Personally I doubt anyone's claim to liberalism if one isn't pro-choice (hell, I don't even think you can be feminist and be anti-choice).

What these people don't seem to get is that those of us that are "100%'ers" have a reason for describing ourselves in terms of 'choice', and not in vague things like 'life'. For us, this is about rights over control of the body, it's about women's health, and for a lot of us, it's simply about lessening abortion rates too.

We know about the 'truth' about abortion. We just have made a decision that the bigger evil than ending a clump of cells that might someday be a person would be to return to the days where a woman's body was no her own property (and we're not talking about just abortion issues here). There is a wider historical trend of control of women that we are also fighting against. And that is our bigger evil.

To be truely liberal is to fight for this progressive trend we have had over the past century for the right's of the individual to control their own person, to provide a social world wherein that can occur, and occurs in a fair manner. That people would describe themselves as a Democrat, and hence supposedly aligned to the left (to liberalism) and yet support something as fundamentally incompatible as denying a woman control over her own body is mindboggling.

That's why its not just about abortion rights for us. It's about access to pratical and realistic sex education, comprehensive and funded contraception (both the usual and emergency), and access to funded abortion services. All these things that Lauryn mentions combine to reduce abortion rates, its been shown time and time again. If you are really 'pro-life' and want abortion rates down then you need to support this stuff.

And if you are claiming to be a democrat you've also got a bigger picture to look at. As with Lauryn I agree we possibly need a different language to communicate with those that don't see this, to expand who we are talking with. But we don't do this by giving up our core stands.

Uh, well, Sarah, pro-life Dems to exist, and we just have to deal with it. Instead of scratching our heads and pondering "how anyone who is supposedly liberal/ feminist could be anti-choice" and condescendingly saying that "if you were really pro-life you'd agree with us," (yeah, a *brilliant* way to win people over to your position), I think we need to realize that the majority of Americans, while pro-choice, do not feel as strongly about it as we'd like to think. They are ambivalent about it in general. Hence widespread support for that dumb, ideologically-charged "partial birth abortion" ban. So, after much reflection I think that it's OK for the Democratic party to accomodate pro-lifers. The pro-life Dems I know say that they came to their position when they realized that being pro-choice was a logically and ethically unsupportable position. I say that's fine, even if I don't agree with them. At any rate, these are hardly people who advocate totalitarian control over people's bodies. These are hardly right-wing zealots. They are people who have thought deepy about this issue and have converted to a position that makes them feel alienated from their own party. The Republican Party is still nominally pro-life (well, at least according to its platform) but has scads of pro-choicers in its ranks. I don't see why the Dems can't do the same. Dogmatism, especially on this most divisive of issues, is truly bad for a national party. I'm not saying that abortion is the sole cause of the Democratic party's losses (I think EMILY's List was on to something), but I think it was only a part of it.

As an aside, I think "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are both really annoying euphemisms.

Olivia,

Oh, I know pro-life Dem's exist, and I do agree with your points. I agree that these peeps are not totaliarian ... I guess that's why I can't understand how they can seperate abortion rights from women's autonomy (I particularly can't see how if they want to reduce abortions that they don't support abortion liberalising).

I am definitely gonna respect their positions, that why I agree with Lauryn on the wanting to change our language. But I simply cannot see as a positive thing weakening our position on abortion. Talk to them, see what they are talking about (hell, listen to them, maybe they can explain the inconsistency to me), but not compromise our position on this.

Using the tactics of the Repubican party wholesale (there are some things we can learn though) isn't the way though.

Think we're gonna have to disagree on the nomenclature though *grin* :)

Wow, thanks, Olivia. That is exactly how I came to be pro-life--it dawned on me that the pro-choice position is weirdly arbitrary (esp. in how in defines a "person") and downright creepy. And I've always thought of myself as quite liberal!

Of course, this is a good thing for BOTH parties. The sentiment that the Democratic Party should be 150% pro-abortion, all the time, is a joke.

Oh, "clump of cells that might someday be a person"? Yikes!

My thoughts of shifting language are in *no way* about losing *any* of core reproductive rights principles. I went to hear a great speaker recently who was spoke about the term "pro-choice," and how it didn’t resonate with many of the Latina women she works with. She found that by shifting the language to "reproductive justice," she received much more positive feedback. She defined reproductive justice as much more than just the ability to access contraception & abortion--she used it to incorporate issues of poverty, immigration and historical injustice. By thinking strategically about what it means to be pro-choice, I feel that we can use the ideas of reproductive justice to grow a much larger movement.

