# data[].attributes.body
I feel like the father has a right to try to stop it if he will support it. If the mother and father can make an agreement then he has rights. It takes two so both of them are involved but if the mother knows she can't support a baby but the father will step up and understand how much of a financial responsibility it is and can fully support it then I don't see a problem.

# data[].attributes.body
I think the father has rights, only if he is 100% willing to take full care of the kid. It is his kid, so he should fight for it. Men have rights to speak up on things that may not seem right

# data[].attributes.body
I think if a women is pregnant and they are both murdered the one who murdered them should be counted for two cases of it. The baby is alive inside the women so its a life so thats two lifes that are killed so two counts of murder.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that father has just has much say as the mother. It is his baby too and if want to take care of it then he can. The baby has half of his genetic make up just like the mother so he shoudl be able to STOP the mother form having an abortion.

# data[].attributes.body
I learned a lot about cinco de mayo that I never knew. I didn't know that Americans celebrate it more then Mexicans do. We also cause it to look like humorous when that's not what it's about. I also learned that it is mainly celebrate in one part of Mexico where the battle took place. I always thought it was Mexico's independent day be its actually the day a sma group of Mexican army fought one of the best army forces in the world which was France and one. I really enjoyed the article and all the information it has to offer.

# data[].attributes.body
if a pregnant women and a her baby was shoot yes the killer should get charge for two counts of murder. You have a fully grown women with a almost fully developed baby in side her if people cant see that is clearly two lives together.

# data[].attributes.body
If a mother and her child is murdered than yes the killer should be charged with two counts. I say this because technically the killer did kill two human beings even though one is still in the womb, they still killed a human

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that the father should have just as much say in the decision than the mother does. The baby is just as much his as it is the mother's, and if he doesn't want the baby to be aborted then he should at least be able to talk to his partner about it. The only situations where the man shouldn't have a say are in the case of rape (which is only the reason for abortion about 1-2% of the time and isn't as common as people think) or in the case of an abusive relationship, in which case I think that the woman should tell the father about the child, leave and get to a safe place, and then make her own decision. If there is a chance that the baby could grow up in an abusive household or that the father might try to harm the unborn baby, then it is probably better to keep him out of the situation.

# data[].attributes.body
If a pregnant women and her baby are murdered do you think the killer should be charger with one count of murder or two?

# data[].attributes.body
Do you think abortion should be legal after the fetus is viable- being able to live outside the womb?

# data[].attributes.body
If the mother can make the decision to have an abortion, does the father have any rights to try to stop it

# data[].attributes.body
Wow that picture is very hard to look at thinking that is how small the fetus is when taken out of it mother. You can see the eyes forming and the ears and its little toes. I could not image wanting to take the baby's life.

# data[].attributes.body
I totally agree with your picture. It shows just how small and helpless the baby is when people get an abortion. Some people don't think about how they are killing something that small and innocent.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with you about the picture; it reflects my own views of abortion. I would like to point out that, after the baby is aborted, it doesn't look like that. It's literally ripped apart. I understand that the point of the picture is not to show the end result, but I know people don't always know exactly what abortions do to the child. I like how the image shows an actual child though, it shows that it is in fact still human and I believe it should have a chance to live.

# data[].attributes.body
After reading everyone's R1 I defiantly agree with what some of them were saying. I understood their side to abortion. I think everyone who did a reflection 1 made really good points and never put anyone down. The thing many people overlooked is the thoughts that go through a women's head. Her reasoning behind why she choose abortion. The big topic on the reflection was about abortion relating to rape. The big point people made were it's okay to have an abortion because it was a horrible experience and if you don't want the baby you shouldn't have to keep it. The other point people made was that just because you don't want the baby doesn't mean you can't carry the baby and then for it up for adoption. My thing is that you can't just think about the baby you have to think of the mother as well.

# data[].attributes.body
I picked this quote because a lot of people including myself take life for grant. A lot of babies don't get the privilege of life and everything it brings. Even if the women didn't want a baby that doesn't mean she gets to destroy it and then feel mental anguish because of it. Don't take the privilege of growing old from a baby just because they were a mistake or you can't afford. There's someone out there that can afford them and want them, so allow them the privilege to have the baby they've been dieing to have.

# data[].attributes.body
I picked this picture because this is what the doctor is taking out of a women when they get an abortion. They are taking a little baby out of them. This picture shows people that it's not just nasty blub of stuff when you have an abortion, you are taking out of baby that is forming every single day. It has a heartbeat, it has its hands and feet, and it has its nose and eyes. How could a women take the experience of life away from a innocent baby like the one in this picture?

# data[].attributes.body
According to this article there's just as many or more health complications with an abortion as there is if you carry the baby to term. There's a higher risk of cancer. In the U.S. alone 140,000 women gain physical complications from having an abortion. It also mentions that women still die from having abortions. It can affect women not only physically but mentally and spiritually as well.

# data[].attributes.body
If you agree with abortion this article would probable sway your opinion. This article brings a lot of women's stories about how they felt after they had an abortion. They said they physically hurt. If after making the rational decision they made, the women developed depression and anxiety. Some of the women even named their baby's. They didn't realize the bond they had with their children. Having an abortion really affects your mental stability.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This past semester, in a course taught by one of us at New York University, the class spent considerable time reading women's stories about their abortions, focusing particularly on a website called www.afterabortion.com. This website was founded by a pro-choice woman and on it no mention of politics, religion, or morality is allowed. The website contains thousands of women's stories about their abortions-and about their post-abortion feelings. And many of these women are in acute pain; some are almost totally incapacitated. One writes in a post: "I am not coping at all; I feel as though the top of my head is going to fly off." Another says: "I am just grieving like crazy!" A third: "I don't understand why I am not getting better, but worse all the time! I am so depressed!" (Stories on this website are protected by copyright, and it is not permitted to quote directly from them. Quotations provided here are therefore faithful rewordings.)

Many of these women cannot go outside for fear of "triggers"-the sight or sound of things that will bring back the abortion experience and cause panic attacks. Triggers include the sound of a vacuum cleaner (many abortions are done by the vacuuming out of the fetus from the uterus) or the music that was playing at the abortion clinic while the abortion was being performed. The sight of pregnant women, or maternity clothes, or babies, or toddlers, or school-children, or of the place (even the neighborhood or town) where the abortion took place can all serve as triggers. Other triggers are anniversaries of all kinds, especially of the abortion and of the EBD (expected birth date), and, in particular, Mother's Day.

What is particularly striking is that most of the women who have these powerful emotional reactions to their abortion are stunned by them. They were not opposed to abortion; many were actively pro-choice. They were blind-sided by their own reaction. One woman lamented-and thousands of others echo her mystified anguish-"If this was the right decision, why do I feel so terrible?"

Research indicates that there are various psychological or political factors that may contribute to this disconnect between the anticipated and the actual emotional outcome. Since this disturbing phenomenon is so widespread, and found among women from varied backgrounds and different parts of the world, it seems likely that the brain itself-in particular, the nature of women's brains-may shed some particularly useful light on this unexpected negative emotional reaction.

Women's brains are, of course, in many fundamental ways the same as men's. Men and women think and reason in similar ways. But recent research shows that there are some significant differences in the brain and brain-related psychology of the two sexes. And a few of these differences can make a very large difference with regard to decision-making and its emotional consequences.

