

This is true only to the extent that the fetus is believed to be completely non-human. Few would argue that, in the ninth month of pregnancy, the decision to abort should not be entirely up to the woman.

Society has a say on a woman's abortion to the extent that the fetus is believed to be, even partly, a human life. That's why late term abortions are illegal.

So the whole issue is reduced to WHEN and TO WHAT DEGREE the fetus is human. People disagree on this. Societies, and religions, have dealt with this question for centuries.

Since all abortion issues ultimately turn on our beliefes regarding this one issue (when, and to what degree, is the fetus human) it would be more productive to argue about this single question than about derivative questions of control over one's body.

I also suspect that a virulently anti-choice relative-- one who is in all other ways very pragmatic-- probably took that position after having had an abortion herself, but I'm not going to ask her unless she decides to push me too far on the issue (and even then I'd treat it as a semi-rhetorical question).

In my experience most anti-choice women are working through their guilt from their own abortion by trying to deny others the option instead of actually dealing with it directly.

In my experience most anti-choice women are working through their guilt from their own abortion by trying to deny others the option instead of actually dealing with it directly.

I wouldn't say that it's most anti-choice women, but there's probably a sizable minority, anyway. This particular relative was involved with a really crappy guy at one point and ended up with an STD as well, so I wouldn't be surprised if she at some point had to make an unpleasant decision.

A headline a few weeks ago said they catholic church is currently reconsidering the whole limbo thing.

Years ago they had a great fix for the limbo thing...slide some cash to the Church, words were spoken...presto chango, limbo be gone.

i would like to say my ex had an abortion in the 90s and thank god. i didnt want to be stuck with that bitch. the only reason they want to ban it is for the future voters and tax payers. u have to look to the future folks.

This article would not find a home in MSM because Ms. Williams' view is as simplistic and repellent as the most ardent anti-abortion acitvist's screeds. Abortion is a necessary evil, never an outcome that is hoped for ("gosh, I'd love to have a D&C some day"), and most women (and men) want to minimize their exposure to it. Totally agree that abortion should be safe, legal and rare. Access to realistic sex and relationship education and ready access to contraception (through health insurance; why just Viagra?) would go a long way toward reducing the number of unintended pregnancies. I think abortions for poor women should be publicly funded, and let's sponsor more programs like "Best Friends" to enhance teen girls' self-esteem -- how can that hurt?

But to ask the reader to accept that abortion is equivalent to dental surgery? Don't think so.

JS, whether the fetus is "human" or not--whatever "human" means--is completely irrelevant.

Either a woman owns her body or she doesn't. What a fetus is doesn't matter.

"Soul" is a superstition. I don't want my control over my body curtailed by other people's superstitions, and I suspect most women don't, either.

What is it with anti-choicers not understanding the idea that the decision should be up to the woman? It does not mean that abortion is the only option. It just simply means that a woman can think for herself and decide whether or not she is going to have an abortion, keep it to term and/or give it up for adoption. Legalized abortion does not preclude one from not having one.
I think that the best strategy for pro-choicers is to emphasize that fact that being pro-choice is about respecting women as self-determined beings.

"What is it with anti-choicers not understanding the idea that the decision should be up to the woman?"

Easy: pregnancy is a potential human life, begun with the intercession of a man, and which, if brought to term, that man will be legally required to support. Women have the right to control their bodies -- more precisely, they have the right to lop part of it off. Anti-choicers don't believe that the fetus is part of the woman's body.

The birthing process amounts to essentially water boarding fetuses and should be outlawed.

JeffreyK wrote: whether the fetus is "human" or not--whatever "human" means--is completely irrelevant.
Either a woman owns her body or she doesn't. What a fetus is doesn't matter.

Really? So if a healthy woman wants an abortion in the 9th month the decision should be just up to her? If not, at which point does the decision become not completely hers?

As caprcrisis correctly said, the fetus is not part of the woman's body. And as the fetus grows, society's responsibility for the life of the fetus also grows.

So I'm looking forward for Js's and capticris's forthcoming volume in support of forced organ donation for the benefit of the already born, in spite of the fact that (in case it wasn't obvious) they are not part of another person's body. If it's okay to force a woman to loan her uterus (and a great deal more besides) to a human who is not part of her body then it should be okay to mandate bone marrow transplants and whatever other organs might help someone else without necessarily killing the donor.

