The concept of abortion rights for all women and the gays rights go together naturally. The enemies of a woman's right to control her fertility are the same as those who want to strip gay and lesbian people of their rights. Look at the ones seeking to outlaw abortion rights in the United States: Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Randall Terry and Tim and Beverly Lahaye. They are the same ones attacking the gay community. I believe that a woman must be allowed abortion on demand. Feminism has helped gay men as much as it has helped women. The so called prolife movement dote on embryos, fetuses and fertilized ova but once the child is born they don't worry about it's need for food, shelter, clothing or freedom from abuse. And they don't care about it's welfare for food when it is in utero. They just don't want it removed prematurely from the woman's womb. When I was 18 years old I impregnated my then girlfriend. This was before I came to terms with the gay issues facing me. She aborted the pregnancy very early. It was the best thing for all concerned and had a happy ending thankfully.

For the billionth time, it's called PRO-CHOICE!

Sergei, I think you're right. It's very similar to the discrimination of gays and also the discrimination of people of color. While the issues are different, the principles are the same. They try to control and supress women, gays and people of color. They try and tell us what terrible people we are because we do not share their views and because we are different.

If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one. If you don't agree with homosexuality, don't sleep with people of the same sex and if you don't like people of color, then don't associate with us. Their problem is, it's not enough to just leave us alone, they like to shove their perfect world down our throats, tell us we're going to hell, hang us, beat us and even kill doctors that try and help us.

I will never understand why these kinds of people feel the need to flaunt their beliefs in such a negative way. The way they take religion and turn it around to suit their bias values and opinions, it is very similar to the way terrorists are using religion to do what they do.

The results are all the same, hate, fighting, violence, separation and intollerance. All in the name of religion.

[ May 03, 2004, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: Jorel ]

Then you'd have no qualms about a woman who decides to abort her child because in-utero tests reveal the child is gay.

Considering that many people truly believe that homosexuality is biological and not a choice, then if technology one day enables us to determine if an unborn child is gay, a woman's right MUST include her decision to abort said child.

Except for the ardent pro-death crowd here and in a few other joints, you will see the largest mass conversion of people from proabortion to prolife that this issue has ever seen. A woman can end her unborn child's life if she does not like its sex, its hair color, or if she just "doesn't want" the baby. She must, therefore, be allowed to end his/her life if the child is determined to be gay.

I've never before in my life (well, except for...never mind) seen so many comfy ways to call death anything other than what it truly is--death. The word euphemism is an understatement.

Sorry ... some of us can't help thinking that a fetus is not just a bundle of cells, but indeed a human being. And there are lots of "prolife" folks out there who absolutely are interested in promoting adoption and post-natal care for unwanted children. Randall Terry does not represent the mainstream position for those of us who are very uncomfortable (and heartbroken, really) about abortion. Pro-choice and pro-gay? It'll never be a perfect match. Don't paint with such a broad brush.

Jorel get its: All in the name of religion.

The problem, as many of us here have stated before, is that the Religious Right and other conservatives are gaining tremendous ground. Gay rights today, right to choose tomorrow, creation vs. evolution in school textbooks the day after.

MIB, you bring up a very good point. The moment science allows us to peer into the sexuality of a fetus, I think you will see a large conversion of people who are pro-choice suddenly become pro-life. I hate to say this but I think a large number of those people will be gay men. Of course, I'm curious as to how many people in the religious right will suddenly feel. Suddenly they feel pro-choice? That would be interesting you have to admit.

MIB, being in favor of a woman's right to choose dose not necessitate that a person approve of every woman's choice. I think you will find people who urge doctors and prospective mothers not to perform abortions solely because homosexuality is perceived as a birth defect, but then, I don't approve of abortion in the face of any birth defect. That doesn't mean I get to tell you're mother that she shouldn't have had you in light of your obvious lack of intelligence and less than passing acquaintance with the truth. Abortion is a choice of last resort in all cases. Every well intentioned person, regardless of their political or religious leanings, should be actively engaged in the struggle to prevent the need for abortions across the board. But there are necessary abortions and there are women who can find no other recourse. Responsible gay activists who are faced with the reality of the hypothetical situation you present will do what responsible pro-life advocates have done from the beginning, offer to adopt children no one else wants.