Precisely Lauryn, I completely agree with you (thats why I wanted to reply to your post so much).

We definitely need to work on changing our language and approach, as any movement that stagnates inevitably dies, and we lose the so needed advances we have acheived. Talking about (and actioning) our goals in terms (and realities) that are culturally meaningful, beneficial, and relevant (such as your example) is an awesome strategy in this regard.

I particularly like the way it your example is situated in a wider context and bigger picture ... we're doing something similar with queer rights, and the agenda surrounding that, in terms of linking such rights objectives to class, race and gender in a wider narrative of social justice.

These are the kind of moments where I can pause and don't despair so much as a progressive :)

I don't think that compromising on the "choice" issue is the way to win more votes. The Dems might pick up a few voters who currently vote Republican, but they will wind up losing just as many (maybe more) pro-choice democrats to Independent candidates. Personally, I would never support a candidate who wasn't pro-choice and I know a number of people who feel the same way.

"Vague things like 'life'" she says...

Hmmm... perhaps life is rather vague to "a clump of cells that might someday be a person"

But not so very vague at all, to a clump of cells whose reason for existence is to become a person...

The problem with Democrats moving away from pro-choice is that in the US two-party system (or even in a three-party instant-runoff system), that leaves a very large portion of the population unrepresented. If the US moved to a Condorcet voting system where people *could* move to an independent party, I'd be perfectly happy with this. As it stands, there are already too few things that separate the Republicans from the Democrats in practice, and making the choice between ultra-conservative and merely conservative (or effectively discarding your vote in protest by voting for someone else) isn't going to be pleasant for most people.

Sarah, Olivia, Abby: the side topic of the assumptions behind when cells become a person got me started writing something so long that I eventually just moved it back over to my own blog (http://www.resonant.org/node/474 ) rather than drag the comments too far off track, but I thought I should let you know.

Jessica, Lauryn: Fix your trackbacks! :) There's a trackback link now on your posts, but still no URL present to show where to send a ping.

The following is a cut-and-paste of the comment I made on the same topic at Third Wave Agenda (and just to be clear, I am totally pro-contraception):

As a pro-lifer, the two issues that have always been huge to me are abortion and war. Thus, I felt that there was no political party I could comfortably join.

Over the years, most of the changes I've seen Democrats make trying to become more "moderate" have been pretty awful. Supporting the death penalty, gutting welfare, supporting the war. Did they think that was the way to win my heart?

With a history like that, this new move to embrace pro-lifers doesn't look like it's coming from a place of compassion for the unborn. It does look like they're just "me too"-ing the Republicans.

If diversity on the abortion issue is coupled with an emphasis on the kind of compassionate programs that Democrats are supposed to stand for, I might consider taking the plunge. But really I would rather be a part of a pro-life progressive third party and let the pro-choice camp have the Democrats.

A friendly reminder...

I know folks want it to seem like a lot of people agree with their position, but we can tell when someone makes up several names to comment with (IP address, silly rabbit!).

1. Nah. Different computers, same IP address. We're on the same network--we use a broadband router 'cause I'm the one with the laptop. I don't have multiple personality disorder, or anything.

2.Zed, I've responded to your post re: personhood, on your blog.

Pro-Life Democrats seem to have better career prospects in republican administrations - Bush has one running his White House Office of Faith Based Initiatives.

But allow me for one moment to espouse the superiority of the Pro-Choice position on the matter of abortion. And I’m not talking about a moral superiority, but rather a tactical one:

One of the weaknesses of religiously motivated political interest groups (as most all pro-life groups are) is that they cannot compromise. For those who believe that abortion is murder and that it is a stain on America in the eyes of the Lord, it's all or nothing. In the realpolitik world of government, that translates to a shitty position for negotiation.

With the changes that have and will be made to the judicial branch of American government, you feminists can no longer depend on sweeping, landmark, nationwide decisions like Roe'n'Doe. Preserving a woman's right to choose will depend on a policy of pragmatism. If Scalia and Thomas get their way, future conflicts will be fought state by state, and if you think you're going to find any lawmaker, even the most liberal Democrat, in a state like Alabama who agrees with all or even most of your views, you are deluding yourselves.