Barbara: First, nobody's forcing the woman to "loan her uterus" -- unless she was raped, which is a crime.

Second: Can you answer this simple question -- should it be up to the mother alone to abort in the 9th month? If not, how do we decide when it is OK to abort?

To my knowledge, most "pro-choicers" (including myself) are against late term abortions. Are you not? If you are against late term abortions, then you recognize that something else is going on than a woman's control of her own body. This is not a simple matter.

JS:

One point that's missed here is that the extremist pro-abortion viewpoint (as represented by Williams and several of the commenters here) is essentially identical to Ayn Rand's version of libertarianism. In fact, Rand was outspoken in her support of abortion, and used almost precisely the same phrasing. This has troubled me for a while, especially since I'm not a fan of Rand (or abortion). Pro-choicers delight in (correctly) pointing out the hypocrisy in the pro-life movement's lack of concern for the children of impoverished single moms, but many see no hypocrisy in advocating an utterly amoral position towards a viable fetus along with progressive political views. Except for the really nutso libertarians, which I assume doesn't describe anyone here, who aren't being hypocrites at all.

I absolutely hate government interference in private lives and especially in bodily autonomy. I think prostitution and drug use should be totally legal (if regulated); I think it's shameful that it took until 2003 for sodomy laws to be struck down. I don't want the US to be like El Salvador and have the government waste its time and our money investigating women's medical records. But the idea that the life of a a 9-month-old fetus is disposable and has no value is absolutely repellent. Personal autonomy doesn't give anyone the right to hurt others.

I just love how making babies is always about women and not on the guys that make it happen. Why are men not expected to prevent unintended pregnancies? If they are going to "sow their wild oats" then they ought to bear the lion's share of responsibility for any and all pregnancies they start. I do recall there used to be the practice of shotgun weddings for guys that got girls pregnant. Perhaps we should bring them back as a way of helping boys/men keep it in their pants.

At the same time, women really do need to be a LOT more selective on who they mate with, and why.

I don't think there's any hypocrisy in believing that the woman's legitimate interests always outweigh the theoretical ones of a fetus, and that whether we approve of her or not, she's the one who gets to determine and define what's going on in her own body. IOW, if she thinks it's a baby even when it's the size of a staple and looks like a crustacean, it's a baby; if she thinks it's more like a tumor, it's a tumor. It's not my place to decide, or anyone else's. If-- and this isn't going to happen in my lifetime, not in a country as sexually and emotionally immature as the US prefers to be-- abortion was inexpensive and readily accessible (maybe under $250 and with no more than 100 miles' travel and one day's absence needed, say), it would be more reasonable to closely restrict late-term abortions, although restrictions would still need to be fairly loose to allow women with genuine medical problems, nonviable fetuses, etc. to avoid having to jump through a bunch of hoops set by medically ignorant legislators and their cheap moralizing.

And I emphatically reject the lamebrained arguments about consent & rape-- private, consensual sexual activity is not a social contract that obligates me to loan my body out for the better part of a year and face the attendant medical risks, in order to pay some sort of toll by producing a new citizen. I don't owe anyone that. No one does.

All this talk about the interests of the fetus against the woman's is quite simplistic because the viability of the fetus is not separate and apart from the woman. A fetus is not a separate being. Yes it is a potential person, but it is not a chick that about to hatch out of egg. The life of a child intertwine with that of the mother.

Besides what is the point forcing a woman who has no desire to carrying it to term or let alone raising a child. What good doesn't do for the child. Such decision rest on the woman alone because it is a deeply personal decision. Whatever decison the woman makes she will have to live it for the rest of her life. All these anti-choicers bloviating about the sanctity of life won't be there to assist her and her child on a daily basis.

I still believe that being pro-choice is a moderate position because the decision is left to the woman regardless what she decides.
Being pro-choice is not about excluding choices and imposing one's beliefs on another.

Micheline, are you willing to answer this simple question: should it be legal for a healthy woman to decide to abort in the 9th month? Because all of your arguments seem to be saying "yes". If not, can you explain to us simplistic ones at which point the decision changes from purely personal to legal as well.

Also, you say: Whatever decison the woman makes she will have to live it for the rest of her life. All these anti-choicers bloviating about the sanctity of life won't be there to assist her and her child on a daily basis.