I'm still hard-pressed to see a connection between abortion rights and gay rights, except as Jorel said, opponents of one issue are most likely to oppose the other -- both on religious grounds. Both are about control and suppression. I just don't think the two issues are inextricably linked.

I don't believe gay people must support abortion rights just because they're gay. They should support abortion rights because it's a necessary thing in the world.

I don't presently have references to back up what I'm about to write, but from books, articles and historical references I've read over the years, I've formed my opinion on the right to abortion on the following concepts: Abortion is not a new issue. It's been around for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Only in fairly recent history has it become a political issue. Abortions will continue to happen as a necessary part of society, whether they are legal or not. Men can not understand what's going on inside a women during pregancy and post-childbirth, but throughout history in every society, mothers have on occassion ended the lives of their newborns. Call it post-partum depression or whatever, it's bioligical. Maybe its an instinct that hasn't quite been purged by evolution. Throughout much of history, "crib deaths" have been something not spoken of because it was understood that very often the deaths were caused by the mother. In other societies women left babies in the woods to die. Why, I don't know, but I believe abortion will continue to be part of society for the same reasons, whether religious men like it or not. When abortion became medically feasible, it started happening in extreme secrecy, going back at least as far as the mid-19th century in Europe, and probaby much earlier than that. Among women with the means, it was known when and where to go to end an unwanted pregnancy. Only women can make the decision, and it must be excruciating to make, but I believe they wouldn't make the decision unless they felt it was absolutely the right thing to do.

So there you go. Pro-choice rights for women! Equal rights for gays!

It should be a very important issue for all glbt people. The same forces which seek to control a woman's right to choose are the EXACT same ones who have oppressed gay people all throughout history. I do not consider an embryo a person. Another person may disagree and that is his or her right but the laws of the land should stay out of a woman's womb.

You know alot of these religious folks hate satan. They try to keep him down, fight him at every moment. Supress the rights of satan...

Does that mean we are supposed to support satan?

Listen, if some little bimbo wants to get knocked up in the backseat, let her do what is best. In the same regard, dont tell me what to do.

If you think about it, none of us are supposed to reproduce (and i hope most of you never will) so really, there is NO connection between the 2. WOW, most of you just baffle me at what goes through little your brains...

maxallen, even though you don't have references for what you wrote, I agree with you. It has been my experience that some women will make the choice to have an abortion, legal or not. Through working with youth that have gotten pregnant, I have learned that if they feel they cannot have an abortion via a medical professional, they will risk their health/life by doing it themselves. They'll take drugs, inflict physical violence upon themselves or even use a wire hanger to folow through with their choice. I support the pro-choice movement because it gives women a safe alternative.

With regards to women aborting a child because they find out the child is gay, I'm not sure what to say to that. There are advantages and disadvantages to everything in life. Choice is a powerful tool and an important right that all of society must have. People make good and bad choices everyday. People also have to live with the choices they make everyday. I still don't feel anyone should be able to dictate what people can or cannot do with their body or their lives.

I had a friend who was raped. I took her to a clinic to have an abortion. It was the most difficult decision she has ever made. I did not go into the doctor's office with her, but going to the clinic and trying to get through the protesters was about all that I could handle. My friend was already emotionally damaged by the choice she made and the thought of what was about to happen tore her apart. The protesters were so judgemental, calling her a whore and saying she was going to burn in hell. They shouted nasty things at us and were physically right in our faces. (assuming I was the father) Leaving the clinic was even worse.

She is happily married with 3 children now. She still feels that as difficult as that choice was, she made the right choice. But again, she has to live with that choice everyday. She's always wondering what the child would be like, how it would look, what age it would be now, etc. (not to mention dealing with the memory of the rape)

I guess what I'm trying to say is that when it comes to very personal issues like abortion, who we love, how we love, who we marry, etc., it should be our choice. No one and no law should have the right to tell us how to live our lives. It's for this reason that I feel the issues introduced in this thread are similar. I apologize for the lengthy post.

The link between the two is the right to privacy. A woman should have the right to choose what she's going to go through for the next nine months (and then many years, if she keeps the baby). And people should have the right to live their lives the way they choose within reason. (as in "My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.")

But let's not draw false sharp lines here about abortion. Because of its unique potential to become life, a fetus is more than a clump of cells - but until it reaches viability, it is something less than a human being. We need to have birth control more available and, if that fails, have systems that support a woman carrying the baby to term and then putting it up for adoption. But if she and her doctor decide to terminate the pregnancy, that's her right.