Anyway that's my piece.

Yay girls.

40 million abortions is not rare!!!!

Verlch, I’m trying to get a handle on your position. I note the following comments from recent threads:

“I believe that the genders should be segragated unless married. That is the only way to solve the problem. You ladies can sit and brush up against each others breasts and fill DV and harrassment charges against each other!!”
*****
“I think females need to spend some time locked up so they know how it feels to be jailed against your will!!!”
*****
“Because there isn't that much DV!!! In fact a woman is 40 times more likely to kill her unborn baby than to get struck by a man!!!”
*****
“You can't bring mother hen to the corporate world...She belongs at home raising children.”
*****
“Perhaps American woman should put on the Burkas so they don't have to be judged by their beuty. I think the Middle East is one step ahead of you ladies!!!”
*****
“I can solve the problem. Keep wimmen out of the military!!!!”
*****
“Can you imagine an all woman military? The world would laugh at us!!! LOL....
Women that only have to complete 5% of the physical requirements as men!!! Fighting grown men, yeah that makes sense sister!!!
Remember ladies....Shock and Awe!!! Don't forget I think the stats have gone up for feminists lying. Something like a feminst lies every 2 seconds now!!!!”
*****
“Listen wimmen...Do you think these ladies might lie to gain money from the zoo??? Can a gorilla testify??? Do pressious little ladies ever lie??? HMMMMM ladiez?? I know woman believe lies...why wouldn't they tell them?”
*****
“[Anorixia] is just another disease that is over reported and not really as big a problem as they make it out to be.”
*****
“What so you won't listen? Did you know that a feminist lies every 7 seconds? Your not interested in hearing the truth Jessica. Chances are you don't even know the capital of your own state, let alone one topic in world events right now!”

Verlch, if I understand your position, you believe women’s separate roles are divinely ordained, abortion is murder, premarital sex is sin, and women’s encroachment into public life and the working world is folly. Am I interpreting your comments correctly?

I agree with you man...

40 million abortions is 1/4 of our population! Womens sexual liberty has cost us that many lives!!!

As I've stated on other posts....the heart of the issue is one of a conflict of rights.

The right of the mothers to have autonomy of her body
Vs.
The right of existence for the potential fetus

Well, at least the debate/conversation has started in earnest in this country. I think it is an excellent sign that people are talking about it, with a common goal to reduce the number of abortions.

Only women's sexual liberty? Huh, I didn't know we had been liberated from having to have a man to get pregnant so we can have the pleasure of an abortion.

Verlch:

Your facts are wrong. The U.S. population is approximately 295 million, not 160 million as your comment suggests.

I have to jump into this fray. I am pro-life, more or less. Actually, I am probably more in favor of a man's reproductive rights (I realize this comment will draw some ire). But when it come to politics, I refuse to vote on a single issue. But some people do.

Now, let's take the last presidential election into question. I am a registered Republican (boo, hissss ... I know, I know), but I am quite moderate (I am for gay marriage, I am anti-gun, etc.). My father has a pro-life view like me, but is a Dem. and has never voted for a Republican candidate ... until this year. John Kerry lost any chance of influencing me and completely lost my dad based on one thing - his backward views on abortion. Kerry has stated several times that he believe live begins at conception. Yet, he is a pro-choice candidate. ?????????? Uhm .... ????? ... Intellectually speaking, that makes no sense what so ever.

If you break down his philosophy, it goes something like this: Kerry believes life begins at conception, hence, once sperm and egg merge, a child is created. But Kerry also believes it is a woman's right to decide whether to nullify that sperm and egg combo, effectively destroying its life, or killing it. So, following HIS logic, it is OK to kill a child. That, fellow Americans, is intellect devoid of logic. That anyone could vote for him frightens me.

One last jab at the pro-choicers before I am sure I will be banned from this board ... When you, a loved one or one of your children contract a terminal disease, keep in mind, God may have sent the person with the cure and that person may very well have been aborted. How can you live with yourselves?

Shawn:

"Kerry has stated several times that he believe live begins at conception. Yet, he is a pro-choice candidate. [...] Intellectually speaking, that makes no sense what so ever."

It does, actually, though it comes from a line of thinking I'm not comfortable with. Those views are consistent if you believe that the right of a woman (presumably already contributing to society) to withdraw the support of her body and the risk of her health and future trumps the right of a human being so dependent on that support that he or she cannot survive without it to live.

