Comments

This is really, really offensive. I suggest you come up to Brandeis U and spout off your flippant analysis of the Holocaust as comparable to abortions. Let me let you in on something:

Abortions are not carried out because of a fundamental hatred of fetuses. There is no organized movement to destroy them because of an irrational will to wipe them off the planet. Abortions are carried out due to practical considerations made by the woman.

So in effect, you're saying the Holocaust was a practical measure the Nazis took in order to assure their survival.

Way to potentially justify the Holocaust.

Wow, I love how you draw a parallel between the Holocaust and abortion rights. Do you also think it's a genocide? It is excellent to know that as a man you don't believe that women have a human rights issue in keeping access to safe, legal abortions. Does every single "column" you write have to incredibly terrible? Maybe if you chose to write about baseball or football you could find an issue that you can handle without sounding like a huge idiot.

Let me see:
- The Holocaust?: check.
- Kristallnacht?: check.
- Palestinian conflict?: check.
- Slavery?: check.
- Hate crimes?: check.

Jon, you forgot the Crusades, the Black Death, the invasion of Mexico by Cortez, the soviet famine of 1933, the Gulags, the Great Leap Forward, trench warfare, and Sesame Street.

Your point? Genocides, wars, slavery and hate are all connected to... abortion. Make sense. On top of that millions of women in the USA have been silenced (by whom?) and forced to undergo an abortion. Millions? Okay, then let us say... 3000 abortion per day in the US (cf your website Abort73.com) times 365 days a year times 36 years = a bit over 39 million American women? Is that enough? One every FOUR women in the US was forced to get an abortion. Since we are making up stats, it does not really matter if it is true or not. *wink wink*

And to seal the deal your website is posting pictures while, of course, failing to mention that some of them are:
- Birth defects,
- Ectopic pregnancies,
- Stillbirths,
- Miscarriages,
- Neonatal deaths.
At least, they have the decency not to photoshop their stuff, post fake pictures or display non-human embryos... do they?

Great job, buddy.

Bread is murder! Yeast cells begin to divide and multiply in the dough before you put it in the inferno of your oven, just like Hitler did to the Jews.

Oh, but they aren't a sentient being you say? Well, neither is the small collection of cells dividing in the womb, until they are complex enough to have a functioning brain to provide consciousness.

This article is disgusting. I can't believe the Daily even chose to publish this. It borders on the level of hate speech towards women who have chosen to have abortions. Last time I checked, the first amendment didn't cover hate speech.

Much work is needed to remove the stigma from both women's personal agency and abortion. Until we are able to perceive abortion as the medical procedure that it is and women as fully competent adults they are, we'll continue to be locked in this battle to fear and denigrate the decision-making power of women over their bodies and their reproductive health. The belief that a fetus is a person, is a religious belief to which not everyone adheres. This religious belief is used in ways that tramples over the personal agency of women as competent adults who are fully able and empowered to make decisions about legal medical procedures such as abortion.

Consider:
* homicide is the 2nd leading cause of death among pregnant women, typically by their intimate partner.
* 12% o female OK high school students have been forced to engage in intercourse or sexual activity.
* in OK it is a felony to kick a dog or attack the neighbors wife, but only a misdemeanor to attack one's own wife.
... and there's more but the bottom line is -- we need to extend to women the power of personal agency and non-stigmatized and un-harassed access to reproductive health, including the choice of legal abortions (which are the safest method known) according to the decision they need/want to make as fully competent adults.

This article is a violation of human rights.

Little WASPy man, do not presume to tell me that you know anything about Emmitt Till or even the issue of racism on such a degree when you can't even get the fact that the men who tortured and KILLED him did not get "away" with life sentences, but however got away scott clean.

Little WASPy man, do not presume to tell me that you know when human life begins since it is an issue that has been debated amongst some of the greatest minds of all times for years, and you, frankly are not one of them.

Little WASPy man, do not presume to tell me that you know what is best for me and MY BODY when the "human" issue does not affect you in any way shape or form.

Little WASPy man, perhaps you should consider doing some legitimate research so you could ... I don't know, actually make some valid arguments instead of outlandish, unfounded, biased comments. Granted that is all you are capable of doing since your white, heterosexual, male class gives you unyielding privilege over others. I feel strongly that you have offended people with your faulty logic, and even more faulty "facts". I strongly feel that you have offended others who have gone through so much in their lives and have had experiences that you will never understand in your privileged little bubble.

Racism, much like abortion, is not something you are entitled to speak about considering you are a complete outsider and are merely stuck with "window syndrome." Enjoy your ignorance. It is your gift.

By the way, on the printed version of this column there is a picture for which its caption reads: (sic) "Activists gather at the state Capitol Friday afternoon to protest House Bill 1595, which would ban gender based abortions."

Well, no, it does not. House Bill 1595 creates the "statistical abortion reporting act" which compels abortion patients to report their identity on a state run website. Another great law against privacy.

So what do we have here?
- Pure disinformation (aka lies),
- An argumentum ad Hitlerum,
- Red herring tactics.
Well, Jon, you remind me of some anchors on a certain cable news network. Maybe you should look for a job there and get your own opinion show. I am sure it would go like this:

Jon: "TONIGHT! We heard rumors that [insert scapegoat name here] raped and murdered a young girl in 1990! America, I have seen some vicious stuff in my life but this tops everything. This is appalling and purely disgusting... Of course we do not claim to know what ACTUALLY happened, but the rumor that [insert name here] raped and murdered a young girl in 1990 should certainly be debated. Why won't [insert name here] deny these allegations? In fact, we think he did not, but since [insert name here] has no proof that nothing was committed... Stay tuned folks, and we will get to the bottom of this."

This article is just plain offensive. Wow.

Well, it seems the author of this piece was educated by the same people who run the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, KS, or at least people of a similar level of education. That is the only logical way to explain the bunch of platitudes I've just read. So, to educate our ignorant author, here are a few things to consider about abortions:

1. No one sane in this world thinks an abortion is a happy or a fun thing to have, but educated and enlightened people recognize that sometimes they are necessary.

2. After 20 weeks of pregnancy or so, a fetus perhaps fits your definition of an unborn human. Before that point, we are merely talking about a chemical process that's taking place. You can believe that once conception occurs, we are talking about a living human being, but that has everything to do with religious convictions, and nothing to do with science. I don't know what biology books you are referring to, but I'd be happy to read them.

3. Ignoring your senseless comparison with other real human rights issues, it seems that you imply that abortions should be prohibited no matter what. So - does that include rape? genetic defects? a 16 year old who got pregnant accidentally and really isn't ready to be a parent yet, or even to undergo the process of pregnancy? Are you out of your mind? Do you propose to add more misery to this world just to preserve some fanatic ideal?

We now live in the 21st century, not in the 11th. I suggest you update your social values a bit. Wouldn't hurt you, and the people surrounding you.

omgosh. This sucks big time.

Furthermore, to answer Jon's question regarding the difference between infanticide and abortion (which he posed as a rhetorical question, of course, but which is hardly that): an infant is a living, independent organism while a fetus can only grow by use of its mother's body.