Abortions should be safe, legal and rare.

First, abortion is not killing a newborn. Abortion is killing a fetus. So there is a difference. Abortion has existed since human beings first walked the earth; before medical abortions, females used chemical means (derived from plants) to induce abortions. It's nothing new, and is not looked upon--unlike other universal taboos, such as incest--as wrong by all societies and cultures.

Homosexuality and abortion do share the right to autonomy of one's person, one's body, one's actions. Those who oppose the two seek to control the actions of others based on their own personal dogmas (which is what is at stake in most religions, as opposed to ideologies like pragmatism, which may have no dogmas). In a secular state, is it right for one person's religious dogma to trump the personal autonomy of another person, when there is a guarantee of individual rights and personal liberty?

Homosexuality and abortion, however, are different in numerous ways. Homosexuality is an intrinsic aspect of who one is, one's orientation, whether or not one acts upon it. Abortion is by all measures an act, pure and simple. Attacks on homosexuality have not only targeted homosexual acts, but also homosexual persons--intrinsically who we are. In this way anti-homosexual prejudice is like racism, as one's race--based on heritage and ancestry, and society's definitions of race--are intrinsically part of who we are. Abortion is something completely different.

A female can now tell the sex of the child in utero and being able to spot genetic markers for homosexuality or other aspects (such as hair and eye color, size, etc.) are certailnly on the horizon. In some cultures (as in China and India) they are having abortions based on the child's sex, with disastrous results for the long-term viability of those societies (a gross sexual imbalance and all that implies). Telling the sexual orientation may lead to some women aborting the foetus, but what is to say that with genetic engineering that same woman might not also seek to end the genetic possibility of homosexuality, or "correct" it? So are you also against genetic engineering? Whose autonomy then comes into play? The developing embryo or the parents? Where does a society draw the line?

"The concept of abortion rights for all women and the gays rights go together naturally." (Sergei)

On one hand... I agree. Reproductive Rights/Gay Rights both deal with personal autonomy. And the recent LAWRENCE decision does owe a debt to GRISWOLD (contraception).

However, where I find Reproductive Rights to be different from Gay Rights is ... there has NEVER been a case of an abortion that has resulted from male-male or female-female coupling!

That fact must drive the fundies crazy! They can hoot and holler about the 'so called' murder in abortion...

Yet... these same fundies cannot, I repeat cannot, find ONE HARM of GAY RIGHTS!


Without a harm... there are no damages!


Life is good! :cool:

.

Willyboy, I agree with you 100%. The key to the issue is privacy and autonomy. Very well put, esp. around such a divisive topic.

If you are pro-life, as I am, you must also be totally opposed to the death penalty. You cannot oppose abortion and support the death penalty. Both are taking a life. Pro-life as I am, I do not believe, however, that my personal beliefs must be forced upon those who disagree with me. That is why we still live in a free country. I respect my fellow human beings and I hope they might respect me.

Also very well put. How nice to see people who believe strongly in their views, yet allow room for dissension.

As much as I see the points about privacy and autonomy ... neither is absolute (something that I wish the gun rights activists would get through their bullet heads, as long as we're on the subject of "death"). For that matter, perpetrators of domestic violence are fond of abusing both concepts. eek!

No, abortion rights and gay rights are linked, at least in recent U.S. history, largely because the so-called Christian Right has chosen to link (and literally demonize) the two in its quest for quasi-theocracy ... and secondarily because of historic overlap between the feminist movement (which, in America, has made abortion rights an Article of Faith to the point of utter dogma) and the lesbian community (the majority of feminists are straight women, but lesbians have played major roles in the advancement of women's rights, in part because the movements emerged about the same time).

And, frankly, the more extreme opponents of legal abortion (like the aforementioned Randall Terry) are on an anti-gay jihad because they realize that their original battle was all over but the shouting as soon as RU486 became legal. They've found a hot-button issue to raise funds with (and reactionary politicians have found a "wedge issue" with which to exploit -- and that is the operative word -- single-issue voters in close elections). :mad:

[ May 04, 2004, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: danimal ]

Excuse me, but how is beating up on someone else autonomy over one's own body?

I understood him to mean that abusers are violating the concepts of privacy and autonomy, not that abusing someone is asserting one's own privacy and autonomy.