It's made clear by the hypothetical situation of a woman who wants to have a child attempting to force a woman who wants to have an abortion to instead have a procedure to transfer the child over to the first woman's womb. In that case, the argument could be made that the second woman does not have a right to refuse — the only right she has is to withdraw the support of her own body.

I don't know where I stand on that one yet, so I'm a little nervous when people start coming at it from that angle, but there's nothing inherently contradictory about it.

"When you, a loved one or one of your children contract a terminal disease, keep in mind, God may have sent the person with the cure and that person may very well have been aborted. How can you live with yourselves?"

Usually by reminding myself that God doesn't send people with destinies (that's a fairly rare belief even among people who believe in God to begin with), and that losing cell structure quickly and painlessly before there's even a cerebral cortex to be aware of it is by far preferable to a long, suffering death in the bowels of the legal system, after a life of crime incited by being an unwanted, unloved, abandoned child. (Oh, and I doubt you'd be banned for that comment, since you've been fairly polite.)

Single people don't make cures anymore, anyway. That's the work of large teams, nowadays.

Zeb,
"Those views are consistent if you believe that the right of a woman (presumably already contributing to society) to withdraw the support of her body and the risk of her health and future trumps the right of a human being so dependent on that support that he or she cannot survive without it to live."

This is an explanation ... conveniently warping rational thinking to support one's desires. It involves no logical thinking. As I explained above, if someone believes life begins at conception, then abortion is murder. Plain and simple. I understand the explanation you supplied, and I understand you don't peronally subscribe to it, but it is a line of thinking that is devoid of logical thought. Essentially, what that explanation provides is a license to kill for anyone with a uterus.
I also find it ironic that the most pro-abortion member of our society can sue someone for the wrongful death of her unborn child (or fetus, if that makes anyone more comfortable). It's hypocrasy. We apparently have relegated ourselves to a society that is so barbaric that life is only valuable in the eye of the beholder.

"Usually by reminding myself that God doesn't send people with destinies (that's a fairly rare belief even among people who believe in God to begin with), and that losing cell structure quickly and painlessly before there's even a cerebral cortex to be aware of it is by far preferable to a long, suffering death in the bowels of the legal system, after a life of crime incited by being an unwanted, unloved, abandoned child."

As I am nor religious zealot, let's remove God frm the equation. But let's just play the percentages. Certainly, there is no guarantee that any of those aborted people would have made any landmark discoveries, but think of the brilliant minds that were destroyed, just by playing the percentages. Who knows what we're missing.

"Single people don't make cures anymore, anyway. That's the work of large teams, nowadays."

Never underestimate the power of one person to change the world. Even in today's world. I mean, all the democrats here (which I assume would be the majority) should be able to point out that we wouldn't even have this forum for discussion had Al Gore not invented the Internet. I know that is a fictional comment, but honestly, you never know who might hold the key. Penicilin and many other great discoveries were happened upon quite by accident. One person always makes the difference. And think about how many lives one person touches. Even if one of those aborted babies had become a child counselor and helped get three kids out of the projects and on to productive lives, wouldn't that be enough. Legall, abortion may not be a crime, but as a society, we all suffer.

As a woman who works in a women's health organization that performs abortions as well as advocates for reproductive rights and health, I felt I needed to speak up for a moment.

I appreciate the thread here about anti-choice vs. pro-choice positions within the Democratic party. I think our party does need to make room for all sides of the debate. I think it's important that the pro-choice constituents understand that there are good people out there who just cannot align their beliefs with abortion.

However, and I know this has been said many times before, we cannot legislate faith or religion. It just doesn't work. And before folks chime in with equating abortion with murder please keep in mind that we have recently slaughtered, murdered, outright decimated over 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians. I have never understood the comparison those with an anti-choice perspective make with murder when we as a society sanction murder in war, in the death penalty...

That being said, the argument about when life begins is also absolutely ridiculous. As someone who has worked in this field for almost 8 years can tell you: the women who come to our clinic (and by the way the majority of women who seek abortions at our clinic self-identify as Christian, Catholic, Muslim, or members of some organized religion; also many women who visit us consider themselves pro-life or come with a support person who is pro-life) KNOW what they are doing when they come in for an abortion. They know they are ending a potential life! They know they are saying goodbye to a potential daughter or son; they SAY GOODBYE in our patient journals.