The part of the brain that processes emotion, generally called the limbic system, of women functions differently than that of men. Women experience emotions largely in relation to other people: what moves women most is relationships. Females are more personal and interpersonal than men. (Differences show up as early as a day after an infant's birth: newborn baby girls look at faces relatively more than boys, who focus more on moving robotic figures.) There is wide consensus among scientists and researchers on this fundamental issue.

Recent research has also studied the ways in which males and females cope with stress. Whereas men's behavior under stress is generally characterized by what is called "fight or flight," women respond to stress by turning toward nurturing behavior, nicknamed "tend and befriend."

Men's and women's brains also work differently in handling memory and memories. Men are more apt to recall facts of all kinds, on the one hand, and a global picture of events, on the other. By contrast, women remember people (for example, faces), details of all kinds, and emotion-laden narratives-and they may return to them obsessively.

Women are more vulnerable to depression and anxiety than men, perhaps because they have a lower level of serotonin, an important neurotransmitter. In addition, women are twice as likely as men to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorders. Men suffer more than women from other mental pathologies, such as autism, dyslexia, and Narcissistic Personality Disorder; the two sexes suffer about equally from yet other mental problems, such as bi-polarity.

What do these differences add up to, practically speaking? Let's walk quickly through an unplanned pregnancy and abortion. A woman may reason her way to the decision to terminate the unwanted pregnancy. Her abortion decision may seem, and may indeed be, rational in terms of her long-term goals and interests, and her chosen values. But afterwards, a woman may experience several powerful reactions, which are rooted in the structures and basic chemistry of her brain.

A woman may discover, emotionally, that she has (now, had) a far more powerful relationship with the fetus than she had thought. This may be particularly true if the relationship with her partner (in the interests of which she may have decided to have the abortion) should deteriorate after the abortion.

When responding to the stress of the abortion, she may well be drawn to nurturing, to "tending and befriending" behavior: this is, we saw, characteristic of women. But one of the key persons she might have tended and befriended-her unborn child-she has just terminated. She therefore has no ready outlet to cope with this significant stress.

Add to this already toxic mix the very power of the memories involved in most unwanted pregnancies and abortion experiences, such as the nausea or other physical symptoms, often exacerbated by hormonal instability and mood swings; the anxiety over the unwanted pregnancy; the drama of the pregnancy test; often, the difficulty of making the decision, then the waiting before the abortion can take place; perhaps protesters in front of the clinic; the abortion clinic waiting room, crowded perhaps with other emotional women and men; the abortion itself-the doctors and nurses, the stirrups, the vacuum or other machinery-then the recovery room; the pain and bleeding afterward. All these dramatic experiences are likely to provide her with indelible memories. A woman may return to them and relive them over and over.

And to cap it off, as a woman she is more vulnerable to depression and anxiety, and to post-traumatic stress disorders.

Thus, though a woman can decide rationally to have an abortion, afterwards the other shoe may drop-and it may drop very hard indeed. For the thousands of women on afterabortion.com and similar websites, a terrible and shocking reaction sets in after their abortion. Many women have discovered that somewhere down in their psyche-deep in their limbic system-they were already in a living relationship with the fetus, their "baby" (though they may have thought they thought it was just a random clump of cells). Often what lasts is not the relief or the power of the logical arguments: these may prove very short-lived. It is, rather, the failed, betrayed relationship between the woman and her fetus-now, in her mind, her dead baby-that has staying power.

Many of these women feel "haunted" (their word) by their lost child. They cry: "I miss my baby!" "It has been three years, and I still think of my baby girl every single day!" "I want my twins back!" The babies they ******, they now desperately want to love, to hold. (Those asterisks represent one of the words-"killed"-that are so painful and triggering that their use is prohibited on afterabortion.com.) A good many women on the website have named the aborted baby, which appears to promote healing.

For some women, this surprising and terrifying shift from cool logic to hot maternal feelings may be the result of particular experiences: seeing the fetal heartbeat on a sonogram, or watching a pair of twins move; or, in a medical abortion at home, recognizing that what fell into the toilet bowl was not (as they had thought it would be) undifferentiated tissue but, rather, "a tiny, pale-gray baby," and then agonizing over the dilemma of what to do with it (flush it down the toilet? bury it-and where?).

Sometimes, however, the shift cannot be explained by any one particular memory. Their reaction seems more profound and inexplicable than that-more hard-wired. Women care about relationships-and a woman's relationship to her baby is one of the most powerful of all.

If we look at all this in evolutionary terms, we cannot be surprised. Human mothers (unlike the females of most other species) produce few offspring. For infants to survive, they must be very carefully tended and protected, over many years. Historically, culturally, the investment of women in their young has been tremendous. Billions of mothers have lavished their time, energy, and attention-their love-on their children. And what is the reward, the reinforcement for all this maternal time and effort? What does the mother get out of it? Whatever it is, it must be a reliable, immediate, and strong reinforcement. Otherwise, infant mortality-always high in the human and primate past-would have led to our extinction. Thus, we should not be surprised that human mothers are richly rewarded-by their own feelings, their own brain responses, their own chemistry-for good mothering, and that they are emotionally punished, internally, for failure.

What to do for these wounded women? Afterabortion.com provides an impressive virtual support system: women from around the world send hugs, visualized as "(((hugs!!)))", and loving messages of support, understanding, and affirmation to each other. Thus, women from around the world "tend and befriend" these suffering women. After a while, many who were previously beside themselves with grief write in to say that they are now feeling better; they are healing; they have stopped hating themselves; they feel once again that they have a future. This valuable sisterhood is supplemented, for many women, by psychotherapy of some form.

But can't we work to prevent at least some women from having to experience this painful surprise? One important change would surely be for the medical and psychological professions, and the university health centers, to be more honest about the psychological impact of abortion on substantial numbers of women. Is it not like the fine print on prescriptions?: "This medication may cause internal bleeding, or blindness, or [other grave side-effects]."

Some women appear to have no regrets whatever after abortion: see www.Imnotsorry.net. Some experience modest sadness. But for many women, their abortion turns out to have been a nightmare from which they cannot wake up. Some awaken each morning to that. Women and those who advise them need to be more aware of this risk, and why it occurs. Human beings-and women in particular-are not just cortex, not just what used to be called "gray cells." Women need to be told the truth. They need to be prepared for what may be the consequences of this major life decision.

This is what informed choice means.
Evelyn Birge Vitz is Professor of French and Affiliated Professor of Comparative Literature at New York University. Paul C. Vitz is Professor Emeritus of Psychology at New York University and Senior Scholar at the Institute for the Psychological Sciences.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This past semester, in a course taught by one of us at New York University, the class spent considerable time reading women's stories about their abortions, focusing particularly on a website called www.afterabortion.com. This website was founded by a pro-choice woman and on it no mention of politics, religion, or morality is allowed.

# data[].attributes.body
As I was reading the prompt I had multiple ideas running through my head. In my opinion, there is acceptable reasons why to have an abortion, for example, if someone gets raped. It's hard enough for the women to have a horrible experience happen to her like that, but even harder if she has to see a person that looks like the person she got raped by. Saying that it's not right for someone to have an abortion because she accidentally got pregnant or can't afford it. There's a lot of couples that would do anything to have a baby. I also feel that if the mother is in serious health problems and knows that she would probably die if she has the baby, it's okay for her to have an abortion. If it risks the women's life or competely ruins her because of some traumatic experience she had to endure it's okay for her to have an abortion for her well being.

