it ends when the clump of cells is evacuated from the uterus
Over like this endless debate should have been long ago.

If someone were really using abortion as birth control they would have something like 6 a year. The chances for a normal fertility couple of getting pregnant range from 20-75% per cycle. A woman is also more fertile right after she gets pregnant. Even if a woman has three abortions over her lifetime of sexual activity, that still means that it is not being used as birth control, nor is it necessarily been done casually. For example, said woman may have substance abuse issues or serious health issues. And as for the suggestion that such women give their babies up for adoption, there is a glut of babies born with addictions and problems, caused, yes, by in utero exposures, that don't get adopted easily. Nor is a woman who can't better her life for herself necessarily going to do so for an unwanted child, and there is no regulations that the government could put in place that could force her to do so. So, what would you suggest in those circumstances? Forced nine months of regulated prenatal care and restrictions? We can't stop people from eating meat, though, despite how unhealthy constant beef consumption is. We can't stop teens from popping addreall their parents get them prescriptions for. Why? Because there is a concept of bodily autonomy, and although I hate slippery slope arguments, regulating a woman's decisions regarding family planning is indeed a slippery slope. No abortion allowed, forced prenatal care and screening for drugs and alcohol, forced vitamin consumption, forced nutrition testing --seriously, where does that end?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

irresponsibly had sex without protection.

Plenty of women use protection and get pregnant anyway; I am one of them.

For those you deem "irresponsible," your solution is to have someone who can't even manage to use birth control have to parent a child for 18 years? That takes a good deal more "responsibility" that many women are not ready for, whether ever or just at that time.

I don't disagree with your comments at all, but I still think casual abortions are wrong.

There is nothing "casual" about an abortion.

Anonymous wrote:
Let me put this another way: why should it matter what you think about someone else's choices?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Well, prochoice here. But to play devil's advocate, if someone sees abortion as murder, the they care when another person makes a choice to murder. Sitting by silently makes them complicit, in their minds.
I agree abortion is a tragedy and I wouldn't have one. I continue to support politicians and causes that support the right to choose. I think the best thing we could do as a society is promote a culture where 1) abstinence is the ideal and 2) we teach young people that it would be UNTHINKABLE to ever have sex without birth control. Just like a young person may be raised to assume "some day I will need feminine supplies to manage my period, some day I will drive, some day I will go to college, some day I will lose my virginity, some day I will work...." They should be raised to believe "some day I will need to rely on birth control, until I am ready to be a parent". Since we can't rely on all parents to teach this, it would be in society's best interest to agressively promote birth control. Just like we promoted the "Back to Sleep" campaign or "Click it or Ticket" we should have a campaign(s) that encourages all people to be reproductively responsible. PREVENT ABORTIONS. Eliminate demand.

Instead of just being up to date with vaccinations, maybe schools require that all kids have annual physicals to attend school, and all doctors have to have "the talk" with the kids each year, unless the parent refuses on religious grounds?

I get this, but the thing is, most anti-choice people DON'T actually see abortion as murder. If they did, they wouldn't support exceptions for rape or incest -- after all, we don't kill born babies just because they are products of rape. They see it as something else, something that they are uncomfortable with, and they really don't think is right, but, you know, I really don't think cheating on your spouse is right, but I'm not about to make it illegal.

I have so much more respect for the extreme anti-choicers who would make it illegal to have an abortion at any time for any reason. I think they're wrong, but at least they're logically consistent and not hypocritical.

Let me put this another way: why should it matter what you think about someone else's choices?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Well, prochoice here. But to play devil's advocate, if someone sees abortion as murder, the they care when another person makes a choice to murder. Sitting by silently makes them complicit, in their minds.

I agree abortion is a tragedy and I wouldn't have one. I continue to support politicians and causes that support the right to choose. I think the best thing we could do as a society is promote a culture where 1) abstinence is the ideal and 2) we teach young people that it would be UNTHINKABLE to ever have sex without birth control. Just like a young person may be raised to assume "some day I will need feminine supplies to manage my period, some day I will drive, some day I will go to college, some day I will lose my virginity, some day I will work...." They should be raised to believe "some day I will need to rely on birth control, until I am ready to be a parent". Since we can't rely on all parents to teach this, it would be in society's best interest to agressively promote birth control. Just like we promoted the "Back to Sleep" campaign or "Click it or Ticket" we should have a campaign(s) that encourages all people to be reproductively responsible. PREVENT ABORTIONS. Eliminate demand.

