She vs. Her: Women and the Midterm Elections -- What's at Stake?

"Babies" deserve (and require) so much more than to merely exist.

Just as we have the right to freedom OF religion, we have the right to freedom FROM religion.

All the "sighs" and the patronizing tone with which responses are delivered, the last GOP National Convention during which candidates and their supporters were laughing and chanting, "Burn, Baby, Burn" about something so important and equally polarizing as the environment, are the perfect examples of why conservatives are alienating the Middle Majority.

You MAY NOT take away our right to choose, because doing so would be the antithesis of religious freedom: it's forcing religious beliefs unilaterally down the throats of every American.

Wake up and smell the fuel oil. 

Extremism will get no one elected.  Listening and debating RESPECTFULLY, tolerance, being open to compromise and ideology that sees beyond black and white, those are qualities of the candidate who will get my vote.  

In response to my featured post "My Friends Think I'm the Only Liberal They Know," a friend said she would label me as neither liberal nor conservative, but rather ENLIGHTENED.  That's a label I might actually try on for size.  How about "The Enlightened Middle Majority?"  Sign me up for that party.

http://www.blogher.com/my-friends-think-im-only-liberal-they-know?from=bhspinner

Adrienne,

I was hoping for a response a couple of comments I made, unrelated to abortion.

One was about analyzing how much taxes you would have saved when Bush's tax cuts were placed into affect. Allowing the tax cuts to expire will likely have very little affect on the average person since they disproportionately benefitted the investor class. I saw this myself. Were you able to review the tax code?

I sincerely want to understand this perspective from someone who supports lower taxes. It's difficult to pay lower taxes when the average person (especially women) already pay very little.

Heather

Heather blogs about Motherhood & Other Offensive Situations at http://www.ultimateoutcasts.com.

Gloria Steinem has a great piece relevant to this discussion, "Why Mama Grizzlies Vote Pro-Choice" at http://womensmediacenter.com/blog/2010/10/exclusive-why-mama-grizzlies-v... ( http://womensmediacenter.com/blog/2010/10/exclusive-why-mama-grizzlies-vote-pro-choice/ )

Karen Bojar

http://www.the-next-stage.com/

Hang in there, BlondieChicago

When people have strong views as both Adrienne and I do, there’s always the danger of stepping over the line into attack mode.

Whenever I write something in anger, I’ve learned not to push the send button but to give it an over night before sending.

I was not happy when Adrienne said in response to my referencing Amanda Marcotte, “I've had discussions with a colleague of hers and other prominent female liberals in the media. Both agreed that Marcotte is extreme and did their best to distance themselves from her.”

I happen to like much of what Amanda writes and I don’t see it as fair to attack her through unsourced comments by anonymous "female liberals."

I wrote a really angry piece in response, but when I looked at it this morning, I decided it didn’t add anything to the debate on abortion rights and I pressed the delete button.

What I like about Blogher is the debate is generally civil and posters try to engage the argument rather than indulge in ad feminam attacks. But when you care passionately about something it’s easy to go overboard. I’ve done it.

So thanks for your comments and I hope you continue to contribute to the discussion.
Karen Bojar

http://www.the-next-stage.com/

I didn't say I was a religious expert, I said I took enough religion classes to realize it's impossible to debate POINTS like abortion when there is a religion-based argument on one side. I also never mentioned the constitution. But I don't want to sit here and clear up the mis-quotes.

While I did use the word "ignorant" in my comment (which just means "lack of knowledge"), now this conversation has turned. I see the words "idiot" and "stupidity" and "ridiculous" and "tedious" and "it doesn't take a genius" and no longer want to participate in the conversation. I don't believe in being a bully or acting like a bully on BlogHer.

Agnes B. Bullock

Adrienne:

You're getting under my skin and I L-O-V-E it :). Seriously, we need serious debates on issues like this.

1. As far as the tax cuts go, it doesn't matter much to me. I was doing my own taxes before, during and after Bush was president. They can expire. I am an average woman with an average income. We don't make enough money to pay taxes and what little I do, I personally do not mind. I have used the highways, called the police, had graffiti in neighborhood removed. If I get something for the money, I am okay to pay for it.