# data[].attributes.body
Hey Haley im Miaysha and I'm in Ms. K's 6th period. I see that we both used the same articles so I definitely agree with them both. I really agree with the second article because it's true! No women wants to have a baby if she is not financial stable and she has the right to say what goes in and out of her body.

# data[].attributes.body
Hey Haley, Im Brianna from Ms.K's second period class I read your positive article about Linda

and I have to say I don't agree with the things she says about abortion. sure most of the things

she says are opinions but I believe that the termination of a child

does not "open new doors for women", if anything the child itself should be enough to enlighten the womans life.

# data[].attributes.body
This article has a lot of positive bias in it. The information is based off a book that Katha Pollitt wrote. Some quotations of positive bias from this article are "First, and most obviously, if you have a uterus, your life depends on being able to control what goes on inside of it; giving birth necessarily represents a drastic lifestyle change and heavy financial responsibility, which lasts anywhere from nine months to the rest of your natural-born life." It talks about how a women should be able to control what happens to her body n matter how old they are. Another quote i like from this article is "Pregnancy is also a health risk: Women and girls can and do die from childbirth and pregnancy." This quote is talking about that pregnancy is more of a risk then having an abortion is. The article cites a story about a women who wanted to get an abortion because she needed a heart transplant, but couldn't have it while she was pregnant. They denied her the abortion and the heart she needed to live. It just shows more reason why abortion can be a good thing under certain circumstances.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
And by the way: "Dismantling fetal "personhood" with logical or scientific (or even
Biblical) arguments does nothing to convince those who believe a
fertilized egg is a human being, because those beliefs have never been
founded on logic or science. They're emotional. You can't argue
emotions."

No, actually, some people on both sides argue from emotion, and some people argue from reason. I've always found it difficult, as a rational point, to figure out what the difference is between a two-day-old embryo, a three-month-old fetus, a baby born a month ahead of time, and a fetus one day before full term. It seems to me there is no bright line, scientifically, that is distinct from the "normal human development" track. If you make birth that bright line -- physical separation from the mother's body -- then you have the problem of whether you're really going to argue that fetuses a day or a week before full term ought to be fair game for abortion. And once the baby is out of the body, isn't it still completely dependent?

I'm open to any rational argument that would explain why abortion is not the taking of a human life in development, as we all are in development at all times. I'd love to find out I've been wrong in that view all these years, and that all this worry was over nothing. So far, I just haven't seen it.

Posted by emncaity on 2014-11-18 09:32:09

Yeah, pregnancy results from sex, same as car accidents result from using a car. Still, getting pregnant was not my point.
My life was at risk, because I would otherwise commit suicide than go through pregnancy, so.
I did not screw up, but yes, it's okay to kill someone to keep my body from being disgraced.
The rest is just blahblah, so I will just say that I'm going to have sex and I'm going to stay childless and if any more hateful babies come in my way, I'm going to kill them death, legal or illegal.

It's better to be childless monster unworthy of basic respect, than being respectable woman destroyed by motherhood.

Posted by MaiaDoe on 2014-10-31 18:41:31

"If she doesn't want to get pregnant, don't have sex. If you want to have sex, have it. But if pregnancy happens, that's what happens. That's what it's for. It's called basic logic."

Of course!
And then there are only two choices:
1) abortion
2) suicide
Because going through pregnancy is just unacceptable.

So that means that abortion saved my life, so... are you REALLY surprised when I say that I like abortions, e.g. medical procedure which is responsible for all the life I have since like ten years ago? How could be something that saved my life "evil"?

Posted by MaiaDoe on 2014-10-31 18:21:44

Let's say it aloud, abortion is a normal part of fullfilling life. It does not mean you have to have an abortion to lead a meaningful life, but it's just one of instruments we use to have proper life and taking control, same as other parts of health care.
If you have any other problems, you are not going to not only suffer, but to allow them to become worse "because I deserve it, I caused it by doing A and/or not doing B." Unless you enjoy the worsened medical condition for some reason, for example because type I diabetes causes you to lose weight or because pregnancy causes you to have a baby (which you want to have at that moment).

I like healthcare, because it helps people to live longer and more meaningful life. Abortion is just one tiny part of healthcare, and as a part of healthcare, it's a positive thing.
If it makes someone unhappy, it's because they were not able to choose their preferable pregnancy outcome. Then we should think more about their reasons and if we can do something about that, but of course, "STOP KILLING TEH CUTEH BABEEEEES!" sounds way cooler than "let's build some affordable housing for single mothers". Funny that "prolife" people will be the first who will start yelling about welfare queens and making babies for profit.

Posted by MaiaDoe on 2014-10-31 18:10:54

No, I must not. I WANT to have sex, and I'm going to have sex, and I'm going to stay childless. If some child or fetus or whatever comes in my way, I'm going to remove the fucker. AND SO WHAT?
It's my life, my sex life, my body, my uterus, NOT YOUR BUSINESS. And no fucking fetus is ENTITLED to grow in someone else's body. Yeah, the fetus can grow, but outside. Cannot do it? Booh-booh, too bad.
I should not have sex because I don't want to have children? Seems awfully medieval to me.

And what the fetus wants?
1) Rather to be aborted than use someone else's body against their will.
Cool, fetal wishes are fullfilled.
2) Would like to use someone else's body against their will.
Aka rape, and death penalty for a rapist is perfectly fine.

Posted by MaiaDoe on 2014-10-31 17:56:45

I've had an abortion and it was easy, quick and nothing to be concerned about. Ten years ago, so I had plenty of time to change my mind.
You are doing like if "pro abortion crowd" and "women who have abortions" were two totally different groups of people.

Of course, some women have abortions because they are pressed by circumstances, either economic or social stigma (single mothers are still unacceptable in some societies), but that's actually not an abortion-related problem.

Posted by MaiaDoe on 2014-10-31 17:52:12

"It is you who are ridiculous. If your mother had aborted you she would have ended your life. It's very simple really." - Yes, that is why I called your question ridiculous and with obvious answers.

"The fact the victims of abortion can't speak on their own behalf makes it easier for you to rationalize but it doesn't make it right." - There you go again. There are no "victims" of abortions.

"It is not emotion that tells me a child in the womb is a separate living being, it's Biology 101." - It is your lack of ability to see this from any other position than an emotional decision. You present nothing but your own emotional opinion.

"Aside from that, it is emotional when women allow their wombs to be invaded to have their unborn children torn away from them and thrown away like trash." - Ah, I did not realize until now that you are a woman who has had an abortion. Thought I was talking to a man.

"If you ever spent any time in an abortion clinic you would know that most are saddened by it and the hangover of guilt can last a lifetime." - Why would I have spent time in an abortion clinic? I am a male who has never had an abortion.

"This is something the pro-abortion activists NEVER discuss because they can't afford to have an honest conversation lest people might question their beliefs on the subject. They must dehumanize the unborn child as much as possible. That is the reason they oppose ultra-sounds prior to abortion, they know the mother will see her developing child and begin to have feelings for it." - We people who believe in the woman's right to choose whether she carry a pregnancy to term or not, are concerned about the life and well-being of the woman. That is it. The objection to having an ultrasound has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that the ultrasound is completely unnecessary. How would you like to have lawmakers forcing you to have an unnecessary medical procedure?