The other significant fact (agi-usa.org) is that 61% of women who access abortion are already mothers. Anti-choice perspective seems to draw a line: women who have abortions vs. women who have babies. I hate to tell you but the women who have abortions are the same women who have babies are the same women who already have children. They are making choices for themselves, for the families they have and for the families they have yet to create.

Some of the women we see have absolutely no sadness after an abortion; some are depressed; some are angry; some are numb; some are completely relieved. Some have been raped numerous times by their husbands or boyfriends; some are 13 years old; some are on their 3rd or 4th abortion. But what do they all have in common? They have CHOSEN to do this because it is a LEGAL CHOICE. You may not agree; you may scream at someone that they are a murderer; but the fact is it is, at least for now, a safe, legal choice.

I guess the trouble I have with the anti-choice position isn't that one believes its murder or that you may have aborted someone who could have saved three at-risk youth but that you then believe you can come into my home, tell me when and how and how many children I'm going to have.

If you believe its murder then you MUST be someone who fights tooth and nail against this war and all wars where not potential lives but ACTUAL innocent chidren are slaughtered daily. The decision to have an abortion is NOT an easy one; it is one fraught with emotion, morality, and ideaology. And while one may believe that with enough education, money and religious indoctrination you will make abortion disappear, the fact is you won't. Abortion is survival for most women - it is a question of whether one can grow a person insider her right now or not. You can legislate abortion but you cannot legislate the choices a woman makes for her survival.

If you believe its murder then you MUST be someone who fights tooth and nail against this war and all wars

On that point, I completely agree with you! Every time I hear someone describe George W. Bush as pro-life, it makes me feel nauseous.

Unfortunately, that is also the reason why I couldn't vote for John Kerry, since he had voted in favor of the Iraq War resolution. If the Democrats want to attract liberal pro-lifers, they'll have to do better than that.

Shawn (my name is Zed, by the way, not Zeb):

"This is an explanation ... conveniently warping rational thinking to support one's desires. It involves no logical thinking. As I explained above, if someone believes life begins at conception, then abortion is murder."

For consistency, then, do you believe that if you have the resources to feed and shelter a homeless man in your town, and do not, and he dies from malnutrition or exposure, that you are guilty of murder? Likewise, do you believe that if you come across a man attempting to rape a friend of yours, and you shoot him, are you guilty of murder? That latter is definitely homicide, but the law doesn't consider it murder.

If you do, then I can understand your stance (though I must respectfully disagree with it). If not, then you have either a problem with consistency of your own thinking, or you have missed the point of my statement (which may be my fault — I'm not at my clearest writing comments directly into a web browser late at night). I note also that the law in the United States agrees with me, which is why we are going to see a very ugly, death by starvation end to Terry Schiavo when it would be so much kinder to give what remains of her body a painless exit. Legally, it's not murder to stop feeding her, even though she can't feed herself. After a birth, you can also abdicate responsibility and withdraw support, making a baby a ward of the state, despite the often disastrous results of this. An abortion is merely the extension back in time to a point at which technology does not exist to enable anyone else to step in.

"Certainly, there is no guarantee that any of those aborted people would have made any landmark discoveries, but think of the brilliant minds that were destroyed, just by playing the percentages. Who knows what we're missing."

Aye, alas, I am in fact playing the percentages. Run the numbers of how many unwanted children became brilliant minds giving lasting contributions. Now compare that to the number of unwanted children committing crimes or killing other people (humor me and include soldiers in this number, just to make the example clear). How many victims of unwanted children might have gone on to create something great? How many of their mothers, stunted by the burden of raising a child, might have gone on to create something great? How many siblings, starved for resources by additional unwanted brothers and sisters, to the point that *none* of them get to go to college, might have gone on to something great? You can play the what-if game from both sides, but it's equally pointless either way.

"Never underestimate the power of one person to change the world. Even in today's world."
I'm a cynic, which others would call a realist, except that I'm too cynical to use the term myself. Never underestimate the power of the world to replace a person. If penicillin hadn't been stumbled over by Fleming, it would probably have been stumbled over by someone else. It had actually already been stumbled over once before, by Lister, and then ignored. It was ignored by the rest of the world even after Fleming published a paper on it, and it wouldn't be until Florey and Chain made it a treatment during World War II that it finally became useful... and if Florey and Chain weren't there, someone else on that military task force looking for a way to stop infections would have probably have found it in about the same period of time. There was a strong push at that time to make the discovery, and by that point several people had stumbled over it, and it was just a matter of picking up on the work of at least one of them.