This argument would seem to allow disposing of the baby after birth as well, if someone has second thoughts. Which, we are told, Chinese peasants sometimes still do today if the newborn is a girl. OK with you?

JS
There's no law that allows for a woman to have an abortion during the last trimester unless her life is in danger or the child has a serious defect. So the question you are asking is moot.

well put micheline

A moot question, yes, but also one that has more than one answer: the interest of the woman in the autonomy over her body in the third trimester of pregnancy can be alleviated by early delivery, not necessarily accompanied by death of the fetus. That alone makes the argument over 9th month abortions quite a bit different.

Somehow I knew JS would bring up how the woman hadn't "loaned" her uterus unless she was raped. Yessiree, it never takes long before the "pregnancy as punishment for fucking" crowd rear their heads.

Try this one: Let's say I am a perfect bone marrow match to my cousin and I promise in the presence of many witnesses to go through with the aspiration and then at the last minute get cold feet. No judge in the entire U.S. is going to make me go through with it. Not one. Now, tell me how again it is that it is imperative that women MUST go through with pregnancy? Because it's a punishment for fucking. I don't even need to hear your answer. I already know it.

Ah -- so it seems you accept that, in late term, the fetus is human and the choice should not be up to the woman alone. If so, everything you said earlier about the mother's choice applies only to early term, right?

My main point in this discussion has been that, since it is absurd to believe that the fetus becomes human at some specific moment in time, abortion is never completely morally neutral. The fetus becomes human gradually. So the moral complexity of abortion grows gradually too. A fetus is never like a tumor.

Refusing to save a life is very different from actually taking one. Try again Barbara.

JS, I disagree. The only reason why it's different is because the JS's and RC Churches of the world know that if they actually tried to impose the same kinds of burdens on men that they routinely try to impose on women, they would lose all their power. Therefore, adjustments are made. See, I not only don't have to accept your moral gloss on abortion, I don't have to accept it for much of anything else either.

OK, but you should try to understand that there aren't just two positions on abortion -- for and against. There are those, like me, who are pro-choice and don't want Roe v. Wade overturned -- but who still think that a an abortion carries moral ambiguity and should not be thought of as just a medical procedure. And that a fetus is never like a tumor.

These people, like myself, belong to your camp politically and in terms of what we want the law to be. But we object to the ultra-feminist position that fetuses are merely objects.

If some day Roe v. Wade is overturned (which I hope does not happen) it will be partly because of the extreme positions of people such as Zoe Williams and yourself, which make it easier for the extreme right wing to promote its agenda.

And here is how a woman who has dedicated her life to helping women have abortions puts it:

[Amy Hagstrom Miller is the owner and founder of Whole Woman's Health, an abortion and reproductive services provider in Austin TX.] Link.

Amy Hagstrom-Miller thinks it's no big deal for the pro-choice movement to acknowledge the moral questions raised by abortion. As the head of a group of abortion clinics, and board chairwoman of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, she says her patients do that every day.

"I think that the vast majority of Americans understand that the process around deciding what to do with an unplanned pregnancy is much more complicated," Hagstrom-Miller says. "And I think the American population can handle a much more sophisticated discourse about unplanned pregnancy than either side is allowing us to have."
Link.

This is EXACTLY my position too, Barbara and Micheline.

Corrected links:
First and second.

latts, micheline, barbara:

Extremely well-put. I agree with every word.

JS's arguments set my teeth on edge. While I understand that in purely pragmatic, political terms, it makes sense to have a nuanced position on abortion which matches the broad strain of public opinion (a woman has a right to control her body, but a fetus is also a human life), I have no more philosophical support for it than I do for civil unions over gay marriage -- even though society will support equal legal rights for gay people long before it sanctions same-sex marriage.

I have a really hard time seeing the objections to Zoe Williams' piece. Her dental work analogy merely spoke to the physical trauma of an abortion. While some women may well feel a huge burden of emotional trauma from the experience -- some women don't. That Williams doesn't merely rebuts the argument that abortion should be avoided because it's somehow *inevitably* traumatic. If you don't believe the fetus is a *person*, you don't necessarily carry that baggage.

