Abortion is Barbaric

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1021034/... ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1021034/... )

This child is just fine. Should they have decided she wasn't worth saving? Does the act of being born make her alive? That they went to heroics to save her life tells me that she was in fact ALIVE. So again, at what point does life begin?

You probably won't see this comment, but I feel compelled nonetheless to respond. I can assure you you received some wrong information about the procedure. There are various methods used in abortion based on the gestation period, but since 90% of abortions are completed in the first trimester, we'll focus on the main one used there. It is called "dilation and curettage", or D & C. They simply dilate the cervix and use a vacuum-like apparatus to suck out the contents of the uterus. It is done in less than 5 minutes and it is only mildly uncomfortable.

I had one of these, so I know.

EDIT: Very few people use it as a form of birth control. Although, if you're like me and you accept the idea that an embryo (which is what it is when most abortions are performed, not yet a fetus) is not a person, it doesn't seem nearly so terrible. I feel bad for women who do this because for some women (some, not most) have a hard time with abortion and they are unnecessarily putting themselves through that.

Birth control still fails sometimes. You don't know for sure that this choice will never be necessary in your daughter's life, all due respect, now matter how conscientious she may be (and I'm not doubting she is, very). I was conscientious and careful as well. I was using the Pill, and I got pregnant. And I'm happy I was able to have an abortion.

I don't mean disrespect to either POV mentioned here. If abortion was difficult for you and you are sorry about it, I feel for you. But I had an abortion a few years ago and I did not feel sad about it. It was not barbaric for me; it was actually one of the most positive experiences I've ever been through--it was empowering. It helped me grow up.

It was actually an easy decision for me to make; I didn't for a second consider having a baby. I've never regretted it and I would be extremely upset if the right were to be taken away from me. It is extremely unlikely I will get pregnant again, but in the small likelihood that it does, I would have another abortion and I really don't want the right or access taken away from me.

Thank you for being brave enough to say this. It's a hideous practice... folks can deny it but they are diluted.

Thank you for advocating on behalf of these un-named, faceless, vulnerable children of our society.

Minister Mama

www.gabbingwithgrace.com ( http://www.gabbingwithgrace.com )

Viability at 21 weeks is extrememly rare and the child will be wrought with health problems it's entire life, however long that may be.

Marie

Animal Cruelty is a violence we can stop.

Actually I'm not sure your argument regarding the morning after pill is entirely valid. The morning after pill or "Plan B" does not prevent conception if it should happen but merely prevents implantation by causing a women to shed the plus baby ready uterine lining.

\\\\

Marie

Animal Cruelty is a violence we can stop.

to quote you from one of your replies: "As to the other comments, as I said above, I am not absolutely opposed to abortion for any reason. Rape and incest are even more horrifying than abortion. And the life of the mother, if at risk of her dying, takes precedence over that of her baby, unless she chooses to save her baby first."

What is the difference between babies of consensual sex or babies of rape or incest? They are both conceived, and are both carried but one leaves an emotional reminder for the women. Why is it okay to abort one but not the other? Your argument is seriously flawed.

Marie

Animal Cruelty is a violence we can stop.

In Canada, where I live, abortion is illegal right up to the 9th month of pregnancy, but doctors do not perform abortions past 20 weeks unless it is to save a woman's life or because of a compelling health reason, because it becomes too risky for the woman at that point. However, it's almost a non-issue. 90% of abortions occur before 12 weeks; very, very few occur after 16; the only ones that occur after 20 are done for serious health reasons and those are going to be wanted fetuses. I know we don't "know," but I can't see a fetus/embryo surviving without a brain, before a heartbeat can be detected, etc.

Even if they can, it doesn't prove anything. It just proves that medical science has managed to replicate the conditions of a woman's womb such that it can grow an embryo into a person. It still doesn't say to me that that embryo/fetus has more than my future and that I then have the responsibility to care for it.

Actually, you wouldn't see much of a reduction in abortions even if it were made illegal. Unwilling pregnant women are desperate. They have always and will always have abortions. In Latin America where abortion is illegal, abortion is THE number one killer of young women. Before Roe v. Wade, and the Morgentaler case in Canada (where I live) there used to be entire wards in hospitals dedicated to septic complications of pregnancy. Half of the patients would be women who had botched abortions. The truth is aborting pregnancies is a human behaviour, like sex or using drugs or alcohol, that you will never stamp out or reduce by making them illegal. It's been shown that making drugs illegal is not a deterrent to using; making homosexual acts illegal is not a deterrent; and making abortion illegal is not a deterrent.