Please answer: Are you aware of how much in taxes you would have been paying over the last 12 years at your current pay rate? You maybe astounded to learn you are beating a drum for people far wealthier than the average person.

2 You say: "How is preparing for an uncertain economic future bad?"What will they be doing differently with more money in the bank? The rules of the game are the same. Nothing is stopping them from innovating or paying higher wages -- NOTHING! Believe me, I see bank accounts of the very people you are defending. They just want more money.

And this falls right in the Motherhood debate...the desire to feed your living children is a priority over a business's goals of increased quarterly profits when they invest in the cotton and oil bubbles. Business needs to invest in the American people...It's that simple. The taxes come when they spend the money. The economy revives. I understand economics very well.

If people do not get paid enough money (while businesses hoard it) is what tears down the economy. The Bush policies are the very reason we got here. His plan to start wars did not have a budget, did it? Why does the average American have to pay their own bills while Bush supporters want to pass the buck? Please answer.

3. What is this "Obamacare" fear going on? First you want to make sure that every pregnant woman bears her child, then make her pay for it even if she cannot because the only gig in town is at Walmart and they pay minimum wage and do not offer benefits? Adrienne, you are not a Mom yet, are you?

4. You say: "You want to protect a woman's "right" to abort her child (a right that most legal scholars agree is a weak decision and poor case law)" -- most of these people are not Mothers, much less women.

5. You say: The money from the Iraqi/Afghanistan wars (most of it went to contractors and military, which are actually jobs, ahem)"...Yeah! And so is "Obamacare". You know jobs and money that STAY in the US economy and benefit Americans. I was telling everyone that the wars were going to be an epic financial disaster but I don't know one conservative who saw it in their crystal ball. Plus, that money maimed and killed thousands of American soldiers and innocent civilians. Any suggestion of affordable access to medical care as anything but beneficial to Americans is very disheartening. But time will tell as did the wars.

6. You wanted me to explain my point. In my previous post I had given an example of a Christian woman I knew who had to decide between her own life and the dying 5-month-old fetus in her body after her water-broke. Do you approve of her making that decision for herself? Do you think a woman should be put on trial to determine if her pregnancy was rape or incest-induced so that she can get "approval" to have an abortion? I cannot think of a greater violation of privacy than that. You did not respond either to Karen who made the wonderful observation requesting the proper punishment for a woman gets an abortion if it would be illegal.

7. Abortion is absolutely an issue. So long as men are raping women (they still do), people who lack compassion about the complexity of those situations need to just continue focusing on how well their stock portfolio is doing and mind their own business.

Heather blogs about Motherhood & Other Offensive Situations at http://www.ultimateoutcasts.com.

So many incorrect points in your comment.

1. Sigh. "Separation of church and state" is not actually in the Constitution. The First Amendment, which developed into the Establishment Clause, states that the government may not create a law to abridge the practice of religion in America. That doesn't mean religious freedom is freedom from religion.

That particular phrase originated in 1802. The Constitution was ratified in 1789. Small problem there.

Thomas Jefferson coined the phrase when writing a letter to the Danbury Baptists. They were afraid that the new Constitution would side with the Anglican and Calvinist faiths, which were dominate at the time. Baptists or ana-Baptists were considered the radicals. Jefferson was desperately courting their votes in an election year.

It is important to note that Jefferson was not present in the country when the Constitution was written (He wrote the Declaration of Independence, remember? Madison wrote the Constitution). Jefferson was serving as ambassador to France at the time of the Constitutional Convention. He returned only after it was ratified. His influence on its interpretation was one of a spectator, an informed spectator, but still one.

Americans should have the ability to practice any religion, but America was built on Judeo-Christian beliefs. It doesn't take a genius to read the letters and journals of most of the Founders to see the profound effect that faith had on their lives and their views of government. (i.e. look up the history of where natural law descends. Also look up the Great Awakening and see how the evangelism of the mid-18th century united the colonies into a cohesive "nation" prior to the Revolutionary War.)

2. Actually, I've done a pretty thorough genealogy of my family. We're of sturdy stock. I know that since my great-grandmother's time, only one infant died due to a car crash. Your point?