You know what? You have absolutely no idea. This deeply offends me.

First of all, in what world is killing a cluster of cells that isn't even aware of its existence the same things as rounding up, torturing, and killing a group of grown human beings?

But it's easy for you. If you get some girl knocked up, and you realize that you are absolutely no way prepared to be a parent or able to give the child the upbringing it needs and deserves, society tells you that you can just skip out of the picture and live happily ever after. The pregnant woman can't. Without the option of abortion, she has to carry the child for nine months, give birth, and either have to deal with giving her child up for adoption, or be it's guardian for as long as she lives.

I'm not trying to say that you would skip happily out of the picture, but the idea is that you have a CHOICE. And from that position, it is so easy to condemn. It is in no way your right to revoke.

I would probably not get an abortion, as I am uncomfortable with the idea for myself, but I am not so ignorant as to force a smug morality upon women who circumstances I know nothing about.

I am in agreeance with the comments before mine.

This column was written by a male who clearly touts the religious belief that a fetus is a human from the moment of conception. I do not tout this religious belief. I would appreciate it if you didn't shove it down my throat.

Your beliefs do not dictate my right to choose. This is not, as so many people seem to believe, a "Christian nation". It was not founded as a Christian Nation, and "in God we trust" was not added to the Pledge of Allegiance until the 1940s. Pick up a history book sometime. Christianity may be the dominant religion but we were not founded as a theocracy.

By the way. Reproductive rights are human rights. Or are women not human? Are we sub-human to you? Or just second class citizens whose opinions don't matter?

Way to step back to the 1800s.

The only thing that I find terrifying is that there are more men out there who spout these ridiculous arguments against abortion and believe in them wholeheartedly.

Mr Malone, there are so many things wrong with your column and I am happy to see the comments reflect that people understand your faulty logic.

I call myself a supporter of human rights AND of a woman's right to choose WHEN, WHERE, HOW and IF to have children. There is no double standard for me. None at all.

If you care about human rights why wouldn't you want to give women to right to control their own bodies. You wouldn't want women to be forced to have abortions would you? So why force them to have children? Oh wait...you wouldn't, you would force them to seek unsafe illegal abortions from which they might die or be seriously injured and maimed... Yes, it seem like you are all about human rights Mr. Malone - and your notion of "human" apparently does not include women.

Wow. You are completely ignorant.

Go look up Godwin's Law and try again.

In the past two weeks, there has been a lot in the Daily about abortion. Natasha Goodell wrote two stories; one disparaging piece on the pro-choice Reproductive Rights Week and one glowing story on the Pro-Life Ambassadors. Colin Osborne then tried to give (rather "cloudy") reasons why "life" begins at conception. Now Jon Malone gets to say all this.

Is there no one in the Daily who will give a fair voice to the pro-choice side of this debate?

Since when did the daily become the Daily Abortion Blog? Regardless of the hasty generalizations made by this article, and the disgustingly perverse correlation being made between the holocaust and abortion, WHY IS THE DAILY NOT WRITING ABOUT OTHER THINGS? Why does it seem like there's another pro-life diatribe every single day in the Daily. Even the article about reproductive rights week last week turned into a pro-life opinion piece masked as "objective" journalism. I think that beyond this author, the editorial board of the Oklahoma Daily should be disgusted with them selves as "journalists", because this obvious slant in their paper is either extreme neglect to monitor their content, or deliberate attempts to leverage public opinion against a woman's right to choose. How dare you? Especially when there are so many important issues happening in the world, and on campus, why is there such a morbid fixation on abortion?

Talk about something else. This was human rights week and yet the actual human rights issues being raised got perhaps a quick page-2 mention, while abortion has dominated the daily. The whole staff needs to be fired. You are all terrible journalists.

I was under the presumption that an editorial column was a well thought out, rigorously researched, logical argument that pointed out something from a different persepctive or offered a unique take on current events. In this column you have cited a T-Shirt, any and all biological textbooks, a couple web sites, and cliff-notes versions of scattered historical events that supposes unique cohesion between them, without taking into consideration any of the social, political, economic, or religious historical contexts in which they occurred.

This is extremely problematic. Columns are not supposed to be couch-chair historical analyses and broad pontifications.

Why do you think abortion is under the guise of empowerment? What do you think "empowerment" actually means? How does that relate to any of the human rights violations you mentioned before abortion? Where do you get the understanding that the holocaust, the civil rights movement and abortion are all interrelated in their ideals, struggles, and traditions? When you make broad generalizations like that and emotional rhetorical homages to Hitler or the Civil Rights movement, you essentialize their struggles and rob them of their context, which allows you to equate abortion with the holocaust, or anything horrible for that matter, that you wish. Your argument may have enough emotional appeal to convince visitors of the Web site you cited (or readers of the T-shirt), but to me, it only showcases your amateurism and dangerous lack of substance.

Wow. You're column reveals just how naive pro-lifers really are. Nice attempt to draw parallels between the protection of the rights of women to the systematic murder of 11,000,000 people based upon their religion, ethnicity, mental capability, and political beliefs. I'm ashamed you go to my university...

Never use the Holocaust to justify a Pro-Life stance. It is a slap in the face to all who lived through and have been affected by Hitler's Final Solution. Moreover, please do not use the Hillel website to justify the argument you are making that is full of holes and ramblings.

I will not get into why abortion IS a woman's choice, but I will simply say that if a woman is denied the right to choose what happens to her body, what happens to HER rights? The baby may or may not be "alive" but it has not been born, and does not have the same rights as the woman. Things happen. Condoms break, women are raped, contraception fails. People who take responsible measures to prevent pregnancy often find themselves in this situation. Who are we to punish them for an accident? But not all pregnancies are accidents-- some are the product of negligence. We cannot however pick and choose who has a right to an abortion.

That said, do not justify your argument with examples of genocide and prejudice. It is a sophomoric move, and it puts your integrity as a writer into question. Look elsewhere.

This is a joke. We've all been trolled.

"One of the watershed moments in the movement was the brutal kidnapping and murder of Emmett Till, of which a powerful documentary was made and shown during my undergraduate program in several of my classes."

Oh goodness, thank god they made a documentary about it.

And I wish the Daily was full of content half as amazing as these comments.

This is one of the most offensive things I've ever read. Nothing makes me angrier than men having opinions on women's issues, especially if you equate them to the Holocaust. Wow.

Ugly redneck a**hole.

Thank you Mr. Malone for your column. You indeed have a lot of courage to post a column like this in the Daily, given the inevitable flaming that always results from people who seem to have no sincere interest in a civilized discussion of the issue. The numerous comments attacking the fact that you're a male arguing for the pro-life side and accusing you of ignorance and hate speech towards women (I'm still trying to find where you attacked women in your article, somehow I must have missed it...) only serve to highlight the double-standards held by many on the left, who are all for "diversity" of opinions and civilized debates - until, of course, you disagree with them. It also only serves to strengthen your case about the double-standards held by many who rightfully advocate for and support causes to end poverty, hunger, and to find cures for breast cancer and AIDS, but ignore the rights of those whom Mother Teresa referred to as the "poorest of the poor" - the unborn humans in the womb.