As a friend and family member of many cancer survivors (and not survivors), I think they are roughly comparable. The only place I somewhat disagree is that for me having an abortion was not daunting. It was an easy decision to get rid of something that was causing me sickness, pain and anguish. Not as much pain and anguish as cancer, surely, but still the same principle.

You make an intelligent argument, with one exception: "From a bio-chemical standpoint if you are proposing that folks abstain from sex until and unless they are in a "committed relationship" your are being totally unrealistic."

That's a sad statement. Do you really feel we have so little control over our impulses? I was, by choice, a twenty-six year-old virgin when I got married and I hardly think I have such exceptional self-control.

I'm not passing judgment on a lifestyle choice or saying mine is better than yours, just saying it is a choice and it does us a disservice to imply that it isn't. The vast majority isn't subject to overpowering sexual urges.

Hey there.... the problem with this thinking is the idea of deeming one PERSON more important than the other...deeming one's LIFE more important than the other. That's a HUGE problem...because of where that can and is taking us as a civilized?? society. When will the time come that a man's life, decisions and choices are more important than a woman's; or that what a Japanese person says, believes and deems important is more important than a white person's...or perhaps we're already there...It becomes a little scary to think that perhaps we're putting ourselves in the position of being subject to the decisions of a higher power and we have NO say. How far can we take this? Where does it stop? Child Sex Offenders are doing things to children all over the world because they have the freedom to do so....at little cost. At what age does life become sacred?...Only when it has a voice BIG enough to make a difference?....When? And yes, I believe that she does "have the right"...As parents we make decisions for our children daily that will affect them for life...for better and for worse...But we never have the right to KILL THEM TO PROTECT THEM from a life we think will be less than perfect...no matter the age.

I am against abortion but cannot agree with your inflammatory post. You have made the mistake of going to extremes -- making assumptions about the women who seek them, and making the argument that somehow abortion leads to child molestation!?? Citing anecdotal evidence does not back up your assertions. Let's leave the hysterics out of it and talk fact please.

You started off by talking about viability. That was an excellent place to begin, but you left it too quickly. Why not talk about that slippery slope a little more? 24 weeks used to be non-viable. Now we've had a baby survive at 21 weeks 6 days. One viable baby. How do we argue honestly that 24 weeks isn't viable when it has been proven that it is?

So maybe we say, "OK, lets roll back our cut-off from 24 to 20 weeks." What happens when a twenty week baby survives? Do we continually revise the standard that decides at what point life begins? At what point do we admit that we don't know?

Then why would you not have yourself and your significant other sterilized? It's simple solution and then you no longer have to worry about having children or your stomach turning.

say that because making abortion illegal wouldn't completely eliminate it that we shouldn't bother. But what about bank robbery, tax evasion, child abuse and speeding? Those things are illegal but have they been eliminated? Nope. But making it illegal is still a deterrent and that's what we're going for. The majority don't do those things because they respect the law.

http://lilyanasmom.blogspot.com

I would like to thank-you for sharing your point of view. Abortion is never an easy decision nor do I think it should be. I have many girlfriends who have had abortions, some regret their decision while others like me do not.

You brought up many questions that I was faced with when making "my choice". I was in a controlling relationship, where our fights had started getting physical. I knew that I did not want to be with this man, but how was I going to afford this child? what kind of life could I provide for this child? Would I be able to give this child up for adoption?

I would actually be due very soon, around the time I would also be finishing up my PhD, starting a postdoc, paying back student loans, trying to start a career..... alone.

Quite frankly I didn't know how I was going to afford a child, with $800 student loan payments, $600 in rent, baby food, diapers, daycare, etc. and I didn't want to be a single mom. I watched my mom raise 2 kids on her own and that is not what i wanted. 

By no means was it an easy decision. I talked to my family, friends and councelors. But in the end it was mine to make and I made the best decision for "ME".  

For some the choice is easy, for some the choice is hard. Some live with regret, some don't.

I was always the girl who supported pro-choice, but would never have an abortion myself. I don't think you can really say what you would or wouldn't do until you find yourself in the position of being pregnant. Do I think that some women abuse the right to have an abortion? yes, yes I do. But they have to live with their decisions not me. 