3. I'm sorry that Gallup ( http://www.gallup.com/poll/126581/Generational-Differences-Abortion-Narrow.aspx ) doesn't seem to poll your friends, but they are the ones who track abortion views in the country. The other poll I mentioned, the Girl Scouts ( http://www.girlscouts.org/research/publications/girlleadership/good_intentions.asp ), that vast bastion of right-wing thought. Watch out next time you buy thin mints!

4. No, I haven't ever faced a decision of life or death in that sense. Truthfully, I have no idea what I would do.

However, since only a small percentage of all abortions fall under "mother's life in danger," can we drop that tedious talking point?

I'm 100% prolife and will work towards living in a society where all life is valued, but most prolifers would be content to make abortion illegal except in the case of rape, incest or murder. You're splitting hairs.

As far as your religious comments go, you can't judge someone for their faith. No amount of religious classes make you an expert. I have enough credits for a Spanish minor, but I'm no where near fluent.

Faith is a belief. Unless you've experienced it, I can't describe it. It can't be measured, judged or accounted for. It's an understanding that you don't have all the answers, and the universe is bigger than you. However, there is a higher power that does have the ability to comprehend it.

When you have those beliefs, it's impossible to segment them in your life. It can and should encompass all areas. It saddens me that we live in a culture that is now hostile towards those who have those views. I've written more about faith and politics here. ( http://www.adrienneroyer.com/2009/12/01/going-rogue-faith/ )

Try again?

Adrienne works in the conservative movement and blogs at Cosmopolitan Conservative. ( http://www.cosmopolitanconservative.com )

Karen,

I agree that everyone is entitled to their opinions, but nothing shuts down a conversation faster than quoting Amanda Marcotte.

I've had discussions with a colleague of hers and other prominent female liberals in the media. Both agreed that Marcotte is extreme and did their best to distance themselves from her.

It's not in your best interest to use her as a source. Just sayin'.

I'm looking towards the future. You and other liberal women seem rooted in the past. Domestic violence, adoption, contraception, rape, sex ed, the plight of women internationally, the STEM gap, and other issues are incredibly relevant here.

Most women today come face to face with those issues. Where are those discussions? Why are liberal feminists clinging so desperately to the past when there are so many issues more relevant for women?

Adrienne works in the conservative movement and blogs at Cosmopolitan Conservative. ( http://www.cosmopolitanconservative.com )

Just because feminists strongly defend abortion rights does not mean that’s the only issue we care about!

Feminists work on many issues other than abortion and see abortion within the broader context of reproductive rights. We work on access to family planning and on contraceptive equity--see philacluw’s excellent post.

Our Philadelphia NOW chapter at this point is emphasizing the current crisis in maternity care; hospitals all over the country are shutting down their “unprofitable” Ob/gyn units. We've recently concluded a successful campaign to ban the shackling of pregnant prisoners in Pennsylvania.

If you check out the national NOW website at http://www.now.org, you see a range of issues in addition to protecting abortion rights: NOW’s Love Your Body campaign, LGBT rights, protecting social security, promoting diversity & ending Racism, stopping violence against women, advocating for the Fair Elections Act, the Paycheck Fairness Act and reauthorizing the Family Violence Protection Services Act.

So let’s get beyond that tired old charge that feminists only care about abortion.

Karen Bojar

http://www.the-next-stage.com/

@theoutcast

What?!? Have you taken econ 101?

You want to protect a woman's "right" to abort her child (a right that most legal scholars agree is a weak decision and poor case law) but attack PRIVATE businesses from using their resources wisely?

If you haven't paid attention, the Bush tax cuts are about to expire. Between Obamacare and tax increases, small businesses can't afford to make capital expenditures and create jobs. That's why the economy is at a standstill.

The market doesn't like volatility in economic policies. Because it's up in the air if the tax cuts will be extended or not, businesses are keeping their cash on hand rather than investing it to create jobs.

How is preparing for an uncertain economic future bad? Small businesses (actually all businesses) are not nonprofits. It's not bad to make a profit. Otherwise, why even try? Altruism isn't the motivator for creating jobs, sorry.

It IS Obama's fault. Regardless of what @philacluw believes, premiums are skyrocketing ( http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703720004575478200948908976.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsTop ) because of new requirements under Obamacare. Lockheed Martin, McDonalds, and other companies are gradually announcing increases as insurance plans for 2011 come out. Even Families USA ( http://hotair.com/archives/2010/10/21/new-study-shows-obamacare-subsidies-five-times-higher-in-first-year-than-predicted/ ), a liberalish pro-Obamacare group, agreed.