Satan is a literary concept. That would be like saying that we should protect children from Amelia Bedelia because she demonstrates such poor judgement whenever she attempts child care duties. Or that, as a drug addict, we need to have an intervention for Sherlock Holmes. Fighting evil in this world is a noble endeavor. Finding and fighting that evil in the stable, consensual sexual relationship of two men is reprehensible.

I agree with you - I am pro- life - and yet respect others who disagree with me, BUT there are reasons for taking a life - I would not as a police officer and as a caring human being stand there and let someone kill you or someone you love...That is why I carry a gun on duty, although I hope & pray I never have to use it to take a life. Taking a life can sometimes be justified and in extreme cases may be necessary.

Not necessarily. It depends what angle you're coming from. If you are anti-abortion and are coming from a "Thou shalt not kill" perspective, then being a proponent of the death penalty is incongruous and hypocritical.

On the other hand, if you are anti-abortion because you believe that aborting a fetus is killing an innocent life growing inside the womb, but are pro-death penalty because you feel that some scumbag who is guilty of murdering another human being deserves the ultimate punishment, then we're talking apples and oranges.

Because abusers typically think of members of their households as either property or extensions of themselves ("it's none of your business because he/she belongs to me and it's under my roof"). They stretch their definitions of "self" far enough to shield themselves from accountability to the outside world while removing the autonomy of those within.

I didn't say it made sense. I just said some people think that way when it suits them.

I agree with a lot of the posts above, and see 2 clear reasons why gay and abortion rights go together.

The first and most obvious is that at least 40% of gay people in the country are women (estimates I've seen are that gay men outnumber lesbians by about 3:2)and all of us have sisters, cousins, friends, coworkers, etc. who are women. Anyone who knows and loves women must be concerned about abortion rights, no matter what their position on the matter.

The second, and more important, is the political reality of the abortion debate in this country. As so many have stated, the same groups that oppose abortion generally also oppose gay rights, and their opposition to both is rooted in a rigid, narrow-minded, black/white version of morality, which they insist the country must impose on all. There is no room in their position for allowing people who have different moral views can live together in a pluralistic society.

I have said before and will state again, the issue of abortion is far more complex than can be described by the "pro-choice"/"pro-life" debate. Pregnancy has huge physical, emotional and psychological effects on a woman, which from a medical perspective can have far-reaching and damaging consequences that fall short of taking her life. Even though gay and lesbian people run a much smaller risk of ever accidentally being involved in a pregnancy, as more and more of us form families we will undoubtedly face these types of consequences much more often. Even if we could come to some sort of agreement about what abortions should and should not be "allowed," there is no way to craft legislation to prevent those types of abortions while still providing for medically necessary abortions.

Our country would be much better served if the same Christians who refuse to admonish the anti-gay religious right (see, "Get out of our stadium, bigots") could also work to have a real debate on how to lower the number of abortions while still providing women with the control over their lives they currently enjoy.

Yep...tell me this is not a human being?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3846525.stm

NJ

[ June 28, 2004, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: NathanJones ]

Of course there is. By definition a newborn is a child in utero that has just been born. This newborn is NO different from a fetus, a Latin term meaning "offspring" or "young one."

It becomes easier to justify the wanton destruction of human beings when such beings are relegated to a status less than human. This is what happened during WWII, when an entire class of human beings were legally classified as "nonpersons" and "subhuman." History, indeed, repeats itself--and we have yet to learn.

Definition of fetus from the American Heritage dictionary:

1. The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
2. In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.

And your comparison to WWII? Typically despicable.

[ July 15, 2004, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: Joe in Philly ]

[quote]MIB:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by fantomas:
[qb] By definition a newborn is a child in utero that has just been born. This newborn is NO different from a fetus, a Latin term meaning \"offspring\" or \"young one.\"[/quote]By definition, a newborn is ex-utero. That's what birth is, exiting the uterus. If Joe in Philly is correct, and Dictionary.com seems to agree with him, the majority of abortions would be performed not on fetuses, but on embryos, though the embryo does transition to fetus during the third month of pregnancy. From the fourth to eighth month, it is a fetus, transitioning into a neonate in the ninth month. The category "fetus" contains a great number of changes, and at most stages, it is significantly different than an infant. Frankly, I would have expected there to be at least one other distinction made from when the fetus is not viable outside the womb and when it is, perhaps merely calling it, rather than a fetus, a neonate earlier in the pregnancy.