For centuries, people have intuitively known that human life begins at conception, and recognized the humanity of the unborn child - hence why pregnant mothers were always said to be "with child". The original Hippocratic Oath that all practitioners of medicine were once required to take also recognized the humanity of the unborn. We even have laws that charge people with "double murder" for killing a pregnant woman - the law, at least in that case, recognizes the humanity of the unborn child (gee, no double-standards there...).

The truth is, the bulk of people who advocate that the unborn fetus isn't human are the people with an agenda to keep abortion legal (organizations like Planned Parenthood, who rake in millions of dollars from abortion every year). You have to dehumanize life before you can justify destroying it. And you have to marginalize those who would defend unborn life by portraying them as anti-woman, hate-mongering, right-wing religious extremists. And never forget the bottom line - why help a pregnant woman carry her baby to term when the money is in abortion?

But that's okay. Some people will continue to dwell in their unjustified suspicions that people who are pro-life are just a bunch of anti-woman hate-mongers who only seek to oppress women. Let them. The fact is, pro-life pregnancy crisis centers (like Birth Choice here in Norman) have done far more to empower pregnant women in need than Planned Parenthood ever has. While abortionists exploit women for profit, crisis pregnancy centers offer numerous support services to pregnant women who more often than not would probably never even consider abortion if they only had more people willing to reach out and offer support for them and their preborn babies.

Take all the flaming with a grain of salt. Recent polls have reflected that the majority of Americans are pro-life and recognize what common-sense has always told us - that human life starts at conception.

This article is absurd... its typical of the trash this "newspaper" has printed for years.

I'll just say this: a fetus=a potential human INSIDE of a human, so abortion being considered as a human rights issue isn't really THAT bogus, regardless of how he went about presenting the argument.

Mesocyclone, I wasn't aware that "intuition" justifies your reasoning in a debate. The next time I have to take a math test, I'm going to put a random number down for every answer and say that it is "intuition" so it must be right.

Let me say that I don't find women who seek abortions irresponsible. In fact, the fact that they search for an abortion tells me the opposite: they realize that they are not ready to handle a child, and therefore should not have one. The "if you're not ready to have a kid, you shouldn't have sex" argument that many pro-lifers use is old-fashioned and stale, and it rests on a myth that women must be pure to be good - which IS sexist, because that is not applied to the men who have sex (because they happened to be born unable to get pregnant). There is nothing wrong with sex, which is the first thing that pro-choice people address. Those who have sex without wanting a child should have access to cheap but effective methods of birth control - which is something that many pro-lifers, who believe in the purity myth, try to ignore. THAT is sexist, THAT is wrong, and THAT is what leads to more women seeking abortion. So if you want to talk about a double-standard, talk about that.

@Mesocyclone

As usual you do not get anything. Nobody said fetus are not human, they said embryos are not persons. You know, you cannot be a person when you do not have a brain to begin with... (though you might be an exception).

Your statements about abortionist exploiting women are simply delirious but that is not the first time you wrote stuff blatantly wrong here anyway.

About the recent polls, check this out: http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.ht...
So, how does it feel to be completely wrong, Mesocyclone?

"Is there no one in the Daily who will give a fair voice to the pro-choice side of this debate?"
There's certainly no one in the comments who can.
Can any of the pro abortion commentators articulate their position in a non-hateful manner?

"Way to potentially justify the Holocaust."
So, the person who is against all killing, is justifying the Holocaust, while those justifying killing are honoring the memory of the Holocaust.

JJ can't do anything but call people names and demand firings.

Dio,
The stated purpose of HB 1595 is to stop gender based abortions, so these aren't spreading disinformation.
Maybe it isn't the ideal method, but that is the goal, so reporting that isn't a lie.

Reductio ad Hitlerum applies to absurd associations.
Perhaps you all don't agree that babies are people, but hopefully you would find killing millions of people is bad. Since the author views the babies as people, I'd be more disturbed if he didn't care. You may make distinctions about the motivation (racial holocaust, practical abortion), as if practicality makes it okay?

"Nothing makes me angrier than men having opinions on women's issues,"
Are you angered by men who are pro choice, or can you just not handle a difference of opinion?
I could say that I really get angry when non aborted people promote abortion, but that wouldn't get us anywhere, would it?

@Cambrian, the First Amendment does protect "hate speech" unless it's threatening a specific person or "fighting words."
Not to mention, I think some comments are much more hateful than the article.

@GranolaGirl, are you implying we should create a society with no responsibility for our actions? Negligence and accidents aren't things we should be held responsible for? Do you believe this for any situation (sorry I hit your car, see ya later), or just abortion?

The attitudes expressed in these comments are attempts to say why someone doesn't have the right to an opinion. By that logic, we shouldn't have human rights week either since most of us don't really understand genocide in Africa. Obviously, that isn't their point. Instead, their point is the hypocritical idea that only they have a right to an opinion or public expression thereof.

Perhaps if the pro-abortion people submitted an article that was well articulated (Or probably even one that wasn't) instead of hateful, hypocritical, illogical drivel, it would get published.

Abortion already is a human rights issue.

Women are human and abortion is their right. You fanatical pro-lifers can whine and moan and draw overly dramatic and offensive comparisons to the holocaust all you want but it won't change damn a thing.

Ha.

Excellent article Jon. Don't let the haters keep you down.

You're right, it is a human rights issue. Men and women have the right to freedom, to make their own life choices and their own medical decisions, free from government meddling. Nobody has the right to use the organs of another person without consent. We don't have mandatory organ donation, or blood donation, in this country. A pro-life stance is, by definition, one that advocates taking real rights from women to give special rights to a being that may or may not even be a person.

It is completely absurd, in other words.

What's sad is that I'm not remotely surprised that the Daily printed this.

I am angered by men who feel justified in demonizing women who make choices for their own bodies. You don't have a uterus. You cannot POSSIBLY know what the abortion issue really means to those of us who do. I respect pro-choice men because they would never tell me I was evil and a murderer for making an informed choice for my own body and life. Unlike you. It has nothing to do with difference of opinion, it's about you having such a strong opinion about something that you will never have to worry about experiencing. *I* am a woman. You are not. So keeping your shaming to yourself. It's offensive.

You should also re-read Anon's comment because it makes A LOT of sense.

@TheJeff

The pro-life OU Daily censor is back! So here is a concise answer this time (to the censor: I am saving it and I will send it again and again until it appears in the comments):

"The stated purpose of HB 1595 is to stop gender based abortions"

No, HB 1595 is NOT meant to ban gender based abortion. Read it yourself: http://www.sos.state.ok.us/documents/Leg...

"Reductio ad Hitlerum applies to absurd associations. "

You know what else cause millions of death? The Black Death of the 14th century. Is it related to abortion? No and neither the Holocaust is. Is it relevant? No therefore the Holocaust reference is an absurd association.