JS's "gradually becoming human" argument is, IMHO, the height of metaphysical absurdity. Is a fetus "human"? *Of course* it is. Your toenail clippings are "human." The turd that plops out from your anus is "human." A sperm cell is "human" and so is an egg. Is it "alive" is likewise specious. Gamates are alive. A frantically wrigging sperm cell is an autonomous living creature with a purposive drive every bit as much as you or I. The "life" argument is bogus.

What it is is a holdover from religious doctrine, in an attempt to frame that doctrine in scientific terms. When gamates merge, a chemical reaction occurs, new DNA is created and the zygote starts dividing. A genetically unique entitiy with the potential to grow into a fetus and be born as a human being is created in that chemical moment. Bingo, "life begins."

But does it? No. Life was there previously. The tiny clump of cells has a statistical shot at developing into a human being, nothing more. As it grows and develops and begins to take on human form, the chances increase. And the more it begins to resemble us, the more we feel the need as a society to protect it.

JS is right that we'll never know the precise moment when this entity because "a human being." There are too many unstable criteria to choose. It's easy enough to call the tadpole-like critter less "human" than the baby-shaped thing that emerges a few months later, but where are the dividing lines? Is it nervous system development? The ability of a fetus to experience pain? Consciousness (what exactly *is* conciousness)? And the viability framework of Roe v Wade is in constant jeopardy of updating, as the technological means for sustaining fetuses outside the womb steadily increases.

It's much easier to simply be a religious fundamentalist and say "life begins at the moment of conception." But it's scientifically otiose to attempt to extrapolate this argument into embryology. The LBAC argument used to mean that at that moment, the fetus acquires a unique soul. Nerdy grad-school Catholic militants like Fitz seem to think that the creation of DNA is a suitable scientific proxy for this. Well, it isn't -- considering people born with two different sets of DNA due to incomplete twinning. Two souls? Surely you jest.

So okay -- let's grant JS his view that the "humannes" of a fetus advances as it develops, though without any hard-and-fast way to determine what exactly this "humannes" is, aside from the way it looks on a sonogram ("Oooh, sweetie, look at those tiny little toes!") What we're left is a MOL sentimental argument. And I'll call a spade a spade here: What we're *really* doing is anthropomorphizing the fetus.

Now I don't have a problem with this. To me, there *is* an ethical issue with aborting mid- and late-term fetuses -- but ethically it's more along the lines of preventing animal cruelty. If a second-trimester fetus feels excrutiating pain while it's being aborted, then for crying out loud, develop a way to anesthetize the poor thing before we do it in. There's no need to be callous about it.

I know the pro-lifers are reading that last paragraph and imagining that I'm the second coming of Dr. Josef Mengele. Cool :) Because even if you grant that the fetus is a "human life" (as both speciously easy and as scientifically impossible as that is to define) -- this society hardly honors "the sanctity of life." We sanction killing in self-defense, warfare and the death penalty. Unless you're a Catholic pacifist or a Buddhist or some other religious tradition that takes the "seamless garment" of sanctifying life seriously -- frankly my dear, I don't give a damn for your grotesque hypocrisy on the subject.

This is why at the end of the day, I don't get exercised about third-trimester abortions -- when birthing could occur with a C-section or induced labor, and the fetus is clearly only one gasp of air away from being a baby. This is why I can't leave the reproductive autonomy framework, and allow that decision to remain *firmly* in the hands of a woman and her physician. As long as we're throwing young people into the charnel house of Iraq, as long as we're executing poor people with shoddy legal defense from overworked and underqualified PDs, as long as a Florida suburbanite can freely blow away a Japanese exchange student in his carport who was looking for Halloween party because "a man's home is his castle" -- then frankly I am not merely unmoved -- I am profoundly disgusted -- at any "sanctity of life" arguments that so-called pro-life movement wishes to put forth.

Bob

Bob:

I thought that exchange student was "only looking for Halloween par-ly!"

