Sorry ma’am, if you hadn’t had sex you wouldn’t have gotten pregnant,

Yeah, but then she wouldn't've been able to have sex. I'm sick of pro-lifers not only harping on abortions but insisting that other people undergo worse things than abortion to avoid them. Birth control is more convenient than abortion, but that's not good enough for them, nooo, you're supposed to abstain all the damn time, or else stay pregnant when the Vatican Roulette lands the ball in your belly. Nasty, selfish pro-lifers, making us pay significantly more than we should ever have to so they can get what they want. (And such value they put on those little unborn lives, conspiring to put as many as possible into women who'll want abortions.)

it’s not the HMO’s fault for not supporting your promiscuity while not married.

Well, if they didn't want her to have an abortion, yes it is. If they can't be bothered to do it, they have no business complaining if she falls back on something that will.

When did the article say she wasn't married, anyway?

That was my question, too, Kyra.

Every time the abortion question comes up, the pro-lifers assume that the women involved are 18 year old sluts.

'Course, then there was that nice article about the 30 something respectable married lady who had to get an abortion because her pharmacist wouldn't give her Plan B... all the bloggers kept asking "why don't you and your husband not have sex?"

It boggles the mind.

It's The Onion, for crying out loud. Everything they publish is saturated with sarcasm. Could it be possible that the author is making an attempt to criticize that very "dumb-ass notion"?

I think you're the one who is taking the article too seriously.

On a side note: If you can call Anti-Abortionists "anti-choice", can I call pro-abortionists "pro-death"? The histrionics seem about equal to me.

Raven, call pro-choicers whatever you want on your own blog. If YearlyKos's abortion roundtable is any indication of pro-choice jargon, the standard term is the abbreviation "anti-" anyway.

On a side note: If you can call Anti-Abortionists "anti-choice", can I call pro-abortionists "pro-death"? The histrionics seem about equal to me.

Depends. If the person doing the re-categorizing (in this case, you) define "pro-life" as solely the people who are offering "life" options but not trying to force them on people (for example, supporting birth control because it dramatically reduces the demand for abortion, universal healthcare and welfare reforms so that women don't get abortions because they can't afford another child, help and support networks to make it less burdensome for women to have and raise babies, that sort of thing), then "pro-death" would be a fairly accurate flip side, as we work to make abortion more of an option for those who want or need it.

If, however, you define "pro-life" to include the people who want to force women to stay pregnant, and especially if you include the ones who attack birth control so as to saddle more women with unwanted pregnancies, the two terms are not comparable, as we do not try to force anyone to have abortions, and we certainly don't try to manipulate their circumstances to saddle more of them with health problems that interfere with pregnancy. In comparison with the "outlaw abortion" pro-lifers, the only people who are pro-death are people who support forced abortions---of which include employers on several US-owned islands where "Made in the USA" clothing is made without benefit of normal American labor standards, some white-supremacist groups, perhaps the occasional extreme environmentalist group that's obsessed with global overpopulation, and perhaps China, but not pro-choicers.

A good point, Kyra, but I'd like to present an alternate view.

I don't think pro-death is accurate as many pro-choicers believe that life begins at birth, not at conception. Therefore, there is no death during an abortion.

Most pro-choicers and anti-choicers are "pro-life" in as much as neither group wants to end anyone's life. The only difference is where each group defines "life".

Legally, a human is not "alive" until birth. If a woman is murdered while pregnant, the murderer can only be charge with one count of homocide - not two. If a woman and her 1 year old baby are murdered, well, that's two counts of homocide.

The anti-choicers usually make this legal distinction out to be a "conspiracy" on the part of the pro-choicers, but that couldn't be further from the truth. Hundreds of years ago, babies weren't alive until birth not because of an abortion agenda, but because there were so many stillborns and miscarriages that it was just "common sense" that a baby wasn't alive until it was born. Anything prior to the physical, bawling presence of the infant was simply a state of formation which could be terminated by nature at any time, for any reason - hardly "life" in any sense that we know. In the same way, a calf wasn't alive until it was born and a chick wasn't alive until it broke out of its shell.

