# data[].attributes.body
Three things I learned about Cinco de Mayo is that one that day actucally marks the date of a Mexican military victory over France. Another thing is that this holiday is more of a big deal in the US then Mexico. The last thing ive learned is that alot of people stereotype Cinco de Mayo and people just want to celebrate that holiday and just forget about the drinks for once.

# data[].attributes.body
I think rappers and singers are writing music about what they see. If people are rioting or killing each other,people are going to rap and sing about it. Basically like a jouralist, telling a story. I'm not defending the message of having sex, partying, and making money. Though if we live in a time period where that's all that matters then that's all we will hear and see. I think kids listen to it because it 's true. Our parents and friends always talk about money so thats what we strive to get. Rappers and singers are just telling the truth in the most straightforward way.

# data[].attributes.body
I do think is becoming harder for people to come out of the closet. We as people have pressure from society telling us that being straight is the way to go, and we try to live up to the expectations society has on us just to be social accepted. If society accepted people for who they are then there wouldn't even be a "closet".

# data[].attributes.body
I do think people in the music industry could change what people think somewhat but not fully. I think that it would be hard to change our upcoming generations because there are going to be people that raise their kids the way they choose and music can't always change that. I think most people look up to people they don't know because society has put them in such a great light and has made them look like they're so important.

# data[].attributes.body
Seeing how our generations are getting worse, could rappers and singers maybe change that? Why do most children/teens look up to people they don't even know?

# data[].attributes.body
knowing that the world is very judgmental, it's very hard for people to come out of the closet. Why are those people letting people that they do not know scare them of being their selves? Is it really difficult to come out? Or are they afraid of what others will think of them?

# data[].attributes.body
In my groups cohort page I saw a lot of different other opinions that was different from mine. Some people were saying that even in the most horrible circumstances a women should still have the child but they should just give the baby up for adoption. I see where they were coming from with that suggestion and in some cases maybe that could be a better choice to do Giving that child up for adoption is still like having an abortion in my eyes. That child could grow up having mentally and emotionally issues because they would be thinking that their parents just gave them up because they didn't want them.

# data[].attributes.body
This quote from the president fits my topic perfectly. Women are not interest groups. We are half of this country and yes we have the right to make our OWN decision about our health and body. But since people are so blind about women killing their own baby, people will probably never just stop and realize it.

# data[].attributes.body
I choose this picture because this is exactly how i feel about abortions. I don't understand how the government would try to take someones right to do what they want with their body! No one should be able to control what someone else wants to do! No women should be bashed about having an abortion because you don't know if she is making a better decision for her and her unborn child. She could be doing the right thing!! It really upsets me on how people can be so judgmental about someone and not even know their situation.

# data[].attributes.body
The summary of this article is that abortions can leave women with many different health problems. It also states that abortions could lead to death or even affect your future on having another child.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Editor's note. While my family and I are on vacation, we are running some of our favorite NRL News Today stories from the last four months, entries from our "Roe at 40″ series, and an occasional update. The following is a shortened version of a new brochure produced by MCCL Global Outreach and the National Right to Life Educational Trust Fund. It is being used to advocate for life at the United Nations and among the international community. The brochure and supporting documentation are available online at mccl.org/mccl-resources.html.
By Paul Stark

Legalized abortion is widely touted as beneficial to women, but a wealth of medical and psychological evidence suggests otherwise. Induced abortion poses both short- and long-term risks to the physical health of women. It can also seriously affect mental health.
Physical risks of abortion
Surgical abortion is an intrusive procedure that violently interrupts a natural biological process. Documented complications include hemorrhage, infection, cervical damage, uterine perforation, pelvic inflammatory disease and retained fetal or placental tissue. These complications can affect future fertility (see "long-term risks" below).

Abortion can also result in death. Large record-based studies from Finland, Denmark and the United States found that maternal mortality rates after abortion were significantly higher than after childbirth. Increased mortality rates persist at least 10 years following abortion.

Non-surgical abortions [or chemical abortions]

Non-surgical or drug-induced abortion (often called "medical" abortion) poses its own risks to the health of pregnant women. Complications include hemorrhage, infection, rupture of undiagnosed ectopic pregnancy and incomplete abortion (resulting in a surgical abortion) and have sometimes led to death.

A large 2009 study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology determined that drug-induced abortions (using mifepristone, or RU486, together with a prostaglandin, usually misoprostol) led to significant adverse events in 20 percent of cases-almost four times the rate of immediate complications as surgical abortions.
Long-term risks
Abortion can hinder future reproductive success. It substantially increases the risk of subsequent preterm birth, which seriously threatens the lives and health of newborn children. The risk of premature delivery increases with each additional abortion. Abortion is also associated with an increased risk of infertility, miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy and placenta previa.

Other long-term risks of abortion include breast, cervical and ovarian cancers. The connection between abortion and breast cancer is especially controversial. But it is clear that abortion can deprive a woman of the risk-reducing effect of a first full-term pregnancy. And physiological and epidemiological evidence indicate that abortion leaves a woman with more cancer-vulnerable breast tissue than if she had not become pregnant in the first place.