Instead of just being up to date with vaccinations, maybe schools require that all kids have annual physicals to attend school, and all doctors have to have "the talk" with the kids each year, unless the parent refuses on religious grounds?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe government forcing women to have babies.

i don't either, but i also wish that we could get to a place in our culture so that women who are accidentally pregnant are encouraged to have the baby and place it for adoption. it seems to me that now there is more stigma attached to carrying a child to term than having an abortion (seriously, there are women on here who talk proudly about how many abortions they have had). there are women who are cavalier about pregnancy and i find that sickening. I realize this is my world view and I'm not trying to impose it on anyone else.

Are you saying adoption as a contraceptive method? No worry about a 'surprise' because you can leave it in the hospital?
Can we not just increase womens rights, so surprise pregnancies actually mean that the man is on the hook for child support, and that the mother gets paid maternity leave, and can get child care subsidies and wic if she needs?

Baby scoop era is over and you cannot treat women like that anymore

Maybe, and i know i won't articulate this well, but i sometimes think that women have dug a pretty deep hole regarding holding men responsible by making abortion a women's only issue and decision. if the putative father doesn't have a right to a say in whether the woman has an abortion, how can we then say he HAS to be responsible if she decides to go on with the pregnancy. i promise i'm not being glib -- i really do wrestle with this issue because i think fathers SHOULD be required to be responsible.

as to the leaving babies in the hospital, i'm not advocating that women MUST continue with a pregnancy and place the baby for adoption, but rather that more of the 3/4 of the 1.3 million women i 2008 who had abortions in whole or in part because having a child would interfere with life, for example, would opt to continue with the pregnancy and place the child for adoption. that we could get over the notion that an unexpected pregnancy is a death sentence and a life ender and that more women would become accident surrogates, in an odd way, rather than choose abortion. may sound backwards and heinous, but that's how i feel.

Absurd. The men do get a choice. They choose whether to have sex, whether to use birth control. They may not have the identical choices that women do or as many choices, but they get a choice. It's ot like "Gattica" - I'm not vaccuuming your keyboard too obtain your dna. You choose whether or not to leave it in a place that causes babies. Might as well complain that it's unfair the earth is round or only women can breastfeed. Or maybewomen should complain that it's really not fair that men get the same parental rights as women, after all the woman does alk the work to create the life. But that's just the way it is. It's not fair, to either gender grankly. It's biology.

Additionally it is not in the greater interest of society to allow males to opt out of responsibility for children they have sired, wanted or not.

Frankly I think the status quo on this issue is right and reasonable.

Same for women. They should be responsible for their choice to have unprotected sex and not use abortion as a means of birth control--which many women do (not referring to children conceived by rape or incest and not referring to situations in which the mother's or baby's life is endangered, etc)

Having an abortion IS being responsible for their choice to have sex.

Actually, for many women, it's a "convenient" way out of a situation that came about because they irresponsibly had sex without protection.

So? Seriously, let's assume what you're saying is true. Let's say I had sex, and in the heat of the moment, didn't use a condom (or I forgot that antibiotics would cancel out my oral contraceptives, or whatever). And now I'm pregnant -- oops! But I don't want to be, because I'm single and not exactly rolling in cash and frankly am not ready to have a kid. As time machines have not yet been invented, I don't have the option of going back in time and telling myself not to have sex (and, you know what? In this scenario, the sex was awesome and I don't regret it). So, I go to the doctor and get an abortion, which is costly and uncomfortable, because I'm not up for 9 months of pregnancy, labor and delivery. I have now officially Taken Responsibility For My Actions. Yay, me! I have absolutely zero problems with this scenario.

Pretty much a callous, flip way of sharing your feelings about aborting your offspring. As you've described the scenario, it's not a big deal emotionally and could happen again. I happen to think that both men AND women should be making more responsible decisions ahead of time instead of viewing abortion as a convenience. Again, I'm not referring to the kinds of situations (rape, incest, health of mother/baby, etc) where far more is involved than mere convenience.