What is amusing is that what was so obvious to early Christians is now seen as a liberal conspiracy.... :)

True enough.

I was answering her question on her terms. Which amuses me that I can do and still win an argument.

Gosh, that was so funny it made me get teary eyed, almost as if I was cutting up onions.
I think there should be better slogans for plan B to promote it. I heard the Obgyn's were going to start pushing for all women to keep B in their medicine cabinets like band-aids. (well I added the band-aid part)
Support Plan B.. it's B or Bust! Well, maybe that needs a little work.

Are people who are for all forms of birth control (except for abortions) just kind of anti-choice...or are they actually pro-life?

I'm all for all forms of birth control (including/especially plan B), but I'm very opposed to abortion unless either the childs life or the mothers life would be endangered by the pregnancy process.

I don't feel like I'm "anti-choice" at all, since I support the use of all other methods of birth control (outside of abortion as birth control).

Well, Eshew Obfuscation, You are anti-reproductive rights. How about that? You are anti- the rights of a person to her own body. Does that sound better to you?

I think pro-life is a very broad term. I am pro- the lives of civilians in Iraq and Gaza. I am pro- the lives of starving children in famine stricken Africa. I am pro- the lives of babies that are born in poverty and do not survive (in this country too, I read that 1/3 to 1/4 of infant mortality could be prevented if the mother could afford better care and nutrition during pregnancy). I am even pro- the lives of cows and chickens and all big and small animals. I however would not force a pregnancy on a person to save the life a fetus. I would not force any kind of intrusion on a person’s body to save the life of another person, even if it was a person and not a fetus. So, am I pro-life?

I'm all for all forms of birth control (including/especially plan B), but I'm very opposed to abortion unless either the childs life or the mothers life would be endangered by the pregnancy process.

You're aware that the evidence for fetal personhood is weaker than the evidence for great ape personhood, right?

Eshew, what confuses me about your post is that you say you're opposed to abortion except when the mother or infant's life is in danger. So am I, when it comes to any abortions from about 16 weeks on. But I march with NOW and donate to pro-choice causes and vote based on pro-choice patterns because I don't think my opposition to late second-trimester abortions trumps a woman's right to choose.

So I have to ask: Are you saying you oppose abortion, or that you want to ban abortion? They're two very different questions.

Cheers,

TH

I should say "...mother or fetus' life is in danger..." I just woke up from a nap and am not entirely conscious.

Cheers,

TH

So am I, when it comes to any abortions from about 16 weeks on.

Why 16? I'm not asking (only) rhetorically; I've seen people use 22 and 26 as boundaries, and I think there are some legal systems whose boundaries are at 13 or 18, but I don't remember any that use 16.

24 and 26 are viability standards; 18 is a neurological development standard; 16 is a fairly conservative neurological development standard; 13 is an arbitrary second-trimester cutoff standard. Of course, 16 weeks for one fetus might not be exactly the same as 16 weeks for another.

And my "opposition" to abortion at this phase, in case anyone wonders, amounts to stonger support for first-trimester abortions, EC, and birth control. I would love to see all second-trimester abortions rendered obsolete. I know they're not fun procedures.

Truth be told, I'd love it if all abortions were rendered obsolete. Universal availability of emergency contraception would come very close to accomplishing that goal. It kind of demonstrates the hypocrisy of the "pro-life" movement that at least some activist sectors aren't aggressively supporting EC simply to reduce the number of later abortions.

This is a key difference between me and the "pro-life" movement. I have a visceral dislike for abortions and wish women didn't have to have them, so I want to make sure better options are universally available. The "pro-life" movement by and large doesn't care if the women actually have the abortions or not, and actively pursues policies that will increase the number of abortions. Its only true goal is to make sure that women are punished for having sex.