"Pro-choice is not a good label for you people because you suppress information about the physical and psychological side effects of abortion. A true choice is an informed choice." - What a truly foolish statement. The only people in this debate who provide true information is the pro-choice crowd. Pro-birthers lie to pregnant women at every turn. Try your bullpucky somewhere else.

Posted by dxjxd on 2014-10-17 11:33:48

If Ms Sady Doyle prefers accurate terms then consider her line:
...the term "pro-choice," which "was itself a bit of a euphemism: Choose what?"
We can hardly be expected to defend abortion effectively if we can't
even call the procedure by name."

The "procedure" is not "choice", the procedure is the abortion, the taking of an innocent human life. The only accurate term is pro abortion. I would think that if "We like abortion" we would not hesitate to honestly use the term to accurately describe the procedure and the position of those supporting it's practice. She seems to get that.

Also, the opposition is not "anti" anything. It's position is to defend and promote life even at its youngest stage of development. The problem for the death merchants is much clearer when the language is clear and honest. When presented honestly the terms are "pro abortion" (remember, we like abortion!) and "pro life". It's not hard to see why Ms Doyle stands nearly alone in her call for honesty in labeling with such clarity.

In the early days of the debate the terms were pro abortion and anti abortion in almost all articles. Those who wished to stop the slaughter correctly pointed out that they were not restricting women from choosing their own path in life, but were supporting the lives of innocent children. Even from the beginning the pro abortion side would not refer to the life as a child, even going so far as to compare the child to a cancerous growth and several other terms to deny it's humanity, a practice that still continues today. The more offensive terms weren't working, so we seem to have settled on "unborn". It started out as "unborn child", but that goes back to the humanity issue, so we had to fix that. Now its shortened to just "unborn". Rarely will you find the term child or baby in any discussion by the pro abortion crowd.

Make your argument as you will...admittedly there are some difficult issues to deal with...but please present your argument by recognizing the issue is the life of a child. Save your thoughts on the choices people make and the poor parents, or disadvantaged children as they are separate issues with other solutions.

I'd invite further discussion here, but I'll defer reading the hate filled diatribe sure to follow to some other time. Perhaps in a next life... For those that will be reading responses see how many will acknowledge that abortion takes the life of an innocent child in every single case (abortion, safe? With at least one fatality per "procedure"?). See how many will present the pro life side honestly. See if even one will not throw in a straw man argument about the unwanted child, the ill child, the age or situation of the mother, etc. It's about the innocent child only. Yes, it's that simple.

Posted by Alaska Patriot on 2014-10-13 04:56:39

Guess what...
I'm not here to debate, but to discuss and sometimes inform.

Your first post states "Abortion for the sake of the mother's life is and has ALWAYS been a medically-accepted procedure." I linked to the article that shows that is not true.

You then dismiss the fact that refutes your statement because the death happened in a foreign country, yet ignore the fact that the sentence immediately before the quote you pulled concerns a girl IN PERU. Even so, there are some in this country who do argue for no abortion, even to save the life of the mother.

[Your last post and the rest of your arguments are hand-waving or displays of ignorance and pride therein. Points 1 and 2 are covered above. In point 3, you say "'distancing' myself would imply that they and I had ever occupied some similiar position." No, "distancing" has two definitions, and the first (at Merriam Webster) is "to show that you are not involved with someone or something," which you do rather intently in your point 3.]

"It is obvious that you either cannot accept a valid point and are determined to win some point on the matter, if only to appease you ego. Poor form." Right back at you!

Posted by betalisa on 2014-10-10 09:47:30

Guess what...
#1- Don't care about whether or not Ireland is part of the UK. Really don't. I saw a English newpaper talking about what was evidently something going on not in the US and found I gave not the slightest care as it was not germane, neither to the article nor had I expanded the discussion to include others.
#2- I made my general statement about my country, whose laws I know. A US-based article talking to a US audience- remember English class and remembering "audience" when composing written work? I do. It is how I can make general statements and not start including matters and peoples not originally part of the discussion. I am not nearly so conceited as to believe I know 1/4 of the world's countries' laws on abortion. I have no vote or say in their politics (how ever much I may use my speech to condemn their actions, I do not presume to dictate their laws) and you taking my statement as an implication for the whole world is the ONLY way you could pick an arguement with me. Well, that and...
#3- Where did I mention siding with or aligning with these "other people" that you think I need to distance myself from? I do not need distance myself from anyone. I could not care what whack jobs on EITHER side argue for. I am not them and "distancing" myself would imply that they and I had ever occupied some similiar position. Since I have no bumper stickers from their organizations on my vehicles nor to I show up to their rallies nor do I take their money for political fund raising, I cannot plausibly be said to have ever gotten close to begin with. Bringing them up and trying to force me to argue may way from a fringe element as if it represents all of the Pro-Life side of the debate is poor debate skills at best and a sad final attempt to derail my original statement.

Speaking of which, all of your response fails to address my original point of contest with the article; ergo, it stands. Why even trying to continue your attempt at debate with me on the matter after the first attempt to drag a foreign country into the discussion, I don't understand since you obviously cannot argue with me on the accepted medical necessity of triage and accurate assessments and you cannot defend such a broad brush stroke written by the author to paint a whole group of people with the colors of some fringe group. I'm done. It is obvious that you either cannot accept a valid point and are determined to win some point on the matter, if only to appease you ego. Poor form.

Posted by Bob Road on 2014-10-08 16:08:54

In Fort Worth, Texas, that abortion factory, Planned Parenthood, had the audacity to set itself up right by an adoption center.
http://www.star-telegram.com/2...

Posted by Metanoia123 on 2014-10-08 09:33:38

Adoption is an alternative to parenting. It is not an alternative to pregnancy.

Please stop pushing the myth that adoption is beautiful. It is NOT beautiful due to the many adoption mills who treat birthmothers like dirt after they relinquish their babies. It is not beautiful when they present open adoption as an option, only to tell the birth parent 3 months after relinquishment that in their state, open adoption is not legally enforceable.
http://www.adoptionagencyratin...
You should also read the article, "To pro-lifers who believe adoption is always the answer".
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/u...
"I have talked with adoptees who, earlier in their lives, wished they had
never been born, so damaged were they by being relinquished or
abandoned before being adopted into a family that did not nurture the
hurt parts of their souls, that did not care to know who the child they
adopted really was. I know adoptees who shed their adoptive
families as soon as they became adults, because they never felt like
they fit in with them. They hated having been forced into a religion in
which they never believed; they hated growing up without diversity of
any kind; they hated not knowing anything about their birth culture or
family; they felt as if they could never be "grateful" enough to satisfy
their adoptive families. There are so many reasons for which adoption
ultimately proves difficult for the adoptees. I know many adoptees who
are happy and dearly love their adoptive parents, and by them are loved
beyond measure-but who nonetheless have never felt whole."

Posted by almond_bubble_tea on 2014-10-07 17:28:41

Yup, reminds me of what my parents used to say:
"We'd miss you if you were no longer around. But we will never miss Johnny."
"Who's Johnny?"
"The child we never had."

As you've proven nothing of worth to me in justifying your position, good, and goodbye.