性爱图片 十八电影网 美腿图片 强奸图片 祼体写真 美女写真 性感美女图片 做爱小电影 美少女自拍 日本av电影 明星裸照 黄色电影下载 免费色情电影 两性健康 性教育片 激情电影 黄色图片 成人性爱电影 性电影下载 成人电影下载 性爱视频 偷拍图片 泳装美女 性感内衣 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 性交视频 做爱电影 性福联盟 人体摄影 裸女图片 乱伦图片 强暴电影 轮奸视频 迷奸图片 免费小电影 免费电影在线 免费影片 最新大片 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 情色电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 激情写真 阴部图片 乳房图片 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 美女脱衣视频 裸体女人 女性手淫图片 波霸美女 美女淫水 阴户阴毛图片 美女图库 美女口交图片 韩国电影 性知识 最新电影 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 性教育电影 同志电影 舒淇写真 写真集 性虐待电影 淫书 人体写真 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛 变态日本女生 淫女 女大学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼操比操屄 激情论坛 三级片 性爱电影 联通铃声下载 联通炫铃 联通彩铃下载 联通手机铃声 中国联通炫铃 联通彩铃 中国联通铃声 联通免费铃声 联通用户铃声 联通cdma铃声 联通和弦铃声 联通mp3铃声 联通特效铃声 联通炫铃下载 联通炫铃网站 联通炫铃业务 联通cdma炫铃 联通手机图片 联通手机炫铃 中国联通彩铃 联通手机彩铃下载 联通彩铃业务 联通彩铃网站 联通免费彩铃 联通cdma彩铃 戴尔笔记本报价 戴尔笔记本电脑价格 戴尔双核笔记本 戴尔电脑网站 戴尔家用电脑 戴尔电脑官方网站 戴尔台式机 戴尔网上订购 戴尔笔记本电脑网上订购 戴尔双核笔记本 戴尔服务器 戴尔电脑公司 戴尔电脑价格 戴尔台式电脑 戴尔手提电脑 戴尔中国 戴尔网站 戴尔笔记本官方网站 戴尔笔记本 戴尔笔记本电脑 dell笔记本电脑 双核笔记本电脑 戴尔笔记本电脑报价 戴尔电脑网上订购 成人贴图 情趣内衣 性生活电影 作爱自拍 艳情图片 性交电影 做爱视频 性福电影 人体艺术 明星合成裸照 裸女贴图 黄色小说 成人小说 乱伦故事 性爱文学 偷拍走光 漂亮美眉 泳装写真 乳罩内裤 美女漏点 两性写真视频 美女阴部 少女乳房 自拍裸照 强奸视频 裸体美女 美女自拍 黄色电影下载 色情图片下载 激情图片 激情小电影 性感写真 淫荡妹妹 做爱小电影 裸露美少女 av美女 色情电影 同志图库 成人视频

JS, I will try to clarify why I reject the premise of your argument, and it has nothing to do with how I view a human fetus.

First, you are creating a strawman argument. I am sure many people agree with your definition of life, when it begins, when its interests should not give way to the interests of the mother, and believe that abortion represents, at best, the least worst of a complete set of bad options. I would say, further, that those beliefs inform almost every restriction on abortion that has been upheld over the last decade. So while there are some who might argue based on the logic of their position that a "Ninth month abortion" is okay, in fact, that is not reflected in the vast majority of people, who are willing to accept some trade-offs on personal liberty after a fetus becomes viable, as a consensus position, even if they can articulate why a greater degree of liberty should be permitted.

But mostly, I simply reject that a political position on abortion depends on adhering to a received truth of when human life begins and the nature of the moral status of a fetus. This tells women what they should do based on the notion that they lack sufficient moral agency to think for themselves. Obviously, if someone asked for your opinion on the matter, I wouldn't expect you to hold back on expressing your beliefs. But the idea that we should "all think this way" or accept "that absolute truth" is one I reject. It's obviously not necessary to create a consensus.

Barbara:

Amen.

Bob

So, JS, if it wasn't clear, I am not in total agreement with Zoe Williams, I do not view abortion in the same terms that she does, but I abhor a political position that tells any woman that she should (or should not) feel guilty about abortion as much as I abhor a political position that tells women that she cannot (or must) have an abortion. As I said above, telling women how they should feel comes uncomfortably close to telling them what to do.

Several years ago, an article appeared in the NYT in which a woman who found herself carrying triplets after a natural conception decided to undergo selective reduction, and discussed it in terms that appeared to be frivolous and uncaring. Many people wrote that they no longer supported her right to an abortion because she lacked the proper gravitas in making her decision. Do you see what I mean? If abortion is a right, it is a right to have it on terms that many people might not agree with. It cannot be maintained only if the right is provided on terms that would cause you or I to undertake it. I think this can be conveyed without dismissing the sincerity of the feelings of people such as yourself.