Bottomline: there's so much uncertainty in the economic future right now that businesses, big and small, are afraid to create jobs. They don't know what is coming down the road in taxes, and they're just starting to see the expenses relating to Obamacare.

So yes, Obama hasn't raised taxes...yet. As it stands now, he will have raised taxes on January 1, 2011.

FYI: most businesses make financial plans one or two quarters ahead of time, so that's why resources are being stashed now.

As far as the blame Bush rhetoric that you invoke, all of the debt that Obama-Reid-Pelosi have accumulated is more than all previous government debt combined in history. The money from the Iraqi/Afghanistan wars (most of it went to contractors and military, which are actually jobs, ahem), is a drop in the bucket to what the One did.

So how are we "talking out of both sides of our mouths"?

Also, what does this mean?

Interestingly, none of the recent conservatives responded thoughtfully to the complicated financial and personal scenarios presented that require abortion to remain legal.

Adrienne works in the conservative movement and blogs at Cosmopolitan Conservative. ( http://www.cosmopolitanconservative.com )

ALL issues are womens issues and what's at stake is NOT "abortion rights." It's our futures, our families, and our livelihoods.

How is rigidly supporting only pro-choice women going to help me as a woman put food on the table or help my female neighbor find a job? It won't. Pro-job, pro-growth policies that actually HELP women should be called "feminist."

And furthermore, I don't think it's a coincidence that the members of Congress who are supporting President Obama's destructive job and health care policies are overwhelmingly pro-choice. Pro-choice, pro-big government liberals have failed, let the women from the right take charge and see what we can do!

@ErickGOP

The issue is not squarely of abortion, it is about Motherhood. The choice to bring a life into the this cruel world is only the first of thousands Mothers and societies are faced with after the child arrives.

If the government is minding women's bodies just like it minds our pocketbooks we are in big trouble -- no matter the party affliation. I do no understand how conservative can not at least see that!

As for other issues, you invoked Sarah Palin. She spouts the 'no tax" party tea rhetoric to the masses without a shred of substance.

Most women do not earn enough to even pay one red cent in taxes! I do my taxes every year and 2009 was the most generous tax bonanza yet. Most people do not understand the tax code so they jump right on that train.

All of these big and small businesses holding their cash at Bank of America instead of giving pay raises to their employees (50% of which are WOMEN, most with kids) is the biggest problem out there.

Conservatives talk out of both sides of their mouths. They want to blame Obama for not doing enough to get the economy going yet they don't want him getting involved with business. A business owner was telling me that she was hoarding cash because she was sure that was GOING to raise taxes but admitted he had NOT. Huh? How can it be both ways?

I have to wonder about all these business people who don't want to pay taxes yet want to use the public roads, utilities, and infrastructure which make business possible.

Not to mention the deferred war bills. The baby boomers and anyone else who voted for Bush can have those.

Abortion, Motherhood, pay raises are issues under the same umbrella. We are all very focused on accessing resources and influencing our broken system so that we can feed our families.

Interestingly, none of the recent conservatives responded thoughtfully to the complicated financial and personal scenarios presented that require abortion to remain legal.

Heather blogs about Motherhood & Other Offensive Situations at http://www.ultimateoutcasts.com.

It's hard to believe there are so many women who think feminism -- or the discussion of women partaking in politics -- hinges on the issue of abortion.

Adrienne, you do such a great job covering the issues as a whole while Karen thinks abortion defines the entirety of the feminism debate! This ridiculous and I can't believe you used the Nora Ephron quote as an example -- I almost laughed out loud at the stupidity of that quote when I read the Slate article myself a few weeks back. How shallow.

Personally, I don't care much whether I "get" to claim a label before my name. And, sigh, I will never understand how anyone can so passionately want to defend abortion -- the OBVIOUS killing of an unborn child. Common sense, ladies. You have to be a complete idiot to deny that we were all fetuses. But, let's not get bogged down in the details of basic science or anything...