Did you read the link you sent me?
"Prohibiting the perfomance of an abortion solely on account of the sex of the unborn child." Right there at the beginning.

The Black Death is a disease.
The Holocaust was people murdering millions of people.
Pro-Life people, to whom babies are people, see abortion as the killing of millions of people.
Unless you think killings of millions of people is okay sometimes and not others (as opposed to never okay).
It is perfectly acceptable to relate two instances where people are killing people on a massive scale.
You would accept relating the Holocaust to Darfur or other accepted genocides, I presume? And while you say that abortion isn't motivated by race or religion, what does motivation matter if the result is millions of deaths? I understand you don't see the unborn as people, but I also presume you're intelligent enough to see the connection for those who do.

@Sara, I have never demonized women. I've never shamed anybody. You are trying to shame me out of my opinion. You've made up an imaginary boogie man (straw man). I'm sorry that you find differences of opinions offensive. You admire pro-choice men because you're a hypocrite who cannot respect other people's opinions, and you believe freedom of speech is limited to those with like minds. Please, feel free to disagree, but disagree with what I say, not who I am, nor the imaginary persona you've created for me.

"it's about you having such a strong opinion about something that you will never have to worry about experiencing."
Should white abolitionists not bothered? They probably weren't at much risk for slavery. Of coarse they should have. People should stand up for what they think is right. You think abortion is right. I think it is not. You think you're doing what's right for women, I think that I'm doing what's right for people (even the girl babies! :D ). Why can't we have a civil discussion without you trying to shut me out?

I don't at all argue that many men abandon women to their fate, but the answer to irresponsible men, isn't to create some fantasy world without consequences. It's to become responsible women, it's to make men as responsible for what they create. It's to make a society where women can know that rape isn't their fault, and gives them the strength to prosecute rapists. Those should be positive responses to the issues of rape and irresponsible men.
Anon's post doesn't make any sense at all.
Legitimizing non-rape abortions because accidents happen? Again, you can't just make life consequence free. Again, I couldn't hit your car accidentally, but not compensate you cause I promised I was being responsible and paying attention, or that sometimes, somewhere, some one was being responsible, I'm sure.

As far as censors, they should set up a forum or something that doesn't take 2 days to post to. (Then again, who knows what things get posted that doesn't get seen, maybe there's a reason)

The word "baby" carries emotional weight. "Fetus" does not.
"Kill a baby" = Gasp! Atrocious!
"Evacuate a fetus" = Ehh, fine..

You win again, semantics.

@TheJeff

Then read the bill further... do you know how they intent to prohibit (gender based) abortions? BY COLLECTING DATA. That's right, they introduced an anti-abortion bill aimed at tearing down people's privacy and they tried to hide that behind a gender based abortion ban (which is in itself a good thing). Now, what in the process of collecting data is ACTUALLY prohibiting gender based abortion? NOTHING. The bill is not preventing gender based abortion, it is just collecting private data and publishing it PUBLICLY.

"The Black Death is a disease."

What about the Crusades, the invasion of Mexico by Cortez, the soviet famine of 1933, the Gulags, the Great Leap Forward, and trench warfare? Millions of deaths too. Are they related to abortion? NO THEY ARE NOT. Do you want to keep up that game?

By the way, you keep on mentioning babies. Nobody is talking about babies. We are are talking about embryos. Do you know what it is? Here is a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo
When you will be over reading that then you can try to argue that embryos (which do not have brains) are persons.

Nevertheless we do agree on something: the censorship in this conservative rag is preposterous. They should look at how the other student newspapers moderate their comments.

You have shamed women by using the HOLOCAUST as a comparision to abortion. How do you not get that that is extremely, extremely offensive to not only women but to everyone who actually had to suffer at the hands of Hitler? This was a horrible article and you are a horrible person for righting it. I can respect differing opinions if they don't offend each and every fiber of my being like your article did. You pro-lifers care more about a bunch of cells in a woman's uterus than you actually do about the women themselves. And you never think about the circumstances. Not everyone who has an abortion is irresponsible. Women are raped. Contraceptives fail. Life isn't sunshine and rainbows for everyone. Abortions aren't a good thing, not even us pro-choicers think they are. But sometimes, in this messed up world we live in, they are necessary.

And btw, you will NEVER make abortion go away even if it were to be made illegal. Ever hear of back alley abortions? The coat hanger method? Get your head out of your a**! Women will have them whether you agree with it or not or whether or not it's legal!

"There is nothing wrong with sex, which is the first thing that pro-choice people address. Those who have sex without wanting a child should have access to cheap but effective methods of birth control - which is something that many pro-lifers, who believe in the purity myth, try to ignore. THAT is sexist, THAT is wrong, and THAT is what leads to more women seeking abortion. So if you want to talk about a double-standard, talk about that."

Also, THIS is the part of Anon's comment that really needs to be addresssed. The pro-life movement contributes to the abortions rates more than the pro-choice size ever could.

Jeff, I want to respond to what you said to Sara. She seemed really upset (understandably) so I might try to field this in a calmer manner.

You seem to be in the mindset of what you would ideally want the world to be like and not what it actually IS like. You say that you understand that sometimes women are raped and you want women to take responsibility for themselves and hold the men accountable for their actions. This sounds good in theory, but can I tell you something? If someone raped me tomorrow I would be in an abortion clinic SO FAST that nobody would even able to tell me “no.” And if someone dared tell me that the responsible thing to do would be go through with the pregnancy after somebody had just violated me in such an unspeakably awful way I would probably punch them in the face. I do agree with Sara that men simply cannot understand this on the same level. It’s fine if you have your opinion but the holocaust comparison was out of line. I mean, look at all the comments on this article. Almost all of them mention how offensive and hurtful that was to them. Does that not mean anything? Maybe so many people are telling you it’s offensive because it’s actually effin’ offensive!

Abortion is a tough topic and many people don’t agree with it but it’s the reality of the world. And I’d much rather live in a world where women were able to have safe, legal abortions if they feel like that’s the best option for them. It’s better than the alternative. Women do horrible things to themselves if it’s not legally available to them. Not every woman on earth wants to have a child and not every woman should have to have one. Ideally, everyone who wished to remain without children wouldn’t get pregnant, but again, that’s not the reality of the world because of rape and because of people being uneducated about sex and contraceptives. And really, the religious right who are against abortion are also against sex education in many instances. So there’s the real issue.

@Dio
"Then read the bill further... do you know how they intent to prohibit (gender based) abortions? BY COLLECTING DATA"
I acknowledged in the first comment about the methods, but that doesn't change the fact that a stated goal is to prohibit the abortion based on gender. You called the article a liar for stating that, yet that is what the bill says. Therefore, he is not a liar.

As for the Crusades, etc. We should be abhorred by any mass killing of people. Whether they're directly related or not, they are history that we should learn from. Slaughtering people, is typically a bad thing to do. They're the fabric that create our modern ideas on not killing lots of people. You're fine stopping at born people or maybe unborn with brains, I dunno, I'm just taking it a little further.