Yup, could happen again. And actually, I agree with you -- I think the scenario I described above is an example of someone behaving irresponsibly (but only to the extent that she wasn't on birth control). But here's the thing: (1) I don't see why having an abortion is seen as avoiding responsibility, when it's actually an example of someone evaluating the situation, deciding how best to proceed given the risks and circumstances, and making a proactive decision to fix their mistake, but more importantly (b) I don't think the fact that the person described above isn't behaving as morally as I would want her to, or making the choices I would, is any reason to take away her right to make medical decisions that affect her body. I think people who gorge themselves on fast food and have a heart attack should get treatment at an ER even if they can't pay. I think ambulances should come and assist drunk drivers that get into accidents. I think that my own choices and moral codes are just that: MY CHOICES, not anyone elses, and they certainly shouldn't be the basis for legal prohibition.

Let me put this another way: why should it matter what you think about someone else's choices?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

irresponsibly had sex without protection.

Plenty of women use protection and get pregnant anyway; I am one of them.

For those you deem "irresponsible," your solution is to have someone who can't even manage to use birth control have to parent a child for 18 years? That takes a good deal more "responsibility" that many women are not ready for, whether ever or just at that time.

I don't disagree with your comments at all, but I still think casual abortions are wrong.

Then don't have one. But I'll make my own decisions, thanks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Actually, for many women, it's a "convenient" way out of a situation that came about because they irresponsibly had sex without protection.

That would be a more persuasive argument if your people vigorously promoted the use of birth control. After all if abortion is such a tragedy, why wouldnt you be providing it in schools, helping poor kids get access to it, etc.

"My people?" I do think birth control should be more accessible to those you mentioned.

THen convince the "pro-life" movement to endorse birth control.

Anonymous wrote:

irresponsibly had sex without protection.

Plenty of women use protection and get pregnant anyway; I am one of them.

For those you deem "irresponsible," your solution is to have someone who can't even manage to use birth control have to parent a child for 18 years? That takes a good deal more "responsibility" that many women are not ready for, whether ever or just at that time.

I don't disagree with your comments at all, but I still think casual abortions are wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Actually, for many women, it's a "convenient" way out of a situation that came about because they irresponsibly had sex without protection.

That would be a more persuasive argument if your people vigorously promoted the use of birth control. After all if abortion is such a tragedy, why wouldnt you be providing it in schools, helping poor kids get access to it, etc.

"My people?" I do think birth control should be more accessible to those you mentioned.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe government forcing women to have babies.

i don't either, but i also wish that we could get to a place in our culture so that women who are accidentally pregnant are encouraged to have the baby and place it for adoption. it seems to me that now there is more stigma attached to carrying a child to term than having an abortion (seriously, there are women on here who talk proudly about how many abortions they have had). there are women who are cavalier about pregnancy and i find that sickening. I realize this is my world view and I'm not trying to impose it on anyone else.

Are you saying adoption as a contraceptive method? No worry about a 'surprise' because you can leave it in the hospital?
Can we not just increase womens rights, so surprise pregnancies actually mean that the man is on the hook for child support, and that the mother gets paid maternity leave, and can get child care subsidies and wic if she needs?

Baby scoop era is over and you cannot treat women like that anymore

Maybe, and i know i won't articulate this well, but i sometimes think that women have dug a pretty deep hole regarding holding men responsible by making abortion a women's only issue and decision. if the putative father doesn't have a right to a say in whether the woman has an abortion, how can we then say he HAS to be responsible if she decides to go on with the pregnancy. i promise i'm not being glib -- i really do wrestle with this issue because i think fathers SHOULD be required to be responsible.

as to the leaving babies in the hospital, i'm not advocating that women MUST continue with a pregnancy and place the baby for adoption, but rather that more of the 3/4 of the 1.3 million women i 2008 who had abortions in whole or in part because having a child would interfere with life, for example, would opt to continue with the pregnancy and place the child for adoption. that we could get over the notion that an unexpected pregnancy is a death sentence and a life ender and that more women would become accident surrogates, in an odd way, rather than choose abortion. may sound backwards and heinous, but that's how i feel.

Absurd. The men do get a choice. They choose whether to have sex, whether to use birth control. They may not have the identical choices that women do or as many choices, but they get a choice. It's ot like "Gattica" - I'm not vaccuuming your keyboard too obtain your dna. You choose whether or not to leave it in a place that causes babies. Might as well complain that it's unfair the earth is round or only women can breastfeed. Or maybewomen should complain that it's really not fair that men get the same parental rights as women, after all the woman does alk the work to create the life. But that's just the way it is. It's not fair, to either gender grankly. It's biology.