You seem to be missing my point.  I'm not saying that the baby is not a fetus made up of tissue, which is made up of cells.  I'm saying that we use those terms as a means to avoid recognizing the humanity of the life that the pro-choicer seeks to terminate.

In pre-abolition America, we used the terms "Slave" and "Negro" much the same way.  They were accurate terms, but their point wasn't accuracy.  Their point was to avoid dealing with what was really going on.  Their point was to denigrate the humanity of the individual whose rights were being ignored.

You wrote:

"And as for whether they should be protected under the law, I believe they are - up to the point where the well being of the fetus cannot take precedence over the well being of the mother." 

Similarly, a slave owner could have magnanimously pronounced that "slaves have rights.  It's just that those rights cannot take precedence over the rights of the slave owner."  In point of fact, that was precisely the holding in the Dred Scott case.

No amount of squirming can change the simple reality here.  Abortion is just the latest form of socially-acceptible subjegation of the weak at the hands of the powerful.  A slave owner's claim was "I own this slave, and I'll do with him as I please."  Today, a pro-choicers claim is "I own this womb, and I'll do with it as I please."

You seem to think that your views are somehow more enlightened than those of the slave owners past.  Well, they aren't.  You excuse the humanity of the fetus in exactly the same way that the slave owner excused the humanity of the negro.

It's just the same play with different players.

They are scientific facts.

And as for whether they should be protected under the law, I believe they are - up to the point where the well being of the fetus cannot take precedence over the well being of the mother. 

Visit my blogs at ThreeSeven ( http://www.threeseven.ca ) (all that's irrelevant and amusing) and
ecochick ( http://www.ecochick.ca ) (all that's green, cool and Canadian).

I suggest you read this article in the NY Times about a doctor who treated patients with self-imposed abortions before Roe v. Wade.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/health/views/03e...

In my opinion if you had access to safe medical care you did have a ‘choice’. The women before Roe vs. Wade had none.

The manipulations of laws to enforce certain behavior some choose to name "moral" or "immoral" is not what the purpose of the law is intended to be.  The annals of law in this country are to ensure that as a conglomerate of individuals with a range of interests and beliefs we can live without constant civil war and threats of annihilation.  The basis for forming a society and a government can be studied and have been studied for eons, but unless you are suggesting, Sarah, that the USA is a theocracy that uses the King James or other Christian-only bible (as opposed to the Koran, the Torah or other religious texts), this country's legal system is not used well when it's used to enforce or define what is morally okay or impermiissable.

I write pretty regularly about what a lousy job our laws do when they try to legislate social behavior and the range of opinions and perspectives in this thread are precisely the reason why our legislators should be spending their time on job creation, the economy, helping those who will always need help and so on.

I appreciate anyone who knows what they believe and works to maintain a consistency in their life related to what they believe. But when what you believe becomes the basis of what you want to legislate as what I should believe, or else?  Nuh-uh.

Jill
Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

I tried to talk about education, but you said very nicely. This debate will continue forever, I don't care how nice or eloquently someone posts their side, they will always feel that they have the best arguement and everyone else needs to abide.

If you really want to travel down that road and make it legally a "baby" from conception, then you must be fair to all and start including the fathers rights. The fathers have to pay child support from the second the child is born, right. Thats their responsibility. What if the father wants custody of the child? 

There are soo many things to consider that would have to be "exceptions". How are we supposed to tell who can have one and who can't? Will there be a questionaire? Fill out this form and please tell a complete stranger that you would like an abortion because daddy likes you better than mommy.

Also I don't why Pro- Life has a problem will the morning after pill? Hello that would stop alot of abortions, and it occurs BEFORE conception. Just like the pill, it does'nt kill anything. I would think you guys would like it. No RIPPING< SUCKING<etc.... involved. Everyone has done their homework so you know conception can take up to 3 days after intercourse.

I really hope everyone is prepared for the fall-out. Taking away the immediate choice is not going to solve the situation, telling us how inhumane, cruel, loose, and other choice words will not change our minds no matter how smart or nicely put. Funny thing is, I'm still on the fence. Yes, I think it's horrible and I also think that there are situations where it needs to be a safe viable option.

So far no one has answered my question of who has either adopted or fostered? You can't expect all these babies to come into the world and be taken care of properly. I think that a better plan needs to be made before bringing in thousands of unwanted children. I can't imagine dying in a dumpster is less tragic then being taken from the womb.

If Pro-Life really cares about the babies, then you need to come up with a better plan on what to do with the consequences.