Posted by dxjxd on 2014-10-07 13:46:22

Uh, how many people are not walking around today because of abortion? How many people are not walking around today because of what the Nazi's did? Both figures are in the millions.

Yes, there is a ton inherently wrong with abortion.

ON the mechanism, you have no idea. Here's an example. The person who steals from his company. Eventually, he either gets caught, or removes himself by quitting. Many more examples that happen everyday.

Immigration does not renew society. It simply moves people from one part of society to another.

I really like your last statement. Mother Theresa's statement about a "culture of death" all the way.

And, that is where I will leave it.

People pushing abortion--are they happy, carefree, joyful and positive? Are you? (though, I expect a PR answer)

Posted by Mike CJ on 2014-10-06 20:37:14

"You are very good at obfuscation." - Right, go with that.

'You should not let a "thinking machine" do your thinking. An example of a machine is "Bringing up Nazi's always loses." That is a result of machine thinking. Rather than thinking through something, you let the machine kick out the answer. "Nazi's mentions are always wrong."' - No, you are attempting to create an analogy, associating abortion with genocide. Just shows you don't understand either.

"What I am trying to tell you is that if you, personally, had allowed yourself to have an abortion, it would not matter what gymnastics you engaged in, you know what you did was wrong." - That right there is an incorrect statement. There is nothing inherently "wrong" with having an abortion.

"And, out of your awareness, you would have set off a mechanism to lessen yourself." - Again, incorrect.

"Apparently, I forgot last note, you believe the society has another way to renew itself other than women giving birth." - immigration.

"Therefore, society as a whole has the definite right to say how it is handled." - Only in communist countries. Not in this country.

"If you are inconveniencing me, costing me money, why shouldn't I have the right to intervene in your natural processes and stop your tissue from living?" - The only person inconveniencing you or costing you money is when *you* are paying for the abortion.

"It is my life you'd be affecting (in this hypothetical example)." - Only in the strange world you have created. Not in any real world situation.

"Why does the location of the intervention have ANYTHING to do with it?? If it is wrong outside a body, it is wrong inside it." - Another incorrect statement, based on an incorrect premise.

"I suppose people can kill themselves if they want. does that make it right?" - Yes, if they want to.

Posted by dxjxd on 2014-10-06 19:43:23

Murdering Evil Whores
..who have nothing to thank for their own
existence but their own mothers laziness for not aborting them.. talk
about useful idiots. These are the same animals who labeled American
GI's as "Baby Killer" when in fact they were actually bragging about
their own lust for innocent blood.

Posted by Yank lll on 2014-10-06 18:32:08

Evil Murdering Bitches.
..who have nothing to thank for their own
existence but their own mothers laziness for not aborting them.. talk
about useful idiots. These are the same animals who labeled American
GI's as "Baby Killer" when in fact they were actually bragging about
their own lust for innocent blood.

Posted by Yank lll on 2014-10-06 18:29:28

Feminazis such as Doyle define all heterosexual sex as rape. Therefore, they are always the victim and never responsible for their choices.

"The normal f--- by a normal man is taken to be an act of invasion and ownership undertaken in an act of predation."
-Andrea Dworken

Posted by Jimmy on 2014-10-06 16:52:15
http://www.salon.com/2012/01/0...
I admit my mistake about induction. You, however, are wrong about.....everything else. Everything.

Posted by Mary Lee on 2014-10-06 16:10:48

Just a few things for the author.
"The Old Testament is a very long book... It condemns many activities. ...But there's no mention of abortion." ~ Thou Shalt Not Kill ring a bell? I mean if we're gonna split hairs here, let's get to it.
"We're not talking disabilities, we're talking death sentences: If the pregnancy is brought to term, the child will die, usually within hours or days of birth." ~ So you're justifying the killing of fetuses (every single time by the way) by professing to want to save lives? Ok. I understand you feel that in some medically emergent situations abortion should be a viable option, and I don't disagree, but to justify every abortion based on that argument is reaching.

"First, and most obviously, if you have a uterus, your life depends on being able to control what goes on inside of it;" ~ You mean like that welcomed penis that began the whole thing? Yes, there are exceptions to my argument as well, and yes I know what they are... but so do you. You're reaching again.

"Pregnancy is also a health risk: Women and girls can and do die from childbirth and pregnancy." ~ Yes some women die from pregnancy. How many fetuses die from abortions? And if pregnancy were such a health risk, why not ban pregnancy? Ridiculous? Both arguments are!

The argument I didn't see here (maybe you forgot it, or maybe you're beginning to realize it is a weak argument anyway) is "It's my body, and I'll do what I want with it." ~ Far be it from me to not answer that one too. It's not your body. It's the body of your unborn child residing for the time being inside of you, the living body, the one who can't yet protest your "choice", the one you're killing, just so we're clear on that. There are two milestones when considering the birth of a child: Conception, and Birth. There is no milestone as yet that is called "not quite human yet", or "not yet a living thing".

That being said, it's been my experience that conservatives mainly are interested in championing that unheard voice, and only that. There are exceptions, sure. There always are. So when's the last time anyone contemplating abortion for the sake of a career, or a budget, or any of the myriad non medically emergent situations out there, ever asked the unborn child what it would prefer? Seems they never get a vote, do they? The typification of Progressivism.

Just a few thoughts, but do what you want... you always do. Then somehow it's morally deficient for me to do what I want to do...

Posted by Shawn McEwen on 2014-10-06 15:54:03

They once said African Americans weren't fully persons, either.

The Supreme Court is not infallible. Science and logic tell us our unborn sons and daughters in utero cannot be anything *but* persons, and the only reason abortion advocates cling to the fallacy that the unborn human beings are "less than" (based on size, age, and function....arbitrary criteria that would be scoffed at if it were applied to any other class or population of humans), is to absolve themselves of guilt and "justify" their killing.

One day, these babies will be recognized as persons with the inalienable right to exist.

Posted by Mary Lee on 2014-10-06 14:37:17

***
"Abortion Saves Lives!" 55 MILLION! saved so far. I suppose your next article will defend and support Adolph Hitler's, Stalin's, Mao's, or Pol Pot's "saving" 500 MILLION of their victims also.
***
"Liberalism--really is a mental disorder!" It's not possible to clean up state sponsored MURDER enough to make it "acceptable"!
***
Rocketman
***

Posted by John Bibb on 2014-10-06 14:04:29

First argument: I think you misunderstood, can't find anywhere that abortion can "prevent pregnancy." Abstinence is highly effective if perfectly practiced. Easier said than done, it seems.
2: Why would the physician need to have access to the hospital facilities? If something goes wrong, the patient will be treated by ER physicians, not the original doctor. If something goes wrong at my GP's office, I don't expect her to take me to the hospital and treat me there. Reasonable "outpatient surgical requirements" are one thing, laws that exist to create non-essential "requirements" in order to eliminate clinics are a political game.
3: And have you sat with any of the 650 fathers/partners of the babies whose mothers die each year in the U.S.?
If an infant is viable at 18-20 weeks, restricting on-demand abortion at 20 weeks would be reasonable, IF all women had easy access to the procedure. When that is the case, I'm on board.