Additionally it is not in the greater interest of society to allow males to opt out of responsibility for children they have sired, wanted or not.

Frankly I think the status quo on this issue is right and reasonable.

Same for women. They should be responsible for their choice to have unprotected sex and not use abortion as a means of birth control--which many women do (not referring to children conceived by rape or incest and not referring to situations in which the mother's or baby's life is endangered, etc)

Having an abortion IS being responsible for their choice to have sex.

Actually, for many women, it's a "convenient" way out of a situation that came about because they irresponsibly had sex without protection.

So? Seriously, let's assume what you're saying is true. Let's say I had sex, and in the heat of the moment, didn't use a condom (or I forgot that antibiotics would cancel out my oral contraceptives, or whatever). And now I'm pregnant -- oops! But I don't want to be, because I'm single and not exactly rolling in cash and frankly am not ready to have a kid. As time machines have not yet been invented, I don't have the option of going back in time and telling myself not to have sex (and, you know what? In this scenario, the sex was awesome and I don't regret it). So, I go to the doctor and get an abortion, which is costly and uncomfortable, because I'm not up for 9 months of pregnancy, labor and delivery. I have now officially Taken Responsibility For My Actions. Yay, me! I have absolutely zero problems with this scenario.

Pretty much a callous, flip way of sharing your feelings about aborting your offspring. As you've described the scenario, it's not a big deal emotionally and could happen again. I happen to think that both men AND women should be making more responsible decisions ahead of time instead of viewing abortion as a convenience. Again, I'm not referring to the kinds of situations (rape, incest, health of mother/baby, etc) where far more is involved than mere convenience.

Anonymous wrote:
Actually, for many women, it's a "convenient" way out of a situation that came about because they irresponsibly had sex without protection.

That would be a more persuasive argument if your people vigorously promoted the use of birth control. After all if abortion is such a tragedy, why wouldnt you be providing it in schools, helping poor kids get access to it, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe government forcing women to have babies.

i don't either, but i also wish that we could get to a place in our culture so that women who are accidentally pregnant are encouraged to have the baby and place it for adoption. it seems to me that now there is more stigma attached to carrying a child to term than having an abortion (seriously, there are women on here who talk proudly about how many abortions they have had). there are women who are cavalier about pregnancy and i find that sickening. I realize this is my world view and I'm not trying to impose it on anyone else.

Are you saying adoption as a contraceptive method? No worry about a 'surprise' because you can leave it in the hospital?
Can we not just increase womens rights, so surprise pregnancies actually mean that the man is on the hook for child support, and that the mother gets paid maternity leave, and can get child care subsidies and wic if she needs?

Baby scoop era is over and you cannot treat women like that anymore

Maybe, and i know i won't articulate this well, but i sometimes think that women have dug a pretty deep hole regarding holding men responsible by making abortion a women's only issue and decision. if the putative father doesn't have a right to a say in whether the woman has an abortion, how can we then say he HAS to be responsible if she decides to go on with the pregnancy. i promise i'm not being glib -- i really do wrestle with this issue because i think fathers SHOULD be required to be responsible.

as to the leaving babies in the hospital, i'm not advocating that women MUST continue with a pregnancy and place the baby for adoption, but rather that more of the 3/4 of the 1.3 million women i 2008 who had abortions in whole or in part because having a child would interfere with life, for example, would opt to continue with the pregnancy and place the child for adoption. that we could get over the notion that an unexpected pregnancy is a death sentence and a life ender and that more women would become accident surrogates, in an odd way, rather than choose abortion. may sound backwards and heinous, but that's how i feel.

Absurd. The men do get a choice. They choose whether to have sex, whether to use birth control. They may not have the identical choices that women do or as many choices, but they get a choice. It's ot like "Gattica" - I'm not vaccuuming your keyboard too obtain your dna. You choose whether or not to leave it in a place that causes babies. Might as well complain that it's unfair the earth is round or only women can breastfeed. Or maybewomen should complain that it's really not fair that men get the same parental rights as women, after all the woman does alk the work to create the life. But that's just the way it is. It's not fair, to either gender grankly. It's biology.