The truth is, there are even Republican women who are pro-choice. But there is SO much more the political debate. And, I would hope if you claim to be a feminist, there would be a little more substance to your title than the belief in the right to abort children.

As is always the case, liberals claim to be "open-minded" unless it's a conservative opinion that makes its way into the conversation.

"Count it the greatest sin to prefer life to honor, and for the sake of living lose what makes life worth living."
-- Decimus Juvenal

Shocked at how the ONLY points that were made by liberal women are about abortion. I'm fiscally conservative and socially libral (to a certain degree). While I agree that abortion is a choice that should be left up to the woman, that's the ONLY thing I agree with democrats these days. And at this point, feel it's a very NON-issue! We have our rights to choose, and we aren't going to lose them at this day and age. But it's a great wedge issue to bring up when women like me are concerned for our economy rather than worried about our reprodutive rights.

I'm one of the women who have fled the Democratic party. I'm a Tea Partier. And I love Sarah Palin. She's a strong female in our political eye, and women should be proud to have so many women on both sides of the isle to look up to. Not tear them down because of one single wedge issue, that really doesn't matter right now.

We need to focus on the real issues, which is bringing our country back from a horrible recession, getting people jobs, and restoring our safety in this country. And the Republicans/Conservatives are the only ones actually focusing on those VERY important issues!!

Christine

Homeschooling Mom Of 2 teenagers

A feminist is defined by Webster as one who believes in equality of the sexes. I do not believe in abortion, but I do believe in equality of the sexes. There's never going to exact equality when it comes to the physical aspect. And that's where abortion resides. Pregnancy is of women only, not men. That doesn't mean I don't want equal rights and equal pay.

Adrienne,
I firmly believe that old-school feminism was necessary to bust through the glass ceiling. But it is also turning out to have an incredibly negative impact on our society. It's time for us to reign it in and do what's best for ourselves and our families - and I agree, "[r]eal change rests with women on the right."

Jennifer Barr is a wife and working mom of two beautiful girls, 3 going on 13 and 9 months, which means she's sleep deprived but constantly kept on her toes! Most of those experiences are chronicled on her blog, http://midwestmomments.blogspot.com.

Great points Blondiechicago and
philacluw!

Amanda Marcotte has an interesting article, about how extremist views on abortion are hurting Tea party candidates.

From Marcotte's: “Voters Turn on Anti-Choice Extremism:”

Extreme anti-choice views don’t do well politically. As Election Day comes ever-closer, and Democrats are looking like they’re going to win elections they would have easily lost if they weren’t going up against Tea Party candidates instead of mainstream Republicans, the narratives are shaping up about why the Tea Party failed to win over the voting public. A lot of it will be undoubtedly true: Tea Party candidates have expressed extremist positions on social programs, the Civil Rights Act, the separation of church and state, and, most comically, masturbation. But what is getting very little coverage is how extreme anti-choice positions are likely hurting many of these candidates in the polls. But it’s quite likely that many of these candidates have views on reproductive rights that are too much for the public to stomach.
And it seems to be hurting them.

Full article at http://www.truth-out.org/voters-turn-on-antichoice-extremism64526

Karen Bojar

http://www.the-next-stage.com/

1.) Morally objecting to abortion is almost always a religious perspective. Religion has no place in true political debate (even though we all know that sadly doesn't happen) There is "supposed" to be a separation of church and state for a reason.

2.) You are, in fact, missing family members because if you check the death rate of women in childbirth and newborns from your ancestors' time, you will see how many of them died because of pregnancy/birth/complications.

3.) "Your side is losing. The majority of Americans in poll after poll want some type of limitation on abortion." Where are these polls from? Who were they polling? Because they weren't polling me or any of my friends. Behind every poll is a person with an agenda who is paying for the poll and targeting people to poll who agree with them.

4.) Have you ever been told you are going to die from a your pregnancy? Clearly not because you are still alive. I wonder how you would react if you were told you were going to die for SURE due to a pregnancy complication.

I respect other people's opinions, but the ignorance about abortion rights really gets to me. I am pro-choice, and I shout it loud and proud. I took endless gender studies classes at the University of Iowa in college. I had enough religion classes to minor in it. And after everything I learned there, I realized that it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a clear debate on something like abortion with people who are only arguing on their specific religious grounds. A very wise professor taught me that in order to win a debate, you can't use your religion if the person you are debating doesn't buy into it, too. So if you take away the "moral" argument, what do you have left to stand on?