I'm nt a very good writer, my puctuation is avaerage at best, but I hope I got my point across.

As someone else has written, I used to be pro now I'm not. She wanted to express the feelings of PRO-Life without the name calling and so on. In the end, although smartly and well written, it came down to the same I'm RIGHT and you're wrong. Well this is from the other side, not quite as well written, but all the same.

PRO-CHOICE does not mean Murderers, and other names. I can not speak for all but I can see both sides and sympathize. I will not take it upon myself to tell others how to live, and we can see the many degrees of difficulty of this problem. I will not compare abortion to Hitler or cancer or any other attrocity that has occured, that my friends in plain wrong, I consider that spewing hatred against those who think differently, and does not bring women together.

Like Anissa has said, Education including birth control, is the answer. Not taking away the choices we have.

ANISSA, keep being strong. My son was in the hospital for 3 months and I saw the pain and agony other parents went through. I feel for and your child, best of luck.

Who knows, maybe it's better these babies go straight to heaven instead of having to walk through hell first.

The same argument was used to support slavery in the Dred Scott case.  They argued that slaves were not legally recognized as "persons" under the Constitution, and they were not recognized as such by society.  In some circles, people argued with a straight face that blacks were not even fully human. 

Darwin's right hand man Thomas Huxley wrote that blacks would continue to fail in a society that judged success by the quality of one's thoughts, rather than the size of his bites.  These ideas were commonly accepted in polite society.  Today, we recognize them as abhorent.

Yet, because society was bigoted, the Court permitted the tragedy of slavery to continue.

Some societies do not recognize woman.  Others have extended the bigotry to larger groups.  In Nazi Germany, Jews were dehumanized and people accepted their slaughter simply because they were not legally protected.

So, I do not accept your argument that fetuses are not legally protected.  Really, you are not making an argument.  You are merely restating the issue.  The question is whether they should be legally protected.  We even see people in polite company use dismissive language to diminish the status of the unborn, just as they diminished the status of slaves 150 years ago.  We call it "tissue" or "cells."  Even the term "fetus" is used to avoid dealing with the reality that it's a baby - a human baby. 

People have engaged in all sorts of atrocities for centuries.  To illustrate the silliness of that argument, I seriously doubt that you would use the historical prevalence of rape (and legality in some societies) as an argument for the acceptance or legalization of forcible rape.

Truth be told, the legal status of the unborn is just the latest form of bigotry our society accepts out of convenience.

until you poop it out.

(Like this comment I find that argument totally ridiculous.)

Victoria, aka VDog
http://www.vdogblog.com

I am neither amoral or agnostic and I go against a lot of Christian beliefs in saying that I am pro-choice.  I am the mother of 3 fantastic kids, my first was a surprise baby that I CHOSE to not abort, but I was able to make that decision based on all of my options.  I am in a day to day battle with my baby's cancer, so I can 100% say that I value the lives of my children...more than my own.  I believe my children are gifts and blessings and miracles.  

I will never forget that during my second pregnancy a test came back
positive that my daughter would be born with Down's Syndrome and they
wanted me to come in and talk about my "options".  I chose not to
address those test results because there would never have been a
difference in my choice to carry to full term and to love my child.
However, it AGAIN, was a choice made knowing that I had options should
I feel I needed them.  

I also believe that my body is mine.  If at any point I give someone else the right to tell me what I can do with my reproductive rights, when do we cross the line that after telling me I HAVE to have a baby, do you tell me I CAN'T have one if I want.  We have to realize that your body is your most sacred possession, to care for it or to abuse it is a decision only you can make. To allow someone the right to tell you how to use your body is a rape of that right. 

I wholeheartedly agree that teaching responsibility, accountability and educating about these issues is the core of what will put abortion clinics out of business...never the stamping of feet and beating of religious morals.

Anissa Mayhew

www.hope4peyton.org 

www.onevoiceproject.ning.com ( http://www.onevoiceproject.ning.com )

Because we "choose" to live in the land of the free and the home of the brave, that means we are all entitled to our own "truths".  Your truths are not mine and mine are not yours.  I would never dream of making you make a choice that wasn't right for you and your family.  What gives you the right to make me make a decision of what is what for me and my family?

I'm going out on a limb here, but I would guess that the (and I'll say it because it has been said the other way many times on here) Radical Evangelical Conservatives that are trying to force away my choice here, are also po'd about gay marriage being legalized.  And holy cow, did you know that Marijuana is legal in California too?  Bet that just blows your mind.  As small and closed as it is. 