I found this article in yesterday's Washington Post Health Section interesting. It's one of the few times I've read about the specific experiences of a woman having an abortion. From: One Woman's Choice

Getting older allows you to sit back and look at issues from different angles. Personally, I am against abortion and wish that no one would ever take this action. It breaks my heart knowing that a woman would rather have an abortion than put the child up for adoption. But, I know, for whatever reason, and I'm sure in most cases they are very good reasons, the woman has decided to terminate the pregnancy. It bothers me, but I respect the right of the woman to choose. No matter how I feel about the abortion morally or personally, it has no bearing on how I view the legality of abortions and the civil rights afforded those that want one.

I equate this arguement to anti-sodomy (in this case I'm equating sodomy to homosexuality) laws. Most of those opposed to sodomy oppose it based on "moral conviction". Do these people have the right to deny me my civil rights based on their morals? I think not.

Aubie

I wouldn't deny you anything!!

Seriously, if the gay community made sure that the "moralistic" heads of the religious right were in fact hypocrites, then maybe we might get some where.

Why NOT hire private investigators, use the FOI act etc to get information to release on them. Yes, it is attack politics, but I beleive the gauntelet has been thrown down, and we have to have the balls to pick it up and do something about it

Shawn,
The anti-choice crowd tries to portray women seeking abortions as irresponsible whores. They try to say women seeking late abortions sat around contemplating their navels for 8 1/2 months and then decided to have abortions when they could not fit into prom dresses (this has actually been said) or that a "health" exemption means a woman would have a late term abortion because she has "a little headache". As you show, the truth is very different. For some women, especially those whose wanted pregnancies went terribly wrong, it is a devastating decision. For others, it's a simple and straightforward one. But it is always based on the real lives of real women. There is a web site whose URL I've forgotten but I know I could find it again where women tell their stories. Not an irresponsible slut among them.
I just read this morning of the case of a South CArolina woman, an immigrant farmworker trying to support herself & 2 kids on $150 a week who found herself pregnant. SC has some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the US and she could not get a legal abortion. So a friend in Mexico sent her an abortifacient drug, which she took, then buried the fetus. She is now in jail charged with having a self-induced abortion. There was talk of charging her with murder but no one could reasonably claim a 4-month fetus could live on its own.
When the so called "parital birth abortion ban" was first proposed (BTW, neither the term nor the gruesome description are known in medicine), women who'd had the procedure tried to testify. They were only allowed to testify to a subcommittee, not the full senate. Their testimony was so powerful that the response has been to prohibit them from returning when the bill was re-introduced.

If these right-wingers are soooo concerned about the fetus, why don't they give a crap about the babies? How many right-wingers have adopted babies? Let me wait until they count to zero.

I think they need to reconsider their position on gay adoption. If they want to stop abortion, opting for adoption, wouldn't they want a large number of applicants to adopt the children?

Good point Illini_Fan, but if they are too hypocritical to even adopt the unwanted children themselves, I seriously doubt they would re-consider gay adoption. By the way, I am all for gay adoption, I think they would make much better parents than the right-wing nut jobs who refuse to do anything about the problem.

While some here have gone after the right for there hard stance, I am going to go after the left for there hard stance.

I am opposed to abortion on moral reasons. I am not opposed to it on legal reasons. So therefore legally I support the choice. Morally I abhor the choice of abortion. Yes it is a judgment based on my set of morals. But I also feel I would be hypocritical if I didn't oppose it. I am alive today because at the time of my birth abortion was illegal and my bio-mother didn't have the choice of abortion and I was put up for adoption. So I have a hard time supporting something I was glad didn't happen to me.

That being said, I am amazed at the number of times pro-abortion (yes abortion) have attacked me on this stance. They are upset that even though I support the legal choice, I morally condemn the choice of abortion. Now I don't going around shouting it at the top of my lungs or visiting clinics. But my views are known. There are pro-choice people, but there are also pro-abortion people who feel that there should be no judgment on those seeking abortion. Unlike being gay it is a conscious choice, so there is judgment and consequences involved.

Even when Clinton said abortion should be legal but rare, he was attacked on the left by people who felt he was making judgments.

All this being said the pro-choice movement is loosing the middle. They are loosing the people who aren't personally comfortable with abortion but can understand the need for choice. The pro-life has been very good at recruiting these people who don't necessarily see abortion equating to murder but do have a problem with it. They loose the people who get confused by the late term arguments and the notification arguments.