Additionally it is not in the greater interest of society to allow males to opt out of responsibility for children they have sired, wanted or not.

Frankly I think the status quo on this issue is right and reasonable.

Same for women. They should be responsible for their choice to have unprotected sex and not use abortion as a means of birth control--which many women do (not referring to children conceived by rape or incest and not referring to situations in which the mother's or baby's life is endangered, etc)

Having an abortion IS being responsible for their choice to have sex.

Actually, for many women, it's a "convenient" way out of a situation that came about because they irresponsibly had sex without protection.

So? Seriously, let's assume what you're saying is true. Let's say I had sex, and in the heat of the moment, didn't use a condom (or I forgot that antibiotics would cancel out my oral contraceptives, or whatever). And now I'm pregnant -- oops! But I don't want to be, because I'm single and not exactly rolling in cash and frankly am not ready to have a kid. As time machines have not yet been invented, I don't have the option of going back in time and telling myself not to have sex (and, you know what? In this scenario, the sex was awesome and I don't regret it). So, I go to the doctor and get an abortion, which is costly and uncomfortable, because I'm not up for 9 months of pregnancy, labor and delivery. I have now officially Taken Responsibility For My Actions. Yay, me! I have absolutely zero problems with this scenario.

irresponsibly had sex without protection.

Plenty of women use protection and get pregnant anyway; I am one of them.

For those you deem "irresponsible," your solution is to have someone who can't even manage to use birth control have to parent a child for 18 years? That takes a good deal more "responsibility" that many women are not ready for, whether ever or just at that time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe government forcing women to have babies.

i don't either, but i also wish that we could get to a place in our culture so that women who are accidentally pregnant are encouraged to have the baby and place it for adoption. it seems to me that now there is more stigma attached to carrying a child to term than having an abortion (seriously, there are women on here who talk proudly about how many abortions they have had). there are women who are cavalier about pregnancy and i find that sickening. I realize this is my world view and I'm not trying to impose it on anyone else.

Are you saying adoption as a contraceptive method? No worry about a 'surprise' because you can leave it in the hospital?
Can we not just increase womens rights, so surprise pregnancies actually mean that the man is on the hook for child support, and that the mother gets paid maternity leave, and can get child care subsidies and wic if she needs?

Baby scoop era is over and you cannot treat women like that anymore

Maybe, and i know i won't articulate this well, but i sometimes think that women have dug a pretty deep hole regarding holding men responsible by making abortion a women's only issue and decision. if the putative father doesn't have a right to a say in whether the woman has an abortion, how can we then say he HAS to be responsible if she decides to go on with the pregnancy. i promise i'm not being glib -- i really do wrestle with this issue because i think fathers SHOULD be required to be responsible.

as to the leaving babies in the hospital, i'm not advocating that women MUST continue with a pregnancy and place the baby for adoption, but rather that more of the 3/4 of the 1.3 million women i 2008 who had abortions in whole or in part because having a child would interfere with life, for example, would opt to continue with the pregnancy and place the child for adoption. that we could get over the notion that an unexpected pregnancy is a death sentence and a life ender and that more women would become accident surrogates, in an odd way, rather than choose abortion. may sound backwards and heinous, but that's how i feel.

Absurd. The men do get a choice. They choose whether to have sex, whether to use birth control. They may not have the identical choices that women do or as many choices, but they get a choice. It's ot like "Gattica" - I'm not vaccuuming your keyboard too obtain your dna. You choose whether or not to leave it in a place that causes babies. Might as well complain that it's unfair the earth is round or only women can breastfeed. Or maybewomen should complain that it's really not fair that men get the same parental rights as women, after all the woman does alk the work to create the life. But that's just the way it is. It's not fair, to either gender grankly. It's biology.

Additionally it is not in the greater interest of society to allow males to opt out of responsibility for children they have sired, wanted or not.

Frankly I think the status quo on this issue is right and reasonable.

Same for women. They should be responsible for their choice to have unprotected sex and not use abortion as a means of birth control--which many women do (not referring to children conceived by rape or incest and not referring to situations in which the mother's or baby's life is endangered, etc)

Having an abortion IS being responsible for their choice to have sex.

Actually, for many women, it's a "convenient" way out of a situation that came about because they irresponsibly had sex without protection.