My open minded Heartily Conservative uncle did a blog today about what constitutes an open mind.  http://jgbeau.blogspot.com/2008/07/are-you-open-mi...

Yes, your truths hurt, but I am strong and brave, and I know my own truths, in my own heart.  So all I have lft to say to you is "whatever". 

A fetus isn't a human being under the law, nor is it one functionally or in our society. A fetus is is a clump of cells that has potential to become a human being, but a lot of things have to go right for it to actually become a human being.

If a fetus is a human being, we would have funerals when women miscarried at 8, 12. 16 weeks. We don't. We grieve the potential, what might have been. We are saddened, if the child was wanted. But we do not hold a funeral. We do not issue a birth certificate. A fetus is not a child.

Women have been casting out unwanted children from their wombs for centuries.  This isn't a modern phenomenon. If we are truly an enlightened society, we would eliminate the circumstances that caused women to need to cast these children out, rather than berate the women for making the decisions they had to make. 

Visit my blogs at ThreeSeven ( http://www.threeseven.ca ) (all that's irrelevant and amusing) and
ecochick ( http://www.ecochick.ca ) (all that's green, cool and Canadian).

Thank you for sharing your story.  What hard decisions those must have been.

((((you))))

It blows my mind that you think that type of comment is going to get people to change their mind.

For all the names and labels you put upon pro-choice, in the end the Anti's look like the cold hearted.

I fear that if I speak my mind about the issue in general that my words will be hurtful.  I wish there were a way to do this without that risk, but there isn't.  Truth is truth.

Your first decision was to kill a child to save it from the pain of being born into your life.  Your second decision was to give a child to another family to avoid the pain of being killed.

The second decision is admirable, not the first. 

It blows my mind how women will justify killing a baby by claiming it was what was "best" for the child.  Seriously, how bad of a person would you have to be in order to rightly claim that your child would be better off dead than raised by you?  There are maybe only a handful of such creatures in our entire society - people so bad that death is better than being raised by them. 

If there really were such an ethic in our society, then why do we take children away from bad parents and give them to foster parents?  Why not just kill them?  Honestly, if the ethics of abortion are sound, then we could justifiably terminate bad parents' parental rights and then murder the kids.  It's the same decision.  The only difference is the timing.

I would challenge any person to justify the ethics of abortion while recognizing that the fetus is a human being.  Frankly, you can't. 

As the wife of a cancer survivor and someone who is active in the cancer community, I take offense at the thought that removing a tumor and having an abortion are roughly similar.  I know that facing cancer is a daunting task and can assume that considering an abortion is equally daunting.  Beyond that, I fail to see very many parallels. 

Living in the Tension ( http://www.livinginthetension.com )

As a woman who has used all the choices available to her regarding pregnancies I find the initial post to be insulting. 

As a young mother of a toddler on birth control and in a committed relationship I found myself very far from any family and in a situation that was not going to be good for me or a newborn child.  Ergo a decision was made and although it saddened me to make it, I will not allow myself to regret it. 

Years and another child later (also while on bc, it obviously doesn't always work), I had a baby that I knew I would be unable to provide for.  Having had an abortion years earlier, I decided to put this child up for adoption.  It was a much harder decision.  I was fortunate to find a family myself without having to put this infant through the system.  It is almost 18 years later, and I still haven't come to terms with that decision.

No woman makes a laissez faire decision when it comes to an abortion.  No matter what anybodys "religious" beliefs, know in your heart that every mother makes decisions everyday as to what is best for her child. 

But giving a child up for adoption is not that simple, either logistically or emotionally. Simply giving birth and raising a child is not that easy, logistically or emotionally.  And those children born into terribly challenging, difficult circumstances may eventually become the people that have to themselves face decisions as tough as this one. So I guess I have to wonder at what age the life of a woman becomes less relevant, less important than the life of a fetus that she may carry. Is it 10? 20? 40?  If carrying a child to term will condemn both the child and the mother to a life of suffering, does the mother have the obligation to do that to herself? Does she even have the right to bring another human being into that situation?

Questions indeed. 

Visit my blogs at ThreeSeven ( http://www.threeseven.ca ) (all that's irrelevant and amusing) and
ecochick ( http://www.ecochick.ca ) (all that's green, cool and Canadian).