In any event, there are sound reasons for avoiding abortion, as a matter of both personal and public health. These reasons are inherent in the Williams article, though she did not affirmatively discuss them.

Barbara:

People get very uptight at the notion of "designer pregnancies." A commenter here a couple months ago cited a lesbian couple -- two lawyers, well off -- one of whom was using AI to get pregnant, and said that she'd abort if the child turned out to be male.

The guy stated this as though the obvious reaction should be shocked outrage, that abortion rights supporters would continue to lose ground politically if they don't strenuously condemn stuff like this.

Without evaluating this reaction one way or the other, I think it's fairly obvious where it comes from. I think fundamentally it's class-based. When people's lives are thrown curveballs, they feel lucky if they can just barely dodge a bullet. It's entirely natural to feel sympathetic for, say, a single woman who has a mishap with birth control and no financial resources to raise a kid. But when a yuppie talks about using elective abortion in a manner to enhance her life (right gender, right number of fetuses) when other people would be forced by circumstance to accept their fates -- this ticks people off. It's funny -- but these same sorts of people don't seem to be more up-in-arms over the growing prevalence of elective plastic surgery for well-off people, as well. I'd expect more of that.

And I agree with you -- this is what happens when you start allowing these arguments to transcend a rights analysis -- and why womens' groups have been so firm on this point. As soon as you start allowing any sort of social calculus regarding the worth of the fetus, you give people license to start judging these decisions by their own moral criteria.

Even though I understand Democratic politicians looking for a middle way, even though I think "abortion reduction" programs and "safe, legal and rare" are a good idea, even though I think Zoe Williams' words are deeply *impolitic* -- I see no reason not to continue to zealously guard the reproductive autonomy analysis.

Besides which -- I think Zoe Williams speaks for a large number of women who strongly agree with her, but who feel cowed by prevailing social attitudes into not speaking out.

Bob

As to the issue of designer babies and abortion for eugenic or frivolous reasons -- I see it in the same way I see Playboy and Hustler: I don't read them, object to their content on a lot of grounds, but damned if I'm going to advocate cutting back the first amendment because they are out there.

O.K., but how many Playmates of the Year have been murdered since Dorothy Stratten?

I thought I made it clear that I do not advocate legal restrictions on abortion. But I do think that a feminism that sees abortion as having no moral dimension beyond a root canal is wrong and, probably, politically counterproductive (because it alienates so many people). And I think that the position that allowing for moral complexity invites right-wing judicial activism is wrong -- both fundamentally and as a tactic.

By the way, to the extent that unintended pregnancies brought about by a casual attitude towards contraception show some disrespect for human life, I am critical of them as well. And since I think contraception should be the primary responsibility of the male, I would be all for imposing community service, and fines (used to finance abortion clinics or poor single mothers) on the man -- especially for repeat offenses of this sort. I think that this is a better target for feminist action, and I would support it.

Amy Hagstrom-Miller expressed my position much better than I did, so I would like to repeat her words where she is criticising the extreme left and right positions on abortion:

And I think the American population can handle a much more sophisticated discourse about unplanned pregnancy than either side is allowing us to have.

Neither side is preventing us from having a sophisticated discourse about unplanned pregnancy here. Just ignore those who think every sperm is sacred and those who think a fetus is a parasitic tumor. What would be your solution, JS?

Chuck, I think I described my position repeatedly in several posts above (just search the page for "JS").

I think I more or less said what you suggest, that both extremes should be avoided. But there was plenty of disagreement which I interpreted as coming from one of these extremes.

Time to call this a thread, I think.

JS,

In case you are still around -- I've read your platitudes about abortions that are "Safe, Legal, and Rare" -- you are also "against" late term abortions but state you do not advocate legal restrictions on abortion. Nonetheless, you do advocate "community service and fines" on the father (especially repeat offenders). So, again, is that your solution?

That's too bad. I was rather hoping for a sophisticated discourse about unplanned pregnancy here.

I will say in political terms that it's getting harder and harder to be an anti-abortion crusader while the Iraq war rages and thousands of innocents are killed every month. I do see this fundamental dissonance as driving a wedge between evangelical voters and the GOP, and will prove to be a significant factor in the election next week.