"Please explain to me the justification for abortion in modern society?"

Rape, death, a baby that is incompatible with life outside the womb, life circumstances, age, health concerns, the relationship with the father, money, jobs, lack of adoption resources, incest, physical and mental abuse, timing, mistakes, contraception failure... the list goes on and on.

@Adrienne

Health care reform has not driven up premiums, nor is there anything whatsoever in the reform bill that passed that would lead any thinking person to believe the government will be restricting life-saving drugs from anyone. Where you "see" any of this remains a mystery.

Pro-choice feminists have been working diligently for better access to contraception, and for more effective methods, for decades. We agree abortion should be rare, and our activism demonstrates our commitment to that. "Legal, safe and rare" has been a standard axiom of our movement for abortion rights.

The truth is, many prescription plans don't cover contraception, or they only cover one or two methods which don't necessarily work for everyone. When this issue has been taken to the courts, the insurance plans' failure to cover contraceptives on an equal basis to other preventive drugs and devices (i.e., viagra, for instance, which was covered by 80% of plans by the time it hit the market)has been ruled discriminatory. About half the states have passed laws that prohibit insurance companies from failing to cover contraceptives. I live in a state that hasn't passed such a law, despite years of straegizing, lobbying, organizing and rallying, by pro-choice feminists. Here only about 1/3 of prescription plans cover all the approved methods of contraception that require Rx. That leaves a lot of women, especially low income women who are less likely to have any insurance, with no access to contraception, or high out of pocket expenses. And as Karen points out, even the very conscientious still run into situations where contraception fails.

It is also pro-choice feminists and their organizations who have been the moving forces behind development and legalizationof of and access to emergency contraception, and for continual improvements in EC.

It is also pro-choice feminists who have pushed for sex education for teenagers, which study after study shows is much more effective in reducing sexual activity and unwanted pregnancies in teenagers than the abstinence only programs promoted by the right.

So prevention has been a MAJOR focus of pro-choice feminists for years, and I have personally spent enormous amounts of time and energy organizing for these changes.

Perhaps you're right that young conservative women have no problem with contraception - in fact, most of them probably take it for granted. But I can assure you that we made these advances in reproductive rights for women with nothing but obstruction from conservatives. Yes, much of the opposition came from religious groups, but not only religious groups. This is an area where maybe conservative and liberal women and organizations could have worked together, but I know of zero instances where conservative women were willing to join these efforts. The gains we made in this area of reproductive rights are in spite of conservatives and thanks to pro-choice feminists. It seems to me that it is conservatives who have the narrow focus.

Adrienne,

RE: "given the resourcefulness of the women in my family, I would never make that choice"

Neither did my great-grandmother. The point is someone will make that choice and it must ALWAYS be the Mother.

Considering the taboo that abortion is today, do you think that women actually admitted to abortions when it was illegal? The only reason I knew this story is because my grandfather told us about it. You do not know who is missing from your family either. Abortion was much more common than most people think.

You're right that contraception is widely available and abortion should be as rare as possible. I trust women to make these decisions for themselves. Don't you?

I know a Christian woman who was faced with a late term abortion delimma just last month. She was 5 months pregnant. Her water broke. She wasn't going into labor and the baby still had a faint heartbeat. Without the fluid she was susceptible to infection. As long as the baby had a faint heartbeat, she held onto hope. Days went by. Due to the risk of infection she was required to stay in the hospital for 3 days.

A choice was made -- by her. And of course, she's devastated and angry at god but medical professionals assessed her circumstances. Fortunately, not conservatives.

I don't know if you are a Mom but bringing a child into the world gives Mothers a lifetime of other choices and responsibilities far beyond the moment of conception (which men have a moment's decision making to do).

As a Mom, I understand the complexity of bringing a life into this world.

Are you a Mom or an adoptive Mom? I can respect this position more when I see people actively involved in the care of other people's children and who understand how truly difficult it is. Most people do not because it's easier to get the kid here and much harder to take care of it.

Conservatives should just worry about their own tax dollars and not other people's bodies.

Karen--great point on the degrees of punishment.