The middle wants to see abortions as something as rare, so they see the need for something to help that situation out. So when the pro-choice side yells at them for even considering such a thing it drives them further to pro-life. But then again the middle also tends to support a more diverse sexual education with a discussion of all forms of birth control and more easy availability. At first the pro-lifers accommodated them, but lately the religious right as gone so nuts with abstinence only that the middle is feeling very confused. It is hard to make abortion rare, when choices are limited to prevent it. So there is hope and an opening.

The pro-choice movement needs to open the tent and have a serious discussion about the best methods to make abortion a rare event. They need to discuss all choices and the importance of education. You will find someone like me much more willing to participate in making abortion rare, than making abortion possible.

Several years ago, I was approached by "pro-choice" people who were trying to enlist my help in keeping a clinic opened. They emphasized that this clinic was the only one in a 200 mile radius and without it women would be in an impossible situation and there would be many unwanted babies. However, when I read the information about the clinic the offered an impressive amount of other things relating to sexual reproduction; Testing, education, birth control, counseling, adoption services, etc. In fact abortion was an extremely small part of what they did. Why on earth didn't these people approach me with all the choices that they offer, rather than the one choice that I oppose? I told them they need to change their pitch and emphasis all the other services that this clinic offers, when one of the women told me that abortion was the main issue. Well they lost me there. They lost my support because they wanted to make abortion the main issue and not choice.

I am a moderate in many things like many others and am always amazed at how both the right and left like to alienate a huge population of swing decision makers.

[ November 17, 2005, 08:33 AM: Message edited by: kujhawker ]

Like you, kujhawker, I have been attacked for judging women I know who have had abortions. My response has been that I have no right to deny them legal access to abortion, but I have every right to judge their actions, based on their reasoning.

However, I would never make a blanket statement that all abortion is wrong. As I said last year, the medical, psychological and emotional realities of pregnancy are too complicated for us to make sweeping judgements about any woman who has terminated a pregnancy.

The article in the Washington Post that shawnq linked is a prime example. There are people who will judge this woman harshly because she was not willing to raise a handicapped child (and let's not even talk about adoption here, it would be nearly impossible). I know from my own family's experience - my uncle had Down's and was severely mentally retarded, with the mental capacity of an 18-month old - that raising a Down's child is both joyful and incredibly difficult. Down's kids are incredibly happy and loving (most of the time), but they are also a major handful - just the medical problems alone can be staggering and stressful for any family.

I have previously posted about friends of mine who have faced the decision about abortion. Although I do not support the choices made by some of them (e.g., the woman who got pregnant twice! by the same married man and had two abortions - she should have been using birth control), I know that the decision was never cavalierly or callously made.

Thanks, kujayhawker. I try not to discuss this issue with anyone, because it's such an emotional topic for so many. Hopefully I won't say anything that lights anyone's fuse, but here goes:

I, too, am completely repulsed by the thought of abortion. However, I accept the premise that there are times it is unavoidable, that there are times it's called for, and that ultimately the wishes of the pregnant woman have to be given utmost priority. That's different from buying into the argument that abortion should be absolutely available for every female for every circumstance. I do believe parental notification laws are appropropriate, and I do believe the father has a right to know. I also think that after thirty plus years of medical advancement we need to revisit at what point abortion crosses the line from being a medical procedure that terminates an unviable pregancy to one that terminates a pregnancy where the fetus might be viable with medical intervention. That line that has gotten more and more blurry, and continuing to insist on abortion being available until fairly late in a pregnancy is a sure way to give more people pause.

I love and respect women, and I admire the strength they often show in circumstances that men are never exposed to, but I deeply resent the statement that anyone who has reservations about abortion has them simply because we think of the women in question as irresponsible sluts. That's a facile statement, and belies a set of preconceived notions that is itself quite telling. In short, abortion is not a black or white issue. Both sides portray it that way, but larger and larger numbers of Americans, like me, see it as being many different shades of gray.