Let me clarify what I mean. I do think there's a hard core of evangelicals who are welded at the hip to George Bush, and who will vote with every bit as much enthusiasm as we Democrats will. These folks have no philosophical problem reconciling being antiabortion with supporting the Iraq war (or the death penalty, for that matter). Their ideology sanctioning state-sponsored death in the name of life hinges on two fundamental pillars: innocence and retribution.

Murderers are not innocent; they killed so they should be killed in return. The Iraqi "bad guys" are terrorists who murder innocents, so we should kill them -- even if it means killing a lot of innocents in turn -- because this will ultimately lead to less killing.

So the ideology goes. Notice something about it, though. In no case does it hold life sacred in itself. It's an ends-justified calculus.

This isn't necessarily a consensus view in the religious community. Catholics have an especially hard time with it, despite the "just war" doctrine (strict Catholic teaching opposes the death penalty). Not all Protestants are comfortable with it either; only the most fundamentalist evangelicals, the ones most wedded to the retributive morality of the Old Testament's Jehovah. There's much in the New Testament to undercut it in the name of "fulfilling the law."

But these sorts of fundevangelicals don't need a phone call by Ken Mehlman to get them to the polls, either. They're Bush's hardest-core social issue base; they'll be there with bells on. Not merely unapologetic, they are absolutely *delighted* that the Iraq war seems to be a clash of Judeo/Christian civilization against the Muslim infidel. Abortion is likewise an issue of asserting J/C patriarchy.

But there are more tban this sort of values voter out there. There are plenty of antiabortion voters who are much more appalled at killing in general. Though they might support the death penalty (a mainstream issue for all but the most liberal), though they'd certainly support a "just war," it's harder and harder to see the Iraq war as being that way, especially since many of these folks live in the communities that have given most of their sons and daughters to it. And it's really hard to even talk about being "pro-life," when so much needless death is happening in Iraq, death that's harder and harder for the Americans to escape responsibility for unleashing. Being pro-life should have a broad meaning. This creates crushing cognitive dissonance.

You know, whatever else might be up Karl Rove's sleeve surprise-wise, we do know that Saddam Hussein's verdict will be read on November 5th. A great triumph for democracy? Think of the networks running retrospectives on his rule, and then cutting to current conditions. It will be exactly the wrong thing the GOP wants to have in the last news cycles before the election.

And it will especially serve to demoralize this outer ring of evangelicals, wrestling with the idea of returning a party to power that has caused so much death, destruction and misery.

Bob

Which party are you talking about? I don't know any pro-lifer who wants the Democrats returned to power, that's for sure. Wars are hell, which is why we need to make sure we win this one asap. You seriously don't think that any American community has given "most" of their younger generation to Iraq, do you? Certainly, some communities have lost sons and daughters, but not "most" in any single one. Just think about the massive casualties we've had as a nation in prior wars. While each loss is tragic, 100 per month is nothing in comparison.

BTW: CNN is reporting Saddam's chief lawyer has withdrawn from the trial, so there may be a delay in Saddam's sentencing.

Chuck:

Harry Reid and Bob Casey, to name just two. And doubtless there are many challengers with a viable shot in the border states and the west who also lean to the pro-life side of the spectrum (although I doubt any Democrat, including Reid and Casey, opposes abortion in the case of rape or incest).

I said "the most," not "most." The most relative to other communities is what I meant.

Saddam's sentencing is for the first trial, not this one. What happens is the current trial may not have any impact at all.

Bob

I know I heard somewhere that Saddam's sentencing may not go on the 5th. I can't remember where though. As for "the most" sons and daughters, relative to other communities, are you talking actual KIA? I don't count anyone advocating abortion in the case of rape or incest to be "pro-life", sorry.

Of course I acknowledge that abortion may be difficult for some women, and that it is reprehensible for women to be so irresposible that they have multiple abortions, and that electing to have an abortion because the fetus is of the wrong sex but that does not mean that abortion should be made illegal. In other words, acknowledging that there are nuances to the abortion issue shouldn't necessarily make one jump to the conclusion that abortion is wrong. To me its like going from point a to point z.

So then, "real" murder for you could be wrong, to you personally, but that doesn't necessarily mean it should be illegal?