Posted by betalisa on 2014-10-06 11:47:48

What a silly argument, using exceptions to try to prove a rule.
First argument, Abortion is necessary because its the only method to prevent pregnancy. Then ceding that Birth control is a second method, and no mention of abstinence as a third highly effective method.
2nd, Pregnancy and child birth have health risks, as does abortion. This same group argues that abortion clinics should not meet outpatient surgical requirements, or require physicians who have access to hospital facilities. If pregnant you will receive great care in the U.S. by law, unless you choose abortion, they have minimal safety and licensing requirements in most states.
3rd, some babies have severe birth defects and do not survive pregnancy. The exception, there may be times for the health and safety of the mother that babies die en utero, but it is not the norm, and not a pro-abortion argument. I have sat with mothers who lost their babies this way. It is heart breaking and horrifying for them. Tales and horror stories are told, but not in the U.S where we have exceptions to protect health and life, of both the mother and infant.
And then the dismissal of logic and science about where life begins. Science says life begins when the zygot is formed and cells begin replicating, differintiating, and forming a complete genome. Logic says that once this process has begun life exists. Roe v Wade and its progeny admit this. Life exists in the womb even before implantation. At Implantation the Doctors believe pregnancy begins, but this is a next step of life, impregnation. Roe v Wade and its progeny instead use a viability analysis. Can life be sustained outside the womb? Pre-viability, little restrictions are allowed, post viability abortion can be regulated. With modern medical advancements we are at 18-20 weeks for an infant to be viable, and we should be restricting abortion at this point to the first 18 weeks of pregnancy.

Posted by James C. Higgs on 2014-10-06 11:32:59

"This, along with tales of women who entered sepsis or died because they
could not receive abortions while they were miscarrying, constitutes the
dark end of the road for anti-abortion arguments: The culture of "life"
that anti-choice movements want actually brings tragedy and death by
failing to recognize reality."

This is a terrible lie and a horrifying thing to say. Abortion for the sake of the mother's life is and has ALWAYS been a medically-accepted procedure. It does not violate the Hippocratic oath nor is it a murder of life unborn. It is the very same practice we conduct on the battlefield or in hospitals and casualty collection points during major disasters. We make choices about who we can save and who we let die. To cast such a horrible and psychologically damaging decision as anything else is callous and indicative of a damaged mind.

Posted by Bob Road on 2014-10-06 11:02:49

"Pregnancy is also a health risk." Yes, it's a sexually transmitted disease.
Then again so is the author.

We must give you what you have been asking for, equality.
It will be a short story.

Posted by VXXC2014 on 2014-10-06 09:50:55

kind of Ironic that on the upper right above , you have the most read,,
#1 Is John Burge , torturer of over 100 black men out of prison
#2 portrait of husband father and genocidal butcher
#3 Abortion is great,,,
------------------------
Margaret Sanger , founder of the nations largest abortuary , who founded it in part to reduce the minority population would be proud

Posted by Johnny Argon on 2014-10-06 08:30:01

"Dismantling fetal "personhood" with logical or scientific (or even Biblical) arguments does nothing to convince those who believe a fertilized egg is a human being, because those beliefs have never been founded on logic or science. They're emotional. You can't argue emotions."

Right. Pro-lifers are emotional. As opposed to this paragon of rationality:
http://www.thecollegefix.com/p...
Only an extremely ignorant person could argue that pro-lifers have not attempted to ground their arguments in logic and science. Hundreds of books and articles by pro-lifers have done exactly that. You may not agree with the logic, you may dispute the science, but you cannot deny that they have made many secular arguments. Stuff like this has been around forever:
http://www.amazon.com/Pro-Life...
Accept it, reject it, its there, and no one can discuss the history of this debate intelligently or with any credibility without acknowledging it.

Posted by Bonchamps on 2014-10-06 06:16:12

"Personally, I like abortion. I've never needed one. I'm still glad to have the option."'
---
That line sums it up. Most women who have had an abortion don't sing about it in the glorious terms you phrase it in. You have ended a life and you know it.

I'm personally pro-choice, for a myriad of reasons, but these types of articles are written by 1diots for 1diots.

Posted by Ben Franklin on 2014-10-05 23:29:07

It's amazing that Planned Parenthood doesn't run from Margaret Sanger who was as evil as Adolph Hitler in her racism and belief in eugenics, sterilization, and forced abortion. But when applied to Doyle and Pollitt one of her quotes seems appropriate:

Sanger:
"Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying . . . demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism."

If there have to be abortions, let's hope it is the likes of Doyle and Pollitt who partake the sacrament of death. Then at least they won't breed more offspring who are indoctrinated to believe as they do. Although, it seems the most vehement pro-abortion advocates are man hating lesbians anyway.

Posted by internet823 on 2014-10-05 23:05:44

What women who think like this one should REALLY admit is this:
You're slaves to D!ck.
Seriously. Not trying to be obnoxious or ridiculous.
There is birth control everywhere. For crying out loud, there's birth control hanging off of bathroom doors at 7-11.
There's also keeping your legs together. Which most women manage to pull off. (For me, anyway)
But you just can't help yourselves. You have to have it. It overwhelms you.
So, to review... Choicers want control over their reproductive rights because they admit they can't control their reproductive rights. And Sandra Fluke types (and I'm sure this author as well) demand that no one interfere with their reproductive rights except to pay for upkeep and maintenance of their reproductive rights which they can't control.
Good to know what I got swinging between my legs is so powerful that it totally rules your entire existence.
That makes two of us.

Posted by grumpiertrucker on 2014-10-05 22:11:02

I (being a man) have no right to kill anyone else. The legislature has decreed that I can not use my body to murder anyone. They have their laws all over my body telling me what I can and cannot do with it. I cannot rape someone. I cannot hit some one I cannot do a lot of things with my body against other people.

So the argument that any legislature cannot pass laws telling a woman what she can or cannot due with her body as it affects other people is perfectly legal and they are well with their authority to do so.

So is whats inside a woman's uterus after a heat of the moment passionate F-session....is that a person or not.

I find in legal matters which this surely is, that using previous rulings and court cases quite helpful.

At the other end of life, when do you consider a person to be dead.... wait for it...

When their heart stops beating and brain activity stops.....yes? No arguement there from anybody yet?

Yes, Ms. Schiavo..Thank you, you can put your hand down.

So by that legal argument, when a beating heart kicks in and brain activity starts, you in fact, have a human life.
An American citizen, if you will.... with all the rights and privileges bestowed on every other American citizen...

You know the song...sing it with me....The unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

As vegetative as it clearly is and as helpless as it surely is...If you give it a little time it will blossom into a fully functioning human being.

So I am going to go out on a limb here and claim that,legally, no woman has the right to kill the other American citizen currently taking up residence inside her body....no matter how much she thinks killing it will keep her boyfriend from leaving.

Posted by CJP on 2014-10-05 20:08:11

I am going to go out on a limb here are estimate that 50% of the abortions
that ever been performed were on fetuses that were going to be girls.

So what is that, like 16 Million American Girls murdered??

Who's really making war on women?

Posted by CJP on 2014-10-05 19:45:09
Abortion saves lives,
Writing that takes an incalculable level of cognitive dissonance.

Posted by Bandit on 2014-10-05 16:20:26

"because those beliefs... But you don't necessarily have to respect them, either."

This phrase epitomizes everything that's wrong with American political discourse and, frankly, Americans themselves. Part of me is floored that someone would actually wrote them out and that they appeared in print, but another part is, sadly, thoroughly unsurprised.

