Last edited Sat Aug 5, 2017, 10:42 AM - Edit history (1)

John Kerry, Joe Biden, Tim Kaine come to mind.


These gentleman are are all practicing Roman Catholics. I think they have all said they personally agree with their church's position on where life begins but are pro-choice because they don't believe they have the right to impose their beliefs on others.

I am sure that is what a great number of pro-choice catholics think.

I attended a speech by him in 2000, in support of Vice-president Gore in his presidential effort, and he defended his position eloquently.

My feelings about abortion are the same as yours. But I'll be damned if I'll impose my feelings about it on anyone else, or if I'll support a politician who tries to.

that it's kind of insulting to distinguish yourself as being "personally" opposed to abortion?

Nobody *wants to have an abortion*. *Everyone* is "personally" opposed to abortion.

Framing the argument in that way is meaningless. Abortion is not something a woman celebrates or feels great about having; the most positive emotion abortion evokes is relief. It's a decision a woman comes to when abortion is the best option she has. And everyone--EVERYONE--has to respect women *as adults*, as people with brains and hearts, to be able to determine when abortion is the best option.

For you to qualify your opposition to abortion--your *personal* opposition--as permissible "in the narrowest of circumstances" presumes that you are a better judge than the woman concerned to evaluate her own situation. You--and all of us--are not in any position to determine where that line is, and we are in no position to judge the morality of that line.

I don't see the OP as looking down on women who decide that abortion is the route to take in their own circumstance. I agree with the OP that it's a personal choice and that she wouldn't choose that option. That being said, she would not deny the option of abortion to those who would take it, not that they do it without serious consideration and emotional stress.

The stance is pro-choice, not pro-abortion.

yet "under the right circumstances" support abortion rights? Do you believe that deciding to have an abortion is a happy thing? Do you believe that women who choose to have an abortion do so lightly, without tears and struggle? NO ONE IS PERSONALLY IN FAVOR OF ABORTION. This reminds me of the women who benefit from women's rights legislation but announce that they are not feminists.

No one, given reasonable alternatives, would choose to undergo an abortion. But when a woman chooses to have an abortion, we must respect her judgment *as an adult human being* that abortion is the best option available to her. Imposing conditions, as the OP did, is demeaning to women.

What's wrong with letting people know what they would do personally? I'm 68 years old, don't think it's an issue for me, but I have no problem with people saying what their personal choice would be. I don't think it's a pronouncement of judgment on those who choose to terminate their pregnancy. No one said that this is done with glee.

to say what our own personal choice would be? The only result I can see from that is an attempt to persuade a woman *not* to have an abortion, especially if you are a person the pregnant woman loves and respects.

Furthermore, you don't know what you would do if you were in a situation where you might need an abortion, you really don't. I'm older than you and fairly certain I won't need an abortion, but I do know, for example, of fetal abnormalities that might make abortion a good choice, like a baby without a brain who cannot survive outside the womb.

"What's wrong with letting people know what they would do personally?" No mention of being asked for counsel. And I'm not talking about people who, when asked, say "I'm personally opposed to abortion;" I'm talking about people, particularly politicians, who announce *every time* before they say they support abortion rights, "I'm personally opposed to abortion." No one asked them, and then only thing I see coming from that statement--well, the two things--are: I'm morally superior, and I don't think you should have an abortion, but if you must, I won't stop you.

A politician who is pro choice but personally opposed to abortion would be untrue to himself or herself if he or she didn't make it clear. They aren't saying whether abortion is right or wrong for others but whether it is right or wrong for themselves. That's a huge distinction.

is to show that pro-choice is not necessarily pro abortion, nor is it anti-abortion.
I thought that was clear. It's a very important point considering what the anti-choice
people are saying and trying to take away that right claiming that pro-choice is really
pro-abortion. It's neither.

Some people don't eat meat, and they don't go around forcing others to also not eat meat. But I will bet that if a vegan had a choice between starving and eating meat, they would eat meat.

I believe abortion is a woman's choice. Yes, that gets sticky if the woman chooses to give birth and tries to seek child support when the male didn't want the child. Yes, it gets sticky when the woman's family is against abortion and they disown her for getting an abortion. But the decision is hers and, while I may voice my opinion yes or no, I do not have the right to get up in her face about it. I can voice my "pro choice" opinion to a woman, but that's all I can do.

My personal views are similar to the Bible - the newborn is not human until it breathes on its own. (and God breathed life into Adam). A verse the antis find very inconvenient.

Since it's only the woman who can bear a baby, then it's only HER choice whether or not to bear it -- everybody else, BUTT OUT!

And I frequently respond to folks who erroneously believe that life begins at conception. What a load of rot! These are the same people who speak for their so-called "God", and conveniently forget that their "word of God" clearly states that life begins at first breath, and ends at last breath.

And...I wish everyone would re-name those "Pro-Life" folks "Anti-woman" instead. Those who speak the loudest (and who have pulled the trigger) are most often male. It's all about CONTROL, in my opinion.

"A good choice"?

IMO, it's up to the woman. Period.

The qualifications was to personally recommending an abortion.

Second, there are people on DU who do personally favor abortion and, for example, favor birth control as a means of birth control. They are likely few, but I have been in more than one DU conversation in which another poster has made precisely that point. That abortion is just another medical procedure - no big deal, no tears no struggle. E.g. See this post which - although not celebrating abortion - does suggest that the OPs views personally opposing abortion are idiotic: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9419586


Finally, there are posts on DU recently asserting political candidates who hold those views should not be elected because they are anti-abortion.

It is a valid point to make, in view of the current discussion.

claim all women feel one way or the other about their abortion.

"No one, given reasonable alternatives, would choose to undergo an abortion."

What do you mean by "reasonable alternatives"? Thank you.

women who choose abortion do so after lots of thought, trying to figure out what to do (the "struggle" part) and they do cry--not because of the abortion--they are grateful and relieved about that--but about the situation they are in. I should not have said *all* women do this. I don't know *all* women.

I was moved to say this by the soi-disant right-to-lifers who preach that women who have abortions do so without much thought or care. I have heard &quot insert despised minority) don't care if they get pregnant--they just go get another abortion."

A reasonable alternative would be anything a woman might choose to do--if she's having an abortion because she can't afford another child, a reasonable alternative might be a big whomping inheritance. How the hell do I know what a reasonable alternative might be for any given woman?

Again, this is in response to right-to-lifers who believe women should *simply* put a baby up for adoption, as if *that* were a reasonable alternative for all women.

My whole point in all of this is that attitudes toward abortion rights demonstrate more than a person's attitude toward abortion rights; it's about whether or not people accept that women are equal to men in making important decisions, and not just about their bodies.

Last edited Sat Aug 5, 2017, 05:39 PM - Edit history (1)

there is a huge range of reactions. As for the rest of what you write? I agree very much.

Helping to perform abortions, I was challenged in my beliefs several times and came to realize there is no one "right" way, that were are complicated beings and my fight was to keep the right to a safe, hygienic, affordable abortion legal.

I have always seen it as an argument off when human life begins. Does it begin in the womb or not?

If you don't believe it begins in the womb, then why all the hand wringing? It's a clump of cells.

If you do believe a zygote is a human being...

I'm talking about people who say they support abortion rights but believe they must qualify that support with announcing that they, personally, oppose abortion. These are usually politicians, but regular people do this, too. I don't understand why they do that. I can only guess that it's because they feel