Dozens of studies support this link; a 1996 meta-analysis found a 30 percent increase in breast cancer risk among post-abortion women. Alleged refutations of this evidence have proven flawed.
Psychological risks of abortion
In addition to its risks to a woman's physical health, abortion can have negative psycho-social consequences. A 2011 meta-analysis published in the British Journal of Psychiatry found an 81 percent increased risk of mental health problems among women who had undergone abortions; nearly 10 percent of the incidence of psychological problems was directly attributable to abortion. These problems included anxiety, depression, alcohol use, drug use and suicidal behavior.

A large-scale Finnish study found that the suicide rate following abortion was nearly six times greater than the suicide rate following childbirth. Conversely, although abortion is sometimes justified on the basis of mental health, a 2013 study concluded that the termination of unintended pregnancies had no therapeutic psychological benefit.

Abortion can also damage a woman's relationships with her partner and others and can adversely affect men and children. Many women and men now regret their decision to procure or encourage an abortion, and many seek support and help to deal with their grief.
Dangers should not be ignored
Not all women suffer as a result of induced abortion, but many do. The risks to physical and psychological well-being should not be ignored.

Send to Kindle

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How abortion hurts women | NRL News Today

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Editor's note. While my family and I are on vacation, we are running some of our favorite NRL News Today stories from the last four months, entries from our "Roe at 40″ series, and an occasional update. The following is a shortened version of a new brochure produced by MCCL Global Outreach and the National Right to Life Educational Trust Fund.

# data[].attributes.body
The summary of this article is that why would someone want to murder an unborn baby that has not violated any law? Abortions are killing children that has never done anything wrong but yet women are punishing them for their mistake

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The primary reason abortion is wrong is that God said that we are not to murder.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abortion involves terminating a pregnancy by the removing or expelling of a fetus or embryo from the uterus. This is sometimes due to the death of the fetus; however, it can also result in the death of it. Abortion is a very controversial topic because its frequency of occurrence, legal, cultural and religious status varies extensively in different regions of the world. There are many high-profile groups that champion either pro-choice or pro-life, and such organizations bring up a host of issues to further their often political agenda. In the United States, pro-life groups favor greater legal restrictions on abortion, or even the complete prohibition of it. They argue that a human fetus is a human being with a right to live, so abortion is similar to murder. In contrast, pro-choice groups argue that a woman has certain reproductive rights, especially the choice on whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term.

One of the most common reasons why some women want to have an abortion is because they have the desire to delay childbearing because they themselves are young. Other reasons include not wanting to stop work or schooling and/or because of financial or relationship instability. These reasons are consistent across numerous countries, including America. Most abortions that occur in the United States are obtained by women of a minority race because they are having higher incidences of unintended pregnancies. In developing countries, women have the additional concern of health risks and complications that occur as a result of unsafe practices in medical settings.

Some abortions happen because of societal pressures. This occurs to when there is little social support, when a specific gender of a child is preferred or when governments enforce population control, such as China's one child policy. It is suggested that sex-selective abortion could account for disparities between the birth rates of male and female children in some countries. Many countries in Asia like China, South Korea and India have cultures that prefer male children.

When abortion occurs because of societal pressures, women sometimes have to resort to unsafe practices because the legalized healthcare route is not an option. As a result, countries that have restrictive abortive laws have more women that seek unsafe abortions. Unsafe abortions occur when they are performed by individuals without adequate medical skills or in an unhygienic environment. Such situations occur globally, and result in about 70,000 maternal deaths and 5 million maternal disabilities per year.

Currently, laws regarding abortion are diverse and differ by states in the U.S. Some states have a 24-hour waiting period before an abortion can be carried out and require that information regarding fetal development is given out. The abortion debate also focuses on whether laws should be passed mandating that the pregnant woman has the consent of others, especially if the woman is a minor.

Abortion Debate Controversy

Induced abortions have aroused debate, controversy and activism because it is related to ethical, moral, philosophical, biological and legal issue. This is a personal topic because it touches on a person's value system. Some pro-life groups have taken their case to the extremes and have targeted doctors and facilities that provide abortions with various types of violence, from murder to arson. Four United States doctors were even assassinated to further their cause. The question remains: is violence really necessary?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Abortion involves terminating a pregnancy by the removing or expelling of a fetus or embryo from the uterus. This is sometimes due to the death of the fetus; however, it can also result in the death of it. Abortion is a very controversial topic because its frequency of occurrence, legal, cultural and religious status varies extensively in different regions of the world.

# data[].attributes.body
I really like your background information . I didn't know that 3 out of 10 women are going to have an abortion before the age of 45. That is a lot of women. I think you have some really good information.

# data[].attributes.body
Abortions are when a women's pregnancy is ended before the birth of the child. Every 3 out of 10 women are going to have an abortion before the age of 45. The pregnancy can be removed from the womb either by taking pills or by surgery. Yes abortions are legal but only up to 24 weeks of pregnancy. Abortions are also safe but complications are rare.

# data[].attributes.body
Who: Women and Katha Pollitt

What: Women should have respected abortion rights

When: October 3, 2014

Why: Abortions can save lives and women should have the right to go get an abortion if they are not financial stable or even prepared to have children

# 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
Who: Women who has had an abortion and Linda Weber

What: Weber wrote the book "Life Choices: The Teachings of Abortions" 20 years ago saying that when women say "no" to giving birth, they are enriching their lives

When: November 13, 2011

Why: Women should have the choice to have an abortion with out being judged

The quote "The choice to say no to a pregnancy creates an opening for other things to happen in a person's life," shows that Weber has a positive bias about women getting an abortion

# 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.