Of course, left and right aren't inclined to respect each others beliefs. It serves their ends so much more to foment hatred toward each other. It gins up voter turnout and fundraising (and, for the interests of an article/ website like this, becomes a magnet for both supportive and outraged clicks).

We are conditioned to hate each other. The people with whom we disagree aren't simply people who hold an opposite viewpoint. They are evil.

Now, as to the specifics of this piece, to those who are pro-choice (or whatever the preferred term is at this juncture):

While for a tiny sliver of "pro-lifers," the view may be part of a larger vision in which women are relegated to and subjugated within the home, for the overwhelming majority, it is based on sincere conviction that the embryo is a human life. They look at it and see a baby.

To those who are pro-life: pro-choice people are not cackling baby butchers, nor are they trying to usher in an age where wanton, libertine sexual behavior is rampant and normative. They simply want to minimize as much as possible the limits on the possibilities that women have in front of them.

When you view it this way, how can you NOT respect each others' perspectives? Though you disagree, how can you NOT appreciate that the other side is coming from a place that is as genuine and well-intentioned as your own?

If we would stop trying to steamroll each other, if we would stop trying to impose our respective visions of society on each other and if we would STOP LOOKING AT EACH OTHER AS PERSONIFICATIONS OF EVIL, we would recognize that most of us are fundamentally good, decent people who just want the best for our country, our loved ones and ourselves.

There are a handful of cases where there is no debate about who is in the wrong and right (e.g. indisputable racism (not "racism" that is interpreted/ cast as such as a tool to demonize). But, on most matters of dispute, we could eliminate half of the divisiveness and polarization that exists if we would simply commit to accepting that,even though we see things differently, almost all of our proverbial "hearts are in the right place."

Voices like that of this author (and similarly uncompromising "conservative" mindsets) should be marginalized and denounced-- by all sides.

What the #@$! is wrong with us?

Posted by jagged on 2014-10-05 15:48:53

I fully agree that "abortion if great", but the author overlooks the main reason: it rids society from an even larger number of black babies who would be virtually certain to be born into extreme poverty, illiteracy, disease, crime and violence. Thus abortion reduces the number of welfare recipients, prison convicts and ghetto dwellers at a time when our nation can ill afford them. These reasons were the primary reasons abortion was promoted by Margaret Sanger, ideological founder of Planned Parenthood. Sanger said:

April 1932 Birth Control Review, pg. 108: "Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race."
Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12: "We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

Posted by scot on 2014-10-05 15:47:30

Sad article. Ms Doyle is an example of a decadent, degraded society, that is self-indulgent & narcissistic. This is the obama generation... and should be labeled such.

But no one should think... that 'progressive' democrats... care one whit about human life - be it unborn, or be it waiting to die - are you listening, Ezekial Emanuel? To the 'progressive' democrats life is cheap.

Unfortunate.
HB

Posted by Historybuff on 2014-10-05 15:30:54

"Your comparison to women having sex to drunk driving is telling."
Apparently you didn't read the VERY next sentence after that, where I said, "Heck, even if I wasn't drunk, and was being totally responsible, and just made a simple mistake, you shouldn't have to pay a dime." The ENTIRE point of bringing up both the drunkenness and the totally responsible driver is that you shouldn't be financially responsible for either, just like I shouldn't be responsible for your sexual mistakes, whether you were being drunk or responsible.

" It's your prerogative to think that and mine to think that sex is a normal part of human life which should be incorporated fully into the health care system."
It is, and just like when you get the flu and have no insurance, the same thing should happen when you get pregnant and have no insurance. Even with insurance, you should be responsible with the copay. Thanks to ObamaCare, there is no excuse for someone not to be insured at this point.

"Sports and other forms of physical recreation bring people pleasure too but no one is seriously arguing to not cover broken legs from skiing accidents."
I don't think those should be subsidized by tax dollars, either.

"You want a health care system that covers all the needs of the "good" people but only some of those you deem "bad" - sexually active women."
I've never said that. I said that abortions shouldn't be subsidized by tax dollars

"And somehow you and your ilk are being catered to yet I and mine are not, vis a vis the military. "
If you would like to answer the question I asked earlier ("Explain to me exactly how the military can defend the people who want the military without defending the people who don't?"), we can further discuss the military. Until then, my stance on the military is the same as my stance on the entire government: With it, nothing is ever as it should be, but without it, things are invariably worse."

"Why can't dumb unpopular wars be privately funded and fought by mercenaries? That's basically how you want women's health choices you don't like to be handled."
I never said I supported the Iraq war, nor did I ever imply it. As a matter of fact, just the opposite is true. I never liked the Iraq war, and I've never seen a reason for anyone to support any war since World War 2 (because the Germans threatened the US). I implied that we needed a military, and you asking not to pay for the military, while still having their protection, was childish. But even with all that said, the military (a universal good; i.e. everyone needs it) has nothing to do with abortion, which is NOT a universal good (When I say "good," I mean it as like "goods and services").

Posted by Jake on 2014-10-04 15:25:51

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Abortion Isn't a Necessary Evil. It's Great

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
And by the way: "Dismantling fetal "personhood" with logical or scientific (or even Biblical) arguments does nothing to convince those who believe a fertilized egg is a human being, because those beliefs have never been founded on logic or science. They're emotional. You can't argue emotions."

# data[].attributes.body
This positive article is about a women named Linda Weber. She created the first clinic that allowed abortions. She wrote a book about abortions and how it isn't always a bad thing. In the article she talks a lot about what she believes, so it creates a lot of positive bias. The information she provides opens up the information a lot of people don't take into consideration, for example, it allows the mother to grow into a better person, and opens more experiences. As you read through the article you see that you don't have to justify their decision especially not before you know why they did it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
No apologies necessary

Here's something you don't hear every day: Abortion can be life enriching.

It's an idea, among many, that Linda Weber discusses in her book, "Life Choices: The Teachings of Abortion." Weber was one of the founding members in 1973 of Boulder Valley Women's Health, then Boulder Valley Clinic, the first clinic in Colorado to offer abortions. She created the counseling program there and worked as director of counseling until 1987. She now works as a psychotherapist.

Weber wrote the book over a period of 20 years. What started out as a manual for counselors got broadened to include historical perspective on women's reproductive rights, then broader yet to include a spiritual perspective, which developed as Weber talked to clients in her practice. Most importantly, she says, the book is for women who have had abortions. She adds that the experience can be positive in many ways.

"The choice to say no to a pregnancy creates an opening for other things to happen in a person's life," she says. "Life becomes more than it was when she made the decision ... job, creative endeavor, relationship, another pregnancy. There is a creation of something that came from saying no. I think life is one whole thing. Life is one unity and has many different aspects," she says. "I wanted to bring that perspective (to) a discussion of abortion."

Weber's choice of the word "life" is intentional.

"I've been concerned for some time about the monopolization of the word 'life' by people who are anti-abortion," she says. "I think it's inappropriate. We need to reclaim that."

Indeed, the word life and concept of life occurring at conception is the very crux of the belief system of antiabortion groups, as are the terms "killing" and "murder."

"It's always wrong to kill a baby," says Leslie Hanks, vice president of Colorado Right to Life. "Women have to live with the guilt of what they did. God has written on our consciousness that it's wrong to kill an innocent life."

Intertwined or separate

In "Life Choices," Weber talks about the sheer biological power of being a woman, having the ability to bring life forth from her body or in her phrasing to "turn it back."