"When it comes down to it I think we need respect and a recognition
of individual freedom and individual responsibility. We shouldn't
infantalize our citizens. There are other ways depressed people can
kill themselves--how about drug overdose--prescription not illegal
drugs, and irresponsible parents whose kids fall out of windows or run
into traffic, or light matches. And no, I am not advocating for individual ownership of nukes."

(The above was lifted from one of Backyard Conservative's own comments on her second amendment post.)

You, Backyard Conservative (why the backyard? afraid to practice your moral-highground upbraidings in front of the neighbors?), yourself, make the argument that "we need respect and a recognition of individual freedom and individual responsibility. We shouldn't infantilize our citizens."

Granted, the argument was made in favor of concealed handgun carrying rights, and not regarding whether a woman has the final say over her own body.

But I find it terrifically hypocritical, nonetheless. You can't see that the rights involving individual freedoms apply to *all* of it?

If you can't, I -- guess I won't be too surprised. But don't mistake my lack of surprise for a cease-and-desist; I'll never quit fighting to ensure that all women have the same rights as men, that all people are given equal footing, up to and including the right to sexual freedom. Whether you disagree or not. 'Cause it's none of your business. It is, as you've already stated, a matter of needing to "respect and [recognize our] individual freedom and individual responsibility. We shouldn't infantilize our citizens."

Well said, BC.

Mashadutoit wrote that The Issue:

It is whether you can make that decision for me....  Whether you can take that option away from me.

I agree wholeheartedly that the issue is whether one person can make a decision for another, but it isn't whether one adult can make a decision for another.  It's whether a pregnant woman can decide for her baby that life is not an option worth having.  Abortion involves a pregnant woman deciding that, for her child, life is not worth living - that they'd rather die than live under the circumstances they'd be born into.

Now, I'm not a woman, but I was a baby once.  I think I am qualified to speak on behalf of the babies out there.  I think it's safe to say that they'd choose life, even if it means having an incredibly selfish woman as your mother.  Living poor is better than dying.  Living under any circumstance is better than dying.

The choice not to raise a child is available through adoption.  The choice to kill a child rather than carry it to term is one of convenience and selfish vanity. 

For me, being pro-choice has nothing to do with being "pro-abortion", a hedonistic lifestyle or any of the things that you mention. It is simply that I believe that women, as individuals are better equipped to make a decision about their bodies than the government.

It is established that criminalizing abortion does not eliminate it, but it does make it less safe for women to have one. I'm not sure why that is preferable.

In my opinion, the pro-life groups that want to minimize abortions would be better served with supporting sex-education (and I don't mean the abstinance programs) and access to birth control than fearmongering and lecturing.

Thanks to everyone who wrote such eloquent and grounded comments.  I was responding to the emotional and judgemental tone of the original post, and my responses were not that balanced at that.  I hope that BackyardConservative reads these conversations carefully with an open mind. 

The older I get, the more I learn that I must always asume that I may be wrong.  That maybe I dont know the answer. Always listen.  Even to a post like this.  That is what upsets me, because while I am listening and trying not to judge, this was like a slap in the face.  

To Backyard C.  What is more important to you:

Proving to others and yourself that you are right, and never mind the consequences?

or

Persuading others that you are right so that hopefully things change in the way you want them to?

or

Sharing a belief you are passionate about in the hope that you can find the best way, together with other people?

Essentially -- what is more important.  Owning the moral high ground, or comunicating?

I was totally pro-choice, until college when I was told of the abortion procedure. (They yank that baby out piece by piece. No one can say for sure, but I think that has got to hurt. A LOT!)

I was then totally pro-life, until I read through the majority of these comments.

Now I'm not so sure.

I still believe that it is a horrible "procedure".
But I do believe there are circumstances that warrant it.

I am still disgusted with people who use this a their form of birth control.
But I feel for those who have to make this heart-wrenching decision, and view it as such.

I am sad to read the attacks on people's opinions.
But am happy to live in a country where we are allowed to have them.

Have a good day all.

States rights on abortion have the end result of allowing those with
the resources to make a run for the border to get a safe and legal
abortion, while those without are denied access. This results in
denying services to those with the greatest need. Ireland is an
anti-choice nation, but those who can, take the ferry to England.
Duplicating that model is senseless. Throwing the issue back to the
states doesn't resolve the issue, it defracts it further.

Just reposting from my previous response to the states rights approach. And wondering, if you truly favor the states rights approach, you would be willing to accept it if your state decided to remain pro-choice. 