People are valuable because of the connections they share with other people, and because of the things they *are* doing for their society. This doesn't help an embryo, which has none of that, but in my mind, shifting attention away from that reasoning and to the potential good that a person might bring (while completely ignoring the potential harm) is bad for society, as it leads naturally to a comparative valuation of people based on how likely they are to bring some spectacular good. I'd rather not have my basic rights depend on whether or not I'm likely to win a Nobel Prize.

Shawn:

I think you're unfairly giving short shrift to the argument that even a human being cannot force another human to support it.

I don't adopt the argument, because I reject the conception view. (I'm rather an extremist -- I'm for abortion on demand without apology).

The argument Zed described has been around a long time- if you reject it, you have to explain why we don't force non-custodial parents to donate organs to save their children. Take for example a woman who bears a child and puts the child up for adoption. The child, at the age of seven, needs kidney to live. Only the biological mother is a match. Can she be compelled to risk her life and endure the surgery and recovery, solely because without it her biological child will die?

Sure, you can answer either way -- but I do want you to acknowledge that rejecting Zed's argument out-of-hand raises some logical quandries of its own.

Zed,
Firstly, sorry about the name. Secondly:

"For consistency, then, do you believe that if you have the resources to feed and shelter a homeless man in your town, and do not, and he dies from malnutrition or exposure, that you are guilty of murder?"

This is going to sound like a cop out answer, but I will explain ... You're comparing apples to oranges. Homeless, by and large, are in the position they are in due to their own choices. With the exception of those who are mentally incapable, I feel nothing for the homeless. Many, if not most, of them wind up there because they chose to live their lives with a needle stuck in their arm or at the bottom of a bottle. An unborn child, on the other hand, is not in existence by his or her own choice. It is by the choice or irresponsibility of the parents that the unborn child is in existence.

"Likewise, do you believe that if you come across a man attempting to rape a friend of yours, and you shoot him, are you guilty of murder? That latter is definitely homicide, but the law doesn't consider it murder."

Again, a ridiculous comparison. If I came across someone trying to rape anyone, I would act accordingly. I could see the stretch of a correlation in the first example, but this one has left me wondering just where you were going. No, I don't believe in letting people die. There are segments of our population that need help, but I feel nothing for people who are perfectly capable and make bad choices. A rapist, in my opinion, is the lowest form of life on the planet. We all make choices in life, but unborn children do not have such an option. Unborn children are not guilty of anything. A rapist is guilty. While I would rather see that individual be dealt with by our legal system, if the only option was a violent end, as I said, I would accordingly.

The Terry Schiavo case is sad. But, I digress.

"Aye, alas, I am in fact playing the percentages. Run the numbers of how many unwanted children became brilliant minds giving lasting contributions."

OK, where are the numbers? I know this is all hypothetical, but, here's what I can come up with: 2.23% of the world's population falls into the range of superior to exceptional intellect, based on IQ testing. Now, the number of legal abortions since 1973 has crested over 40 million, but let's use it because it is a nice, round number. Statistically speaking, we have terminated more than 892,000 of the brightest minds that could benefit society.
I myself am the product of an unwanted pregnancy (now the reason why I am pro-life comes to light). My parents were poor and already had three children. My mom had the option to terminate me. After thinking long and hard, she and my father chose not to follow that route. Afetr watching me grow, they have become staunch pro-lifers.
Now, what difference can someone from an unwanted pregnancy make? I seem to think I make a pretty big difference. For the last five years I have volunteered with a great agency called Mom's House Inc. which helps single parents get their education and off to a good start in life. We have locations in major cities and some smaller cities in 13 states. At my location alone, in the past five years, I have played a part in helping nearly 100 poor single parents (it's not all women) earn their high school diplomas (or GEDs) and college degrees. I offer child care for the children and tutoring for the parents. That's the difference the product of an unwanted pregnancy can make.
You see, I am a realist, too. I understand the impact of one person. One suicide counselor. One person who prepares and brings a sandwich and a drink to a homeless person every day.
I also am a cynic. Abortion, except in cases of incest, rape and where the mother's life is in danger, is nothing more than another way to promote irresponsibility in our already "it's-not-my-fault" society. At some point, we need to start holding people accountable for their own actions.