Thank you for your thoughtful posts. But I respectfully disagree.
You say that if abortion were legal you'd not be here? Do you know that for a fact? Because when abortion is legal and available some women still choose not to have abortions and to place children for adoption. (We could get philosophical and say if you weren't here you would not miss yourself but I don't want to go there, too abstract for me.)
If someone is personally opposed to abortion and chooses not to have one, I have no problem with that. If a man says he is personally opposed to abortion but won't stop a woman from having one, fine. But I disagree that you have some right to be judgmental of women who choose to termiate their pregnancies. You are not in her shoes.
I disagree that the prochoice is losing the middle. Actually, our view is the view of the vast majority. Few people really think women should be forced to bear children against our will, let alone that every woman in every situation no matter what MUST be forced to bear children against her will. Our position is, by definition, a compromise position. We recognize each woman is unique and only she can judge her own life and circumstances. I respect the decision of a woman to not terminate her pregnancy and oppose, as do all prochoice and feminist groups, any forced abortion as well as the Florida "scarlet letter" laws designed to humiliate women placing children for adoption. The trouble is that opponents have been allowed to frame the discussion. And too often supporters have become apologetic (yes, it sounds like the Democrats, doesn't it?) So that our very reasonable position somehow becomes "extreme". In fact they are the extremists. That is why real women and their stories are powerful, and BTW the web site I referred to yesterday is www.imnotsorry.net.
The problem with safe, legal and rare is that it contributes to the stigmatizing of abortion. Abortion is not terrible. It is not something like amputation where it is awful but sometimes necessary. Framing it that way weakens the prochoice position. Our position should be that the right to a safe and legal abortion is a fundamental women's right. Just like Hillary Clinton's saying morals prevents unwanted pregnancies, that moral and religious young women don't have sex(yes she said that) spreads the nonsense that only "sluts" need abortion. Because IMO sex is not evil or sinful. The idea that sex is a sin, at least for women, is at the root of a lot of the opposition to birth control and abortion and I think it's wrong to pander to it.
Of course we favor preventing unwanted pregnancies which is why we, unlike opponents of legal abortion, favor comprehensive sex education, rape prevention programs, birth control, condom access, Plan B et al. And why we support prenatal care and social services for pregnant women and children, which antichoice groups also oppose, so that women can make choices free of economic despair.
It is true that most clinics offering abortion also offer a wide range of health services and I agree this should be publicized. It is an issue with Bush withholding funds from the international family planning based on the utterly false contention that the fund supports forced abortion. Because of this loss of funds women have lost not only contraception but prenatal care, safe delivery of children, AIDS prevention, treatment of STD's and education against female genital mutilation. Women are dying because of this.

It is a fact, unless you are questioning the veracity of my bio-mothers statements. If not for the fact that she couldn't get an abortion I wouldn't be here.

Last time I checked I have the right to voice my opinion about any topic I wanted. As far as passing judgement we all do it. I have people that I choose not to associate with because I have passed judgement on their behavior based on my on set of standards. This makes no difference if it is how a woman terminate their pregnancies, how a person behaves themselves in public, or how they treat their family and friends. It is all based on people exercizing there choices and consequences to those choices. I always find it interesting that having a child is label a choice. Yet many, whether they have the child or not, don't want to accept the consequences of that choice.

That is statement is exactly why the prochoice is loosing the middle. The middle embraces the ides of safe, legal, and rare. While the other sides says it weaksn the prochoice position or the prolife position.

But you can not win support for the other issues if your focus on abortion. That is why a clinic lost my support. If they only would have emphasized all the other good that is being done and that abortions were such a small part of it, I would have written a check. Instead I was told it was about abortion. Change the message.

[ November 17, 2005, 10:42 AM: Message edited by: kujhawker ]

I am not questioning anyone's veracity. I just was not sure if you were assuming or not. Now I know, thank you.
You may have the legal right to condemn a woman for having an abortion. But I have the legal right to say you are wrong to do so.
It is not true that we cannot talk about women's health in general if we also talk about abortion. I think the opposite is the case. We can't talk about women's health and leave out reproductive choice. We can't talk about women's rights and leave out reproductive choice.

I have appreciated the exchanges on this. Since abortion first became legal I thought it was a necessary and good thing, especially because there are cases where the mother's health is at stake, cases of rape or incest. (I must say I never got the concept that it is a right of privacy...that always seemed to me to be the means by which abortion would be made legal.) However, over the years, I have been perplexed by the stridency of those who project prochoice as being primarly and fundamentally about abortion on demand and dismiss those who question or oppose abortion on demand as somehow being dupes, extremists, and anti-woman. Especially since many people I know who oppose abortion just as a means of birth control are women. Independent, strong-minded, not anyone's dupes women.