She cites one client she worked with who compared her abortion with pinching a leaf off a plant to allow stronger growth.

"It was such an important idea," Weber says of her client's metaphor. "She had an equilibrium in her decision and a perception of her experience that was unusual and valuable to know about."

Weber believes that it's impossible physically and philosophically to separate a woman from her pregnancy.

"I feel like separating out the developing pregnancy and the fetus from the woman is demeaning for women. It's also not true. There is no separation," she says. "There's no such thing as abstract life. Life has to be nurtured. It exists only in relationship. Life is being part of what nurtures it."

Contrast that with the personhood movement, a referendum on which failed last week in the conservative state of Mississippi and in Colorado in 2008 and 2010, which considers a fertilized egg a person entitled to full constitutional rights.

Hanks of Colorado Right to Life, which has supported the personhood amendments, believes a distinct life is created at fertilization. She compares abortion with slavery.

"The black man was considered property to be disposed of, used or harmed, the same way a baby is considered property of the mother. The baby is a person," she says. "We don't have a right to make a willy nilly decision to (have an abortion) because of a career choice or a bad hair day."

Many people, whether they favor abortion rights or oppose abortions, have a position somewhere in between solely woman-centered and solely embryo- or fetus-centered, from the "safe, legal and rare" formulation on abortion rights by former president Bill Clinton or exceptions for rape and incest by some who oppose abortion rights.

Rickie Solinger, an historian who has written several books on abortion and related topics, says Weber's perspective on abortion is not uncommon among women who fought in the 1960s and early 1970s for the legalization of abortion.

Solinger, a former visiting scholar at the University of Colorado who lived in Boulder for 13 years, says in the days leading up to and after legalization many women saw being able to get a legal abortion as a crucial right in their fight for equality.

"I think the women of my generation were expressing the perspective how -- I don't want to use a word so dramatic -- how enslaving it was not to be able to control the consequences of sex," she says. "To know we would be able to enter professions, to complete an education."

She adds there were professional women before legal abortion.

"In an earlier period, they didn't get married and have children," she says.

She adds that the antiabortion movement has been extremely successful in altering the way people think about abortion.

"When the antiabortion movement was smart enough to ally itself with the concept of life, to suggest that people who violated this relation to life could be called murderers, this was an enormously effective tactic," Solinger says.

In her book, Weber recounts her own abortion, at age 19 in the early 1960s. After becoming pregnant and realizing she was not in a position to have a child, she met with a woman who offered to "do something" to her and also suggested that as an alternative, she go to a clinic and request that an intra-uterine device be implanted. Weber used a false name and wore a fake wedding ring. The doctor quizzed her closely on whether she was pregnant. She denied it, and he inserted the IUD. Over five days of cramping, bleeding and fever, the abortion was complete.

Complexity, not judgment

If there's one thing those of different beliefs have in common, it's desire to come up with a simple, consistent way to view/judge abortion.

Weber rejects the idea of trying make the abortion debate fit into a neat category.

"It can be a significant experience for many women," Weber says. Yet, she says, "It's just another experience. Life is full of them. I don't believe in categorizing an experience as good or bad. It might feel good or bad, but it's not good or bad in terms of morality."

While she stands firmly in the pro-abortion rights camp, she says her book is not political, but rather an exploration of the way individual women feel about their abortions and how the experience can be an opportunity for them to examine their lives, their relationships and their sexuality.

Weber, who has counseled more than 1,000 women on their abortion decisions, says most women are not conflicted about having an abortion.

But she says, "there are (sometimes) other issues that come up in the context of having an abortion. Sex and sexuality is one, relationship is another, life direction, life purpose. There are very important issues that come up for some people when there is a crisis pregnancy, a whole complex of issues of self-esteem and self-worth. That's not about abortion, it's about much more."

Karen DeClerk, the current supervisor of counseling at Boulder Valley Women's Health, says Weber's book is the most honest she has read about abortion.

"It's honest about the complexity of the issue," she says. "Linda's perspective comes from talking to hundreds of women making these choices."

DeClerk says many women seeking abortions are not the stereotype of a young woman who sleeps with a lot of men. The Alan Guttmacher Institute, a research and advocacy group for sexual and reproductive health reports that women in their 20s account for almost half of all abortions. It also reports, however, that about 61 percent of women who have abortions already have one or more children.

"We have married women, women in committed relationships, women who have had sex one time in six years. We also see menopausal women. They don't expect to be fertile, yet their body still produces eggs," DeClerk says. "The reality is we have 40 years of reproductive fertility as women. The fact is women get pregnant when they aren't planning to, even when they have taken precautions."

The abortion closet

If Weber's matter-of-fact tone about abortion seems a little jarring, historian Solinger says that might be because the societal narrative about abortion has changed in the decades after legalizaion.

"If you look at the literature about abortion, the way women describe their experiences from the first couple of decades after legalization, you will find a very full and rich expression of exactly what (Weber is) talking about," says Solinger, who wrote "Beggars and Choosers: How the Politics of Choice Shapes Adoption, Abortion, and Welfare in the United States." "(That) suggests to me that women getting abortions (now) only express relief, a sense of autonomy and the ability to control their own bodies within ... the protected space of the clinic."

Solinger says women often do not talk about their abortions.

"When I lecture around colleges, I ask students, 'How many of you know somebody who has had an abortion? You know it, but the person has never told you.' Almost everybody raises her hand. It's a complete secret," Solinger says. "That's something that's gathered intensity over the last 25 years."

If indeed most women who have had abortions don't talk about their experience, that's a lot of secrets. At least half of American women will experience an unintended pregnancy by age 45, and, at current rates (which have been declining), three in 10 women by age 45 will have an abortion, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute. Currently, 22 percent of all pregnancies, excluding miscarriages, end in abortion.

Solinger says that in the late 1960s and early 1970s before Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, abortion speakouts, in which women spoke of their experience with then-illegal abortion, were common.

Weber believes her book will let women know that others may be experiencing the same thing they are. She acknowledges that some people have characterized the book as provocative. For people who believe life begins at conception, the book would be shocking. And even for some who support abortion rights, the book might not comport with their view of abortion.

"People become very apologetic about (having an abortion)," Weber says. "I'm saying you don't have to justify it. In my experience, women are honest with themselves about what they feel and what they think. They're very careful in making that decision."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Abortion 'can be positive,' writes Linda Weber, co-founder of Boulder clinic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
No apologies necessary Here's something you don't hear every day: Abortion can be life enriching. It's an idea, among many, that Linda Weber discusses in her book, "Life Choices: The Teachings of Abortion." Weber was one of the founding members in 1973 of Boulder Valley Women's Health, then Boulder Valley Clinic, the first clinic in Colorado to offer abortions.

# data[].attributes.body
Who: A pregnant women.

What: It's the removal of a fetus from the womb

When: The abortion normally happens in the first trimester

Where: It's normally done in a doctor's or surgical office but medicine can also be taken

Why: A women want to end a pregnancy because the baby was unwanted or she doesn't feel like she can take care of it

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When allowed by law, abortion in the developed world is one of the safest procedures in medicine. Modern methods use medication or surgery for abortions. The drug mifepristone in combination with prostaglandin appears to be as safe and effective as surgery during the first and second trimester of pregnancy.