@Sara
I didn't write the article. Unless right is meaning to defend some points. (I'm not making fun or being a grammar Nazi, it may just be a colloquialism not familiar in OKC).

It is not true that I care more about the cells than I do the woman. I care about both. Rape may be one thing, but I'm sorry, contraceptives failing doesn't cut it. That is a risk you accept when using them. I'm not condemning using them, it's a free society and you may do as you please. There are consequences to actions, though.
Life isn't sunshine, as you say, exactly right. I believe that the man should be every bit as responsible as the woman. Obviously he can't bear the physical brunt, but he better share everything else.
In America, about .00011% or about 4 to 500 women die in child birth per year. That about 500 too many, but we do a pretty good job compared to history or undeveloped nations. We don't have to choose between the mother or the child, we can save both these days.

It should not be offensive to learn from history.

That people will do illegal things dangerously doesn't mean it should be legal. Heroine addicts use back alley needles with HIV, but we should probably be careful about legalizing that.

I'm pretty sure I can't convince you that abortion is wrong, but I'll beg one more time to drop such a partisan attitude and realize people you disagree with are not women eating monsters. Ad hominem straw men attacks will not further your cause. I try to treat pro choice people with respect and understand where they're coming from, I think you could do the same.

@TheJeff

"We don't have to choose between the mother or the child, we can save both these days."

Hello? Ever heard of birth defects? Stillbirths? Ectopic pregnancies? You CANNOT save all fetuses, but you can save the mother's life. Do you know the stillbirth rate in the US? 1 in 115 births. That's right, 1 in 115 births. Look it up. Ectopic pregnancies? 2% in North America and it is a LEADING CAUSE OF MATERNAL MORTALITY in the first trimester (so we are mostly talking about embryos here).

"That people will do illegal things dangerously doesn't mean it should be legal."

It should be mandatory for all pro-lifers to witness the aftermath of a back-alley abortion.

I am pro-choice for the following reasons:

1: I believe most Americans recognize that there is a moral and ethical distinction to be made between the termination of a pregnancy and the wanton killing of a living, breathing human being.

2: I believe most Americans know that while a woman’s fertilized egg or blastocyst is genetically “human,” the resemblance to a person ends there.

3: The vast majority of abortions take place within the first trimester of pregnancy, and most American still prefer that women still have that option.

4: The most emotional arguments against abortion hinge on religious beliefs: That a human pregnancy is somehow “sacred” or that a fertilized egg is imbued with some kind of “soul” or other supernatural characteristic. Since such religious beliefs vary widely from person to person, all I can suggest is that pro-lifers are welcome to conduct their own reproductive lives as their conscience and religious beliefs dictate. They have absolutely NO right to demand that others do the same.

5: I consider a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy absolutely FUNDAMENTAL to her right to self-determination. PERIOD.

6: In my lifetime alone, the human population of this planet has DOUBLED from over three billion to over six billion, and it could conceivable TRIPLE to nine billion by the time I'm 70. These are all people that will have to be clothed, fed, educated, housed, employed, transported, and have their medical and sanitary needs met. Inevitably more forests will be cleared to make room for it all, energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions will continue to skyrocket, climate change will continue to spiral catastrophically out of control ... and TRUST ME, Jesus ain't gonna come descending out of the clouds to make it all better!

So with that in mind, YES, I'm not only pro-choice, I'm PRO-ABORTION.

@ Dio
While very sad, I do understand that ectopic pregnancies need to be removed, with basically no chance for the child to survive, you have to do your best and save as many people as you can (ie, the mother). Although the burning house metaphor is soooo overused, you don't carry out a dead child and leave a living person behind in a fit of emotional rage.
In general, however, I believe that both mother and child can survive healthily. Still births and miscarriages are natural occurrences that have nothing to do with abortion.
For all the problems we hear daily, our health care system is of high quality, and danger to the mother is an abused and mostly irrelevant argument to the vast majority of abortions.

"It should be mandatory for all pro-lifers to witness the aftermath of a back-alley abortion."
Should I be for the legalization of heroine to prevent the spread of AIDS?

@PolishBear
We've been predicting population doom since 1798. . .
It's yet to happen. Although at some point, thermodynamics will take catch up.

You assertion that they have no right to want pro life laws, is a value judgment. Every law we have is at some point a value judgment. As a secular nation, these values have to have some secular reasoning, but they are still values. Our ideas that we have rights at all is a value judgment we've made as a people, and we also have the right to judge that the unborn are people if we can reason this via secular logic. I agree that we can't legislate general morality, secular or sacred, but we both agree that anarchy isn't the way to go. Therefore, we have to make some value judgment, and pro-life people have every much a right to fight for their judgment of whats best as you do.

Why is your value system acceptable to argue, and theirs is not?

You still didn't address the part about the religous pro-life side also being against sex education and contraceptives leading to more unwanted pregancies and abortions that a few of us have brought up. Not that I expected you to or anything...

You really don't care about women. If you did you'd understand that you're never going to convince every woman to have an unwanted child. It's just not going to happen. Women are not one entitity that you can tell what the "right" and "responsible" thing for them to do is. We are individuals with indivual lives, values and belief systems and circumstances. If a woman becomes pregnant and really does not want to keep it there really will be nothing that you can do to change her mind. Fact.

Also, the fact that you compared legal abortion to legal heroin addiction shows that you don't care about women. So instead of women being able to take out a few cells in their uterus and continue on with their lives and perhaps learn from their mistake you would rather they inflict harm and perhaps get themselves killed by having a backalley abortion or inducing one on themselves? Wow, what a humanitarian you are!

"You still didn't address the part about the religous pro-life side also being against sex education and contraceptives leading to more unwanted pregancies."
I really have a hard time believing people don't know about contraceptives. I went to a conservative Catholic high school that was pretty anti-contraceptive, but I'm also pretty sure everyone on my class is well aware of the contraceptives, and how to (theoretically, of coarse), use them.
Why do we need contraceptive education in school? You yourself have mentioned contraceptives failing.

How does the inability to convince people unanimously of something show a lack of respect? No one will ever convince everyone of anything. People should only have opinions if they feel that they could convince everyone?
You'll probably never convince everyone that abortion is okay. You'll probably never convince everyone that contraception is okay, and so maybe we shouldn't be pushing them in schools.

How is comparing two things that are dangerous disrespectful towards women? I would rather they not inflict great harm upon themselves and possibly get themselves killed. I'd rather there be a way for them to get help and give birth to a child that they could take care of or give to a loving family who would.
You're creating a series of false dichotomies, as if by being pro-life, I'm also pro-rape, pro woman killing, pro-back alley abortion.
I'm against abortion, and I'm also against rape and back alley abortions.
Explain why comparing back alley abortions to dirty needles is an unfair comparison.

"We are individuals with indivual lives, values and belief systems and circumstances"
Why do we have any laws? Do you believe that there is an absolute value system, or is it relative to what society decides? (ie, should we have womens rights because of some absolute value that we all have rights, or should we have womens rights because we've decided that women should have these rights we've decided they should have, as a people).