Cheers,

TH

"I'm very opposed to abortion unless either the childs life or the mothers life would be endangered by the pregnancy process. I don't feel like I'm anti-choice at all."
Posted by: Eshew Obfuscation

I notice you said "life" instead of "health" of the woman. Nobody picked up on that. That's the same little play on words the GOP uses.

If my little sister's health was in danger and the doctor said he didn't want to perform the abortion because she wasn't dying yet, I think I'd choke him right there in the office.

But the word "health" scares the pants off the Republicans, because they feel that it puts a loophole in the anti-abortion law. So the woman's health is sacrificed on the altar of politics. And it's what will be their undoing.

And by the way EO, yes, you are anti-choice. Glad we could clear that up for you.

Kyra: Great post, btw.

24 and 26 are viability standards; 18 is a neurological development standard; 16 is a fairly conservative neurological development standard; 13 is an arbitrary second-trimester cutoff standard.

Strictly speaking, neurological development is between about 30 and 45... that's when the brain develops the capability of feeling pain (the neurons are in place early on, but the synapses are what counts).

Tom Head-

You asked an excellent question.

I am opposed to abortion philisophically. Not just personally, but generally as well.

How ever, that's just where my ethics lie.

Politically, I am neither for or against illegalization of abortions. While most of the political candidates that I find myself generally philisophically and politically aligned to are active pro-choice voters... I would never be opposed to a candidate that voted "anti-choice" as far as abortion is concerned.

However, candidates that are anti-contraception I would probably have a problem with.

If, I were employed in the legislative branch, however, I would most likely vote on a pro-choice line (because I think the majority of the voter constituency are pro-choice).

So, the short answer is, I disagree with abortion, but I don't actively seek to make it illegal, or by any means am I an abortion activist (I would never wear a pro-life shirt, have a pro-life bumper sticker, etc.)

And Ms. Jane-as far as your snarky comment about the G.O.P. is concerned, while most of the politicians I appreciate are in fact Democrats (or third party candidates), I don't discount what someone says simply because of their party affiliations...I have voted (and I'm sure I will again for G.O.P. candidates) (Not so often for Federal office, however)...all members of one party are NOT the same...and I try not to play the party politik game.

Alon Levy writes:
Strictly speaking, neurological development is between about 30 and 45... that's when the brain develops the capability of feeling pain (the neurons are in place early on, but the synapses are what counts).

The concern for me isn't fetal pain; it's sentience.

But your point does highlight the fact that the jury is still very much out on all this, which is why I believe abortion needs to be the woman's decision.

Cheers,

TH

The concern for me isn't fetal pain; it's sentience.

But surely the ability to feel pain, universally highly-developed among organisms known to be self-aware, is a prerequisite of sentience...

Not necessarily. You can be sentient and still not feel physical pain, and you can "feel" physical pain (nociception) without being sentient.

All of these standards are subjective--all the more reason why the decision should be made by the pregnant woman--but personally, I'm much more concerned about neocortex development than I am about pain sensation per se.

Cheers,

TH

Ethically and personally I'm opposed to abortion. I'd prefer to avoid getting pregnant in the first place, and to explore other options in the event that I did. I think that's probably true for most people--I don't think anyone regards abortion as anything but a last resort, and if some people do, I would think they're in the minority. However, despite my personal opinion I still label myself "pro-choice" because I adamantly support every woman's right to make the decision for herself. Maybe she'll share my opinion, maybe she won't, but I firmly believe what's most important is that she have the option to decide herself, based on her own personal ethics and beliefs--not mine. That's why I don't get the people who want to make abortion illegal--is it not enough, if you're personally opposed to something, to just eschew doing it yourself? Why the need to control everyone else's lives, which you don't have to live and have no real understanding of, no comprehension of what challenges they might face?
And why do they think that the laws of the country should be written based on what does and doesn't meet with their personal approval? If the country was actually made up exclusively of wealthy white Christian fundamentalists, then maybe a government based on fundamentalist Christianity would be fair and equitable for all.

But it isn't, so it ain't.
Deal.