Thomas:
"I don't adopt the argument, because I reject the conception view. (I'm rather an extremist -- I'm for abortion on demand without apology)."

Let me disect this. The first line tells me I have no intellectual grounds upon which I can debate with you. We have a fundamental disagreement that can't be bridged. I have been through this many times. It ends up with both of thinking the other is an idiot, which is how we start the debate.

The secoond line I find rather interesting. As stated above, I am a cynic, so when I read "I'm rather an extremist -- I'm for abortion on demand without apology," my first thought is, of course you are. You're a man! It gives you a way out. It's perfect, because you can pressure your mate into having an abortion. Congratulations. Oddly enough, among the top three reasons women give for having an abortion is problems with the unborn child's father. Thomas, how many women have you forced or even influenced to go through the trauma of destroying a child? Have you stuck around to help them through the emotional scars that linger for the rest of their lives?

As far as accepting logic in what Zed says, there is none. If you accept the AMA's proclomation that life begins at conception, then terminating that life is murder (If you want, I can draw up a flow chart and post it here to make this painfully obvious to you). If you believe abortion is terminating a human life and you are pro-choice, then you believe killing babies is OK (see, this is called logical progression). Of course, communist China (where infanticide is rampant) is filled with liberal thinkers like you. I understand the excuses he gives, but they are only excuses. Rapists make excuses from sexual perversions to drug or alcohol-induced misjudgments, but does that make their crime any less criminal?

Now, your point of view draws several logical conclusions. Debating logic with logic is difficult. You think I am dead wrong, I think you're dead wrong. We butt heads, say some witty things, pull out some interesting statistics. In the end, we're right back where we started. So someone's belief of when life begins makes all the difference in this debate.

Shawn:

I agree that a battle of extremes is fruitless -- I didn't expect you to reply to my comment about my position -- I was just stating it because it might seem that discussing Zed's point without stating where I stood was coy.

My real point, though, was that you dismissed Zed's dependent-life argument too quickly, and I think my hypo illustrates that (if I may be so bold, I think my hypo drills directly to the issue much better than Zed's questions, which were extended into other issues).

As to pressuring a woman to terminate, I have never asked a woman to terminate a pregnancy. I have always considered it my obligation to prevent my sexual activity from resulting in unwanted pregnancy -- not only by using condoms, but by reserving penis/vagina intercourse for less casual partners. I have only impregnated one woman, and that was after my wife and I made a mutual determination that we were prepared to raise a child. My position was not arrived at out of personal convenience.

Thomas:
As for your hypo, I am not familiar with any case law on this topic. Can you provide some, please?

Shawn, I didn't really mean it as a law hypothetical. I meant it as an ethical/philosophical hypo. I don't know of any case anywhere that would allow the taking of one person's organs without consent, under any circumstances. But that's not really the question. The question is, what do you think the answer should be?

Here's what I posited: A woman who bears a child and puts the child up for adoption. The child, at the age of seven, needs a kidney to live. Only the biological mother is a match. Should she be compelled to risk her life and endure the surgery and recovery, solely because without it her biological child will die?

Thomas:
You're quite the sly devil. Of course, I don't think the natural mother should have to endure that surgery. But, this is a hypothetical. Again, equating this hypothetical to abortion is quite a stretch.
There's a big difference. A child needing a kidney is a product of nature, the same as a still-born child is. Performing an abortion is an unnatural act. Apples to oranges, again, Thomas.

Now, answer this for me, and I can produce plenty of case law: Why is it the law does not recognize the rights of an unborn child in the case of abortion, but if a pregnant women is assaulted or in an automobile accident and loses an unborn child she can sue the perpetrator for wrongful death ... even if the pregnancy was unwanted??? And if it was a car accident, and the driver who caused the accident was intoxicated, why can the driver be charged with vehicular homicide for the death of an unborn child? I'll be interested to read your reply.

Shawn, that's easy to answer. All, or essentially all the legal recognition of a fetus is a development in the last 15 years by people who, like you, believe that life begins at conception. It might be a stretch to say that all these folks are anti-Roe activists trying to undermine the groundwork for safe and legal abortion. However, I think it is fair to say that, as a political phenomena, fetal rights has found its primary support in opponents of legal abortion, and its primary opposition in supporters of legal abortion.