MsdB, how do you speak to those who believe that abortion is a bad choice, that it is the lesser of two difficult/hard choices, rather than a simple means of contraception? To people who do not share your judgment that abortion is a procedure (can't remember your exact term...just trying to represent what I understood you to be saying)? Thus far your responses don't address that, how to talk to people who might recognize the need for it in some cases, but not in all. The orthodox insistence that questioning even, let alone opposing abortion at any stage for any reason is tantamount to being an anti-woman extremist. (That's not necessarily what is being said, but I'm with kujayhawker...all the other reasons do not seem to get presented except to justify the term prochoice when so often it comes across as really proabortion.)

Since the type of discussion that is not litmus test oriented is so often missing, I also believe that prochoice is losing the center, because the attitudes conveyed so often are as extremist sounding and unaccepting of any dissent from the orthodoxy as the prolife group. I know I haven't been able to find a good way of discussing it with people who question abortion, let alone oppose it except in some cases.

Well, first, abortion is not quite a means of contraception. It is the back-up. But for those who say abortion is the lesser of two difficult choices, my reply is that for some (not all, but some) women that is exactly true. And they MUST have that choice.
Another point, when you say "abortion on demand" it is an illustration of how the anti-legal-abortion groups have framed the issue. Because do you use that term for other medical procedures? Appendectomy on demand? Anti-retrovirals on demand (which I'm sure we all support)? If you say you do not favor "abortion on demand" then my reply is that you are in fact saying there are at least some situations in which you feel a woman MUST be forced to bear a child against her will.
Children should be a blessing. The birth of a child should be a happy occasion. Not a punishment for a "bad girl".

The big difference in those examples is that pregnancy is not a disease. The end result is not death due to lack of treatment or something like that. Big difference.

That said, I think there are precious few women or men who think abortion is just a form of birth control. I think the pro-life camp likes to use exteme statements like that to make the choice seem very cavalier, like going to a day spa or something, which it would almost never be.

As usual, the truth, for me at least, seems to fall somewhere in the middle. That's also where I think most people in this country stand, pro-choice, but with abortion used as a last resort, bearing in mind that it is a very grave and heavy decision and experience to go through. But that we don't have the right to run other people's lives and tell them what their experience is and what decisions they should make.

Ok....you have not presented me with anything I can use to talk with people who are not already in your choir, so to speak. You seem to be responding to others with that "bad girl" comment....please, that didn't come from me, so don't judge me as having said it. As far as your argumentative response and reasoning....just reminds me of the difficulty in talking about abortion with anyone who's mind is so made up that they hear judgments were none are given, whether they are prochoice or prolife.

No, GoodHands, I'm not implying the "bad girl" came from you. It's something I've heard, sometimes disguised, sometimes blatant, as a reason for denying legal abortion. She was irresponsible (but not he?). She was promiscuous. She was "asking" to be raped. She already had a previous abortion. She is on welfare. She had too much to drink.
And you know, I have at times groaned over the ignorance of some women, the "I thought you didn't get pregnant if..." line. But the point is chldren should never be a punishment.
And knowing a number of women who have had abortions, for some it was a tough call, for others not. You really can't generalize.

Everybody here made good points WITHOUT having to resort to name-calling and/or denigrating another person's opposing opinion (unlike some other mean-spirited, arrrogant posts I've read in the past). That I liked.

One point that hasn't been made (from what I remember reading) is that if men were the species getting pregnant, I wonder if they'd be singing they same tune (especially judges and politicians who are the majority in those positions in our country)? This argument came up when I took a class on Current Issues. Just a thought.

Well, SC Trojan, there is no alternate universe. We joke that if men got pregnant abortion would be a sacrament. And if men menstruated tampons would be named after sports and rock stars and men would boast about their heavy flow. But that's all we can do, joke.
I did once read a science fiction story about a planet where women are not only larger than men (and females are larger than males in the most numerous species on earth, arthropods, but they fly, crawl and swim below our radar), but because women got pregnant they were obviously the ones suited to be rulers as well as scientists, etc. Sort of a reversal, Earth circa 1950's or thereabout.
No one can deny that their are reproductive related differences between males and females. But the rest of our lives should not be ruled by them.
BTW, agree on quality of discussion, a relief.