Well, at least poor Amy Richards has a chance to be speaking on the side of tolerance for those who showed so little towards her because she had the nerve to confess that being a martyr for multiple births wasn't her thing in the NY Times.

I'd like to see the text of this article if anyone can post it. Honestly, I hate these sites that expect you to "sign up" to access them. I get enough e-junk as it is, and many of them ask for demographic information that I am reluctant to give out at the best of times. Hey, I don't need to be marketed to! :)

I appreciate any assistance available. Thanks!

You're not missing much. It's mostly a circular, repetitive scold aimed at pro-choice women, blaming them exclusively for the supposedly dim view America takes of their movement right now. Not a single one of us, apparently, have ever stopped to consider the universally-held view that a fetus at any stage of development represents life, and we therefore cannot argue our case to anti-abortion Americans, who are always totally reasonable and would never, ever base their political opinions on anything less than a objective and logical weighing of the issues.

(Oddly, though other Salon staffers apparently see the debate differently, the blame is constant. The article's author berates the pro-choice movement being unwilling to confront the fetus-as-person viewpoint Frances Kissling raised; the author of the blurb on Salon's front page, though, places Kissling squarely in our camp and berates the pro-choice movement for placing fetuses above women's rights. We just can't win, I suppose.)

Y'know, just a couple days ago, Salon posted an insightful article about men who did not want to become fathers and were seeking vasectomies. Many of them were turned down repeatedly by doctors who were convinced that the men would later change their minds; they could not consider the choice to remain childfree as rational or tenable. (The testimony given by these fellows, particularly those harangued by friends with children whose own decisions regarding reproduction were not submitted to such careful scrutiny, struck many a chord with me.) It irks me that a site which can so thoughtfully chronicle and sympathetically portray men who elect not to have children can without a second thought brand women who make the same choice as thoughtless.

Well, that sounds fairly reasonable. I, for one, am willing to acknowledge that a fetus is a living entity. I mean, the evidence is pretty incontrovertible at this point. It's just the whole personhood thing that I'm conflicted on.

Personally, I try not to argue for abortion on the grounds of women's rights anymore--mostly because I keep hearing responses like, "So if I decide to smoke crack or drink several bottles of Jack Daniels when I'm pregnant, is it still 'my body, my choice' to do whatever the hell I want?" Sigh.

I've found that more and more arguments for abortion are being argued independently of a feminist perspective--i.e., the fact that a fetus is not a person.

I mean "life" as in "sentient human life" and "personhood".

I have always looked for a possibility to find information as quick as I can. Now there is the internet. And I really appreciate people like you who take their chance in such an excellent way to give an impression on certain topics. Thanks for having me here.