What I mean to say is, I think what your question implies is that there is something inherently right in the legal development of fetal rights. I answer that there is something inherently political in the development of fetal rights.

I'm saying you're confusing cause and effect. I apologize if I read you wrong, but I think you're saying that abortion is wrong because the law recognizes fetal personhood. I'm telling you that the law recognizes fetal personhood due to activism by people who believe abortion is wrong.

For more on this, see the Feministing post from earlier this month on new fetal rights legislation (Kansas, was it?).

Anyway, about my hypothetical: I don't think the "unnatural act" argument works. We're both talking about a surgery, which is inherently unnatural (abortion, or transplant) to cure a problem (pregnancy, kidney failure) that occurs naturally. Your argument contrasts kidney failure (natural) with abortion (unnatural). But you're matching the opposite sides of the equasion.

Look, I'm not trying to change your mind. But you said to Zed that fetal personhood was the end of the argument. Zed came back with an argument I have heard before, and I think it's a tough one, that doesn't rely on denying fetal personhood. I said you gave it short shrift. I think you now acknowledge that it's an argument that takes some work to answer, no?

Thomas:
Two points
"I'm saying you're confusing cause and effect. I apologize if I read you wrong, but I think you're saying that abortion is wrong because the law recognizes fetal personhood. I'm telling you that the law recognizes fetal personhood due to activism by people who believe abortion is wrong."

Actually, no, I'm just pointing out the hypocrasy in the law that let's us pick and choose, at our convenience, when an unborn child's life holds value. In other words, by our current laws, a woman could be driving to get an abortion, be n an accident with a drunk driver, lose the baby and sue that person for wrongful death and will win a cash award.

As for Zed's argument, I gave it short shrift because I have been through this before. It's a logical argument against an illogical debate. In other words, my argument is built on sound reasoning. His was built around abstract correlation that can't lead to a logical conclusion. Basically, I'm not arguing the merits of the conclusions, I'm arguing the logic.

That said, I never thought I could enjoy posting on a liberal feminist blog, but as an ENTP (Jung) and an aspiring attorney, the debate is a lot of fun. Keep it comin!

Shawn:

I agree that fetal rights laws are inconsistent with legal abortion. I oppose fetal rights. If I got to write the statute, a woman who lost a pregnancy would have a claim for any time, expense and emotional burden of having to get pregnant again (it's not easy for everyone), if she intended to carry it to term, but _not_ for the loss of the fetus itself.

I don't agree that Zed's argument, at least as rephrased in my hypo, is illogical. I think by extending it to homelessness, he swept in a leap of logic that made a mess of it -- but I know that argument, so I had a cleaner hypo handy.

Here's the logic: your position appears to be that if (Premise 1)[some rule about preserving life where no other life will be lost, the specifics don't matter because I'll say for argument that I agree]; and (Premise 2) a fetus is a person with all the rights of a person; and (Premise 3) a fetus is dependent on the organs of a particular person for its continued existence; then (conclusion) the person on whose organs the fetus depends should not be permitted to withdraw that support. Is this a correct statement of your position?

If this is true, then my hypo adopts your first premise and substitutes a seven year old child for the fetus, but preserves the third premise by positing a slighly different situation with the same result, and asks if you reason to the same conclusion.

I accept your first premise _arguendo_. I say (2) the seven-year-old, who is a person; and who (3) will die without the use of the organs of a particular other person, (conclusion) _cannot_ compel that support.

Now, all I've heard so far is that my hypothetical is hypothetical (this is trivially true; it will always be true of hypotheticals); and that abortion is unnatural (which proves too much, as this is true of all medical procedures).

I know you think my third premise is unlikely, but that's not an answer -- that's the classic non-answer: "denying the hypothetical." The point of a hypothetical is to explore logic through facts _other_ than those that readily present themselves. Moreover, usually folks try to deny impossible hypotheticals (you know the kind -- "if a demon made you ..."). Mine may be rare, but certainly not impossible -- in fact it happens that there are folks for whom only one donor is available.

So I'm adopting your first premise for argument -- whatever your rules are about preservation of life. Our second premises are, on your account, indistinguishable (fetus, seven year old -- to you, both people). The third premises each stipulate that the use of the organs of one other specific person, the fetus/child will die. Yet you concede that you reason to a different conclusion on my facts than on yours.

Logically, you must believ