Again, please try to make a point without trying to vilify me and pro-life people. I haven't vilified anyone, and try to respect your opinion.

Perhaps you are right about one thing. Perhaps unborn fetuses are human. They have human DNA, they grow in the uteruses of human females. They are most likely 100% human.

But there are several reasons why the right to terminate and prevent pregnancies should be in the hands of every person who has a uterus and that person alone.

While the fetus has human DNA, our civil and legal system with their attendant rights are based on the idea of Personhood. And nowhere in that body of law from the Torah to the Code of Hammurabi to the Magna Carta is the idea of personhood being extended to anyone other than born, living humans.

In addition, even though the fetus does have human DNA and may have a human soul residing within, something that I accept may be true, that does not trump the rights of the female with the uterus to her bodily integrity. There is no true right to life unless the body you inhabit has the security of their personhood. NO PARTY SHOULD BE THE MERE INSTRUMENT OF ANOTHER.

For example, in 1978 Robert McFall, suffering from a rare bone marrow disease sought a court order to force his cousin David Shimp, the only compatible donor, to submit to a transplant. The court declined, explaining, "For our law to compel the defendant to submit to an intrusion of his body would change every concept and principle upon which our society is founded. To do so would defeat the sanctity of the individual and would impose a rule which would know no limits."

This is exactly the case with the right to terminate pregnancy.

The fact is, if you force a woman to give birth to a fetus that she does not want, you are giving that fetus more human rights than any other person on the planet. You could never force someone to undergo a surgery, or life threatening or at least dangerous surgery or procedure in order for someone else to live. In the end, it is simply extending the same equal rights to every living person on the planet.

"The fact is, if you force a woman to give birth to a fetus that she does not want, you are giving that fetus more human rights than any other person on the planet."

It is not exactly the case with the right to terminate a pregnancy.
Barring rape, the pregnant couple chose to have sex. They may have done so with contraceptives, or perhaps not. In doing so, they accept the risks, even if they've mitigated it with contraceptives, which include pregnancy. Denying that is an attempt to make a consequence free world. It just doesn't exist. It's not a moral judgment, it's not that they "deserve" a baby, or an STD, but it's just the risk that comes with it. I don't believe that it's a "right" to kill a person in order to live consequence free. It is also my right to believe that the person is a person from conception and to try and protect them. Its your right to believe it is not. In the end, only one can be true, but for now, we both have the legal right and moral obligation to stand up for what we believe is right. Perhaps one day we'll solve STDs and get rid of that consequence, but you can't just "solve" a pregnancy by aborting it.

That something is a legal right is not "cased closed" on the matter. The Dred Scott decision was wrong, and so was Roe v. Wade.

You live in some deluded fantasy world, man. My God.

Sex educucation is VERY important. If people, especially young people are taught how to properly protect themselves when they have sex the pregnancy rates AND abortion rates would decrease significantly. Yes, contraceptives fail but when you use them properly the chances are very slim. The amount of misinformation there is out there and the amount of people out there who still believe that you can't get pregnant your first time having sex and all those other urban myths is astounding. The only way to cure these sorts of problems is to educate people. Education and knowledge is always the key. And since sex does have so many consequences and often times people are more ruled by their hormones than common sense, they NEED to know how to protect themselves. The teen pregnancy rates in America have INCREASED since Abstinence Only Education was introducted in schools, just so you know.

@TheJeff

>> "Although the burning house metaphor is soooo overused"

One in 115 births is soooo overused, huh? And what do you want to do? Force 1% of women to carry a dead fetus and endanger their own health?

>> "Should I be for the legalization of heroine to prevent the spread of AIDS?"

Did we just talk about irrelevant arguments earlier? And what did you conclude in the end? Do I have to correct you again?

>> "I'm also pretty sure everyone on my class is well aware of the contraceptives"

You should already know that ignorance reigns everywhere education is banned.

>> "You yourself have mentioned contraceptives failing"

Condoms just have a 98~99% rate of success.

>> "You'll probably never convince everyone that contraception is okay, and so maybe we shouldn't be pushing them in schools."

You'll probably never convince everyone that vaccination is okay, and so maybe we shouldn't be pushing them in schools (sarcasm). Guys like you would have a fun time with small pox and polio.

>> "I'm against abortion, and I'm also against rape and back alley abortions."

Saying that you are against abortion automatically means that you are FOR unsafe abortions since an illegal abortion IS unsafe. Let me break the rest down for you:
a. The pregnancy rates in the US is 10% and, in 2003, 48% of abortions in the world were unsafe. WHO says the death rate is 0.37%.
b. Suppose abortions are illegal and suppose that a woman or a girl gets raped (1.3 women are raped every minute in the US), or a birth defect arise (3~4% of pregnancies). The person attempts to terminate the pregnancy (with a clothe hanger, household chemicals, beatings, you name it).
c. 155 million US women times 10% pregnancies times 48% unsafe abortions (since they are illegal) times 0.37% deaths = ~27,500 dead women per year in the US. And I did not estimate the number of women crippled.

Being pro-life is more or less equivalent of saying that you want 27,500 women to die each year in the US just to save the appearances of a society full of rainbows.

>> "Do you believe that there is an absolute value system, or is it relative to what society decides?"

There are NO absolute values.

@TheJeff

Wait, I forgot to multiply by the percentage of pregnant women that choose to terminate their pregnancy (19% in the US). So 27,500 times 19% = 5,200 dead women.

Still, you cannot make a point without a personal attack.
Again, I highly doubt any one from my abstinence promoting high school believes those myths you bring up. I have serious doubts that people who don't know anything about contraception in today's society, would be phased by a crash course in school.
Schools don't seem to teach much else very effectively anyways. So why shouldn't that be left up to parents?

Please explain my deluded fantasy world, or make a post without baseless personal attacks.

">> "Although the burning house metaphor is soooo overused"

One in 115 births is soooo overused, huh? And what do you want to do? Force 1% of women to carry a dead fetus and endanger their own health?"
I was referring to my own usage of the burning house metaphor.
Did you read what I wrote, or are you so ready to jump into a sarcastic attack that you failed to notice that I said you have to save who you can?

"Did we just talk about irrelevant arguments earlier? And what did you conclude in the end? Do I have to correct you again?"
I don't recall being corrected.

"You'll probably never convince everyone that vaccination is okay, and so maybe we shouldn't be pushing them in schools (sarcasm). Guys like you would have a fun time with small pox and polio."
Again, did you read what I wrote? My point was that you can't convince everybody, and therefore convincing everyone is not a condition for the right to an opinion.

"Saying that you are against abortion automatically means that you are FOR unsafe abortions since an illegal abortion IS unsafe."
No, it does not at all automatically mean that. You're creating a false dichotomy in order to vilify me. You act as if its the method of abortion I'm against. If I don't think people should go get a "safe, legal abortion" why in the world would that imply that I think it's okay for them to go get an unsafe one?
The "people do it anyways" argument doesn't hold for any other illegal action, why would it apply to abortion?