Nerd's Eye View ( http://www.nerdseyeview.com )

I've been spending time with her.

A lot has been said here. The fundamental point this illustrates is that Roe v. Wade needs to be overturned so that the debate can be returned to each state, where the people of each state can hash out their prevailing communities standards.

That will be a healthy start to resolving this open sore.

What makes you think that everyone who believes abortion should be safe and legal is a liberal?

My mother is a relatively conservative, practicing and devout Catholic, with six children.  She would never have considered having an abortion during her child-bearing years.  But she was also an OB/Gyn nurse on the overnight shift at Bellevue hospital in NYC in the sixties, when abortion was not legal.  She saw first-hand the results of back-alley abortions, and she is today pro-choice because of it. 

--Liz 

I blog about creating a life worth living at:  www.inventingmylife.blogspot.com ( http://www.inventingmylife.blogspot.com/ )

I wish you could see us a people first and not as so-called labels.

I wish that the next time you visit BlogHer you bring verified facts along with your morals and beliefs. I wish that your God would wrap you in compassion as well as passion.

We are not the enemy. We are people; some of which has different opinions.

Proud to be a 2nd Class Heathen,

Gena - Out On The Stoop ( http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com )

I am not proud of it. But at the time -- being young and unemployed and living at home in an abusive situation... I could not bring a baby into that environment, and I wasn't sure I'd be able to survive giving it up for adoption. Nor could I stand the idea of being tied forever to its substance abusing father (or allowing a child of mine to grow up with the same problems I'd dealt with).

There was nothing barbaric about the procedure. The folks at Planned Parenthood were professional. It didn't hurt and while I was sad that I'd had to do this, all I felt afterwards was relief and cramping -- like having a bad period.  

I thank God that it was possible to obtain a safe, legal, affordable abortion in 1979. I pray that this remains possible, should my daughter ever decide she needs it.

Pregnancy isn't easy and yes, it can risk the life and health of the mother. In addition, having a child can certainly leave a woman with decreased financial resources, more vulnerable to exploitation from those who see desperate women trying to feed their families, more likely to remain in abusive relationships for the sake of the child... I could go on.

Having a child is a wonderful thing, when you are healthy, when you have the means, when you are able to care for the child properly. When you are not, it is not a wonderful thing. It is difficult and terrifying. 

Visit my blogs at ThreeSeven ( http://www.threeseven.ca ) (all that's irrelevant and amusing) and
ecochick ( http://www.ecochick.ca ) (all that's green, cool and Canadian).

It frustrates me that this conversation was started from such a unproductitve point of view. Calling abortion barbaric isn't going to win over any converts, nor are arguments about how pro-choice people are immoral. It makes me wonder what the point is of this post. Is it to paint the entire pro-choice readership of BlogHer with a scarlet letter? "You suck! Here's why!" Seriously, what can be the goal of this kind of rhetoric?

It occurs to me that there must be better ways to engage the readership in a conversation about abortion. Are there no sources for anti-choice people to find talking points for discussing their stance with pro-choice humans? Or does the dialog consist of the tactics that I'm familiiar with - blocking abortion clinics, threatening doctors, and lecturing us on our morality? 

I believe there is a more moderate and useful way to start this conversation, but it's not apparent here. 

Nerd's Eye View ( http://www.nerdseyeview.com )

It happened in February, ( http://www.blogher.com/why-im-pro-life ) led by Shannon. Even I, who was cynical about its possibility, read along and got something out of it.

Whereas you may feel the need to use inflammatory language to get your point across - and I'm a First Amendment supporter regardless - all it ever serves to do is set up flame wars on this most polarizing of issues, and I'm so tired of them.

States rights is proving to be wildly unsuccessful and divisive re: other issues and I don't see the need to drag us all into some Wild West nationwide fixation on abortion, when the matter was decided by the Supreme Court many years ago.

Also, please factor in the ever-shifting nature of "commitment" in 2008, as defined by society at large and the individuals within it, and the confusion it causes in the heads of women AND men before making sweeping generalizations about self-respect as related to sex. And still, although this is a 50/50 proposition, women are the ones who must process the overload of blame and questions of self-respect? Chalk that up to another thing I'm tired of.

Laurie

LaurieWrites ( http://lauriewrites.typepad.com )

So grown women need protection from fetuses? Really?

I guess then if I swallow rubber it is a part of me too.