Just about everyone my age knows someone (either directly or indirectly) who died from/or suffered serious complications from illegal abortions. Contraception sometimes fails and women will have abortions where they are legal or not. The question is will women have abortions which are safe.

Since you want the government intruding on this most private decision, please tell us how you want it to work. Should women who have abortions be prosecuted? Should doctors who perform abortions be prosecuted and lose their license to practice. What should the penalties be? Long jail terms?

Karen Bojar

http://www.the-next-stage.com/

@Karen

Your side is losing. The majority of Americans in poll after poll want some type of limitation on abortion.

This debate is old. Please explain to me the justification for abortion in modern society?

Medical science has progressed to the point that the only difference between a late-term abortion and a premature infant is desirability. On what ethical grounds can you accept abortion?

Furthermore, progress in contraceptives and emergency contraceptives should make abortion rare, very rare. This is a controversial issue among religious circles, but many conservatives, particularly younger ones, have no problems with contraception.

Shouldn't your focus be on prevention, not abortion? Aren't feminists spinning their wheels and clinging to ancient talking points when society has progressed beyond it?

It's very hard to justify abortion when you can see an ultrasound, or how neo-natal care has progressed to save younger and young babies.

The abortion debate has grown more complex, but the liberal feminist side hasn't moved on. Why?

Adrienne works in the conservative movement and blogs at Cosmopolitan Conservative. ( http://www.cosmopolitanconservative.com )

@ theoutcast

Given that I believe abortion is morally wrong, I would never opt for an abortion, whether it's legal or illegal.

You present an interesting scenario, but given the resourcefulness of the women in my family, I would never make that choice if it's 1930, 1950, 2010 or 2050. Abortion is wrong. Always.

When will pro-choice women learn the other side of the "choice" issue. What about the unborn life? Previous generations of women in my family faced difficult reproductive decisions in their lives, and each time chose life.

My great-grandmother chose to give all of her children life. She faced impossible decisions (actually worse than the scenario that you shared), but opted for the right choice.

Because of her, I'm alive, my mom and aunts are alive and my cousins are alive.

What family members are you missing today? What could they have accomplished? Didn't they deserve to have life too, regardless of the circumstances surrounding their conception?

Adrienne works in the conservative movement and blogs at Cosmopolitan Conservative. ( http://www.cosmopolitanconservative.com )

Adrienne, you say women vote “Women vote with their checkbooks not their reproductive organs.”

I don’t see this as a simple either/or. Suzanne Riesman in a recent Blogher post demonstrated that there is a connection between women’s economic equality and reproductive rights. Check out her post at http://www.blogher.com/legal-abortion-legitimate-campaign-issue?wrap=new... ( http://www.blogher.com/legal-abortion-legitimate-campaign-issue?wrap=news-and-politics-tags/feminism&crumb=32168 )

You say, “Women want power over their own lives and choices to make better decisions for their families.” Here’s my short answer: What is more fundamental than control of one's own body? I don’t understand how one can advocate for women having equal power in society and over their own lives and then say the government should force a pregnant woman to give birth against her will.

It comes down to who makes the choice--the pregnant woman or the government. I can understand how a feminist might have moral qualms about abortion and not make that choice for herself. But I can’t understand how someone would want to impose her moral values on all women and then claim she’s a feminist.

Karen Bojar

http://www.the-next-stage.com/

Adrienne, we are of a very naive and fortunate modern population.

I knew a very decent woman who depended on the income of her husband. She was forced to have all of her teeth pulled out (in her twenties) so that there were no more dentist visits. She was also forced to have 3 (three!) backdoor abortions because her husband wanted sex but not afford the resulting expense of another baby. This was in the 1930's. The woman was my great-grandmother.

I would rather hold onto my right to vote with my reproductive organs AND pocketbook than leave the voting to men with ONLY a pocketbook to worry about.

By the way, women eventually vote with their reproductive organs after they've been dealt the blow of bad decisions. We have the power to breed things out.

http://ultimateoutcasts.com/?p=113

This debate awesome. Adrienne you are wonderful for standing your ground. But you may have a different perspective if it was 1930, you had one baby already to feed, your husband needed his "release", you couldn't legally obtain an abortion and you were sitting in a dentist's chair right now.