Your posts are condescending, sarcastic fluff that respond to things I didn't say, points I didn't make, are full of fallacies such as personal attacks, straw men, false dichotomies, appeals to emotion, etc.
Can you make a reasonable, and respectful post? Or is it just more fun to call people a liar for saying the bill says what it is?
You've demonstrated that you don't even read what I say.
I try to respect your opinion. Why can't you or most other comments here respect people who disagree with you? Why can't you articulate yourself in a rational or respectful manner? I don't even understand the purpose. Does it just make you feel better, or have entertainment value to talk tough to strangers on the internet? If you're actually interested in conversations with people, I think a more respectful tack would be in order. If you're just a troll, I guess it doesn't matter.
Next time, read what I write and make a rational response.

You idealize everything and refuse to look at the reality of the world. Even if you don't believe it, it is true that many people don't know enough about sex even though they should. That's the reality. And not having comprehensive sex education does nothing to help the problem. Mainly because a lot of parents are unwilling to talk to their kids about sex, as well. The schools are educational institutions and they need to step up their game. As do the parents. Until then, nothing will change. It has little to do with the legal system, and everything to do with how people view sex, especially women's sexuality. The reality is that people don't want to talk about it. And thus, unwanted pregnancies and abortions. The solution is not to make abortion illegal because that will solve absolutely NOTHING. We need more open dialogue about safe sex. The schools are an excellent place to start.

I think that pro-lifers above forget two things:

1) Children should never be thought of as "consequences" to teach someone a lesson, they should be loved and wanted. Forcing women to carry an unwanted fetus to term so that people face the consequences of their actions is, in my opinion, demeaning to those children.

2) If you were in a car accident and severely injured the other party, no law could make you donate an organ or use your body as life support. While such a situation might result in a involuntary manslaughter conviction, I can think of no one who would argue that you MUST donate your body to support someone else (even though you made the decision to get in the car, to drive recklessly, etc.). And after this point, it's a moral/religious issue as to whether a fetus is an equal person. However the law defines the separation between church and state, so those arguments about when human life/personhood begins have no place in courts. No pro-choicer forces abortion on a pro-lifer, so no pro-lifer should force his/her beliefs on another. After all, many of those who claim to be "for life" supported the Iraq war, where many sentient, innocent individuals were killed by our actions. And I've always found it confusing that people put a bunch of cells above smart, social creatures like whales and pigs just because those cells have human DNA. What is it about those nonspecific, unfeeling group of cells that deserves what other sentient creatures (human and non-human) do not?

And to continue:

I love my mother very much, and as such, I would completely understand if she had wanted to abort me. Granted, I wouldn't be alive to make these comments if she had, but then again I wouldn't care about having been aborted, either. I would sacrifice for my mother, and I would never want to force my existence on her. I think that women need to be informed to make the decision that is right for them and the potential person, because if they are not ready to be a mother/don't want to be a mother, then chances are they wouldn't provide the best environment for a fetus to grow in. Pregnancy is a responsibility, and women who aren't ready for it can do a lot of damage to that fetus long past its birth date. As someone dealing with a genetic disorder, I know that at some point, life isn't worth it, and a moral high ground is preserved for the simple fact that YOU need to be able to live with yourself.

I also agree with previous posters that people who are not female can't understand pregnancy. I am all for not judging people based on gender (since there are more differences within the sexes than between them), but this is not a character/personality judgment, but a biological one. Gender may not determine who you are as a person or your abilities or your intelligence, but it does prevent me from knowing what circumcision feels like, what it is like to have external genitalia, or how not being able to fully control your reproductive success (instead depending on a woman to provide the environment for the child), just as it prevents you from understanding menstruation, pregnancy, and birth. While I may have an opinion about circumcision, I do not believe that I should get a vote in the end, because I don't know what it is like. Getting a male perspective on reproduction and abortion is important, but in the end, I do not think men get a vote.

One thing I noticed in TheJeff's posts that I wasn't going to mention (but couldn't resist when I saw his "I'm not a 'grammar Nazi'" comment) was the fact that "coarse" and "course" are not the same words. "Coarse" is an adjective, not used in the "of course" phrase. And respecting your opinion does not mean challenging your viewpoint. Besides, the author compares abortion to the Holocaust, suggesting that anyone who is pro-choice is comparable to the Nazis. Does that not seem disrespectful to you?

In regards to sex education, most parents fail to completely inform their kids. According to a study with O/Seventeen magazines and Harris Interactive: "The big news from the survey is the huge disconnect between what mothers are saying and what daughters are hearing. The data shows not only that there's a glaring discrepancy between the two sides' perceptions of how often they've had The Talk (by which we mean talking about having sex or making the decision to have sex)but that the moms may be overestimating how well these chats are going. Only 22 percent of mothers think their daughters are uncomfortable talking to them about sex, while 61 percent of girls say that, in fact, they are. This awkwardness may explain why the actual number of 15- to 18-year-olds in our survey having oral sex (30 percent) is double the number mothers know about, or even suspect—and why 46 percent of girls that age who've had intercourse didn't tell their moms. More disturbing is the prevalence of risky behavior that girls are trying to hide: Seventy-eight percent of surveyed girls who are no longer virgins say they've had sex without using a condom, and 65 percent of them admit they lied about or hid it from their mothers. Most troubling, a sobering 56 percent of girls who are no longer virgins have had sex without any form of birth control: Sixty-six percent of these girls have kept that a secret from Mom. Even among the few girls who had an abortion, many didn't tell." Plus, most parents believe they have had THE TALK with their teens, but less than 35% of teens say their parents have talked with them about (safe) sex.

Sexuality and sex is an important social issue - your knowledge of sex and subsequent practice of sex affects more than just you, just as all children getting a basic education is beneficial to everyone in society. STDs, AIDS, teen pregnancy, etc. are issues that affect all of us, and are therefore as much public responsibility as drug use and prevention.

As to your comment about legalizing heroine, there are ways to prevent the spread of AIDS due to drug use beyond legalizing heroine, such as the highly successful needle exchange program in Washington, DC. The ways to prevent unsafe abortions are to provide cheap birth control options, sex(uality) education, support (financial/emotional/job training/babysitting) for new parents, and legal abortions. There is no alternative in this case - just as being for a war means being for killing/violence, being against abortion means supporting unsafe alternatives.

There is common ground here - both pro-choice and pro-life people should work to lower abortion rates through education and resources. If abortion is still an issue, then perhaps morality can play a role in the debate. Until then, people should be doing all they can to get rid of abortion without sacrificing women's rights or safety.

@TheJeff

>> "Did you read what I wrote, or are you so ready to jump into a sarcastic attack that you failed to notice that I said you have to save who you can?"

If you do not mean it, then do not write it. Trying to bury something completely wrong by making a concession is not going to fix things at all.

>> "I don't recall being corrected."

Well, please rewind and read the whole Crusades stuff again, as well as your answer.

>> "Again, did you read what I wrote? My point was that you can't convince everybody"

Yes, and that was including you when you said you cannot convince people, doesn't it?

>> "The "people do it anyways" argument doesn't hold for any other illegal action, why would it apply to abortion?"

Apparently you are not aware of what the situation looked like before Roe v. Wade. Plus you seem totally oblivious to the 20 million women who are having illegal abortions each year in the world. Awww, excuse me, that is a false dichotomy that aims to vilify you. Sorry.

>> "Or is it just more fun to call people a liar for saying the bill says what it is?"

You are right, it is fun. And the bill, that you apparently did not read until the end, is an attack on privacy disguised as an honorable cause. Can you tell what in collecting data and publishing them publicly is going to prevent gender based abortion? Calling the bill a gender based abortion ban is absolute hypocrisy.

>> "You've demonstrated that you don't even read what I say."

Which is why I clearly quote you.

>> "Why can't you or most other comments here respect people who disagree with you? Why can't you articulate yourself in a rational or respectful manner?"

Wait, somebody said something about personal attacks? Nah, never mind. So... we were talking about the column of someone calling pro-choice people a bunch of murderous nazis, right?

>> "If you're actually interested in conversations with people, I think a more respectful tack would be in order."

Just how long have you been on the Internet my friend? And I certainly have no respect for someone who defend people comparing me to nazis.

>> "If you're just a troll, I guess it doesn't matter."

Nah, if you want to see trolls just go on 4chan's /b/ board. You just volunteered to be the pro-life guy taking all the flak of the commentators. I am sure Jon is very grateful to you for doing that.

"Children should never be thought of as "consequences" to teach someone a lesson"
It's not a consequence to teach a moral lesson because they deserve a lesson, it's a consequence in the literal sense that it is a possible result of sex.

"so those arguments about when human life/personhood begins have no place in courts."
We didn't use to think that black people were persons protected by the Constitution either. The Constitution protects "persons" so defining what a "person" is has every place in the courts. Biblical arguments do not, but the debate itself is very worthy.

"but in the end, I do not think men get a vote."
I'm not a woman, but I am a person, so I do get a vote in an issue I see as human rights. This is a sad attempt to strip people of their right to an opinion. It's not that you're judging me, it's just that you think I should keep my mouth shut, right?
What is your response to pro-life women?

"There is no alternative in this case - just as being for a war means being for killing/violence, being against abortion means supporting unsafe alternatives."

You list the following alternatives: cheap (but hopefully not defective) birth control, sex education, financial support (which could include neonatal care),
then go on to say there's no alternative to a back alley abortion?
Why are the other things not viable alternatives? Sorry, but if I don't approve of legal abortions, I don't approve of illegal abortions. No one forces a woman to have an abortion, It is not a choice between "safe abortion and unsafe abortion." It's a choice between abortion or giving birth.

"And respecting your opinion does not mean challenging your viewpoint. "
I'm not asking to not be challenged.
But calling people "deluded," or stating repeatedly that I do not respect women are baseless statements. Calling the author an "ugly redneck a-hole," is not respectful. A cursory glance at Dio's posts reveals an almost trolling attitude as well. There is also a great difference between making a comparison you don't like, and personally attacking people you're talking to.

"Sorry, but if I don't approve of legal abortions, I don't approve of illegal abortions. No one forces a woman to have an abortion, It is not a choice between "safe abortion and unsafe abortion." It's a choice between abortion or giving birth."

You still don't get it. Many women don't WANT to give birth. Ever. I am one of them. I always use birth control when I have sex, HOWEVER, if it should fail me for whatever reason and I ended up pregnant I would get an abortion. It really wouldn't matter if it was legal or not, I would find a way to get rid of the thing in my body that I didn't want. I'm sorry if that bothers you. Go weep for the hypothetical unborn fetus if you want but it won't change anything.

In a perfect world, all the people who didn't want kids wouldn't get pregnant, but again this is not a perfect world. But the thing to do to try to bring down the abortion rates is not to make it illegal, it is to increase people's education and awareness about their bodies, sex and contraceptives. Abstinence only does not work, as it has been shown again and again. The teen pregancy rates keep getting higher and so do the abortion rates because people are not making smart, informed decisions due to NO ONE at home or in the schools sitting them down and really giving them a straightforward, in depth explaination of this stuff. You can't just pass a law and expect all of this to go away. You will be creating more problems, not only for those unborn fetuses but for women as well. Trust me on this.

"Calling the author an "ugly redneck a-hole," is not respectful."

Hey, I just call them like I see them. That picture's not doing you any favors.

"It's not a consequence to teach a moral lesson..."
Yes, sex can lead to pregnancy. Pregnancy does not just go away magically by itself. An abortion is also a consequence, in your argument. Most - almost all - woman do not "want" to get an abortion (so I use that term loosely) - she would rather just not be pregnant. Going through the physical and emotional event that is abortion is a consequence to sex, as well. If you think that the woman should have to continue carrying the fetus, then it becomes a different kind of lesson on consequences, one that puts children in the category of those "I told you so" moments. Especially if you believe that abortion is okay in cases of rape or incest.

"We didn't use to think that black people were persons..."
In this case, there was (and is) considerable biological (not emotional) evidence that black people and white people are not that different. To treat a sentient human like they are less than another based on minor physical traits is not biologically defensible. To compare an independent life form to one that is dependent on another to live is also not biologically sound. I would say again that most women just want to not be pregnant (for various reasons); the fact that the fetus no longer can live is an extremely unfortunate, terrible side effect of that. But while a fetus is alive (science supports this), the fact that it is dependent on another (i.e. not viable) means it is not the same as a civil rights for black people.

I guess I would concede that if there are legitimate arguments for viewing embryos as persons, then that has a place in court. I have yet to hear one. Another fun fact, though: the main arguments behind slavery were supported using the Bible. Seemingly logical, straight-forward, not-open-to-interpretation quotes, with plenty of pseudo-science to back it up.

"I'm not a woman, but I am a person, so I do get a vote in an issue I see as human rights..."
Actually, what I said was that I think it is important to discuss the issue with men and get a male's perspective because reproduction and children affect them, too. However, when it comes to judging morality, the closest thing men can use to compare (physically) is a tumor or a parasite, which fails to see the physical and emotional changes that happen to a woman's body when she is pregnant. I think that legally, men should not get a vote (just like women shouldn't be voting for or against male circumcision). With a pro-life woman, I would say all the arguments I have said, including the above, because currently, it is mostly men in government who are judging and deciding access to abortion. Men who call women who get abortions "Nazis" are allowed to state their opinion, but it is extremely disingenuous to argue that they understand the whole picture. You can try, but you can't.

"...Why are the other things not viable alternatives?..."
I also said that if a woman wants an abortion, she will get one. There is no alternative. There are ways to help prevent abortion, but to the actual act itself, there is no solution. A consequence of making abortion illegal is more back-alley abortions, so by supporting one you are also pushing for the other, even if you don't want to be.

"I'm not asking to not be challenged..."
However, you seem to be using their disrespect as a reason to further your own cause. And I'll repeat - that is what it SEEMS like you are doing. It may not be your intention. But this article started by calling pro-choicers Nazis, so a little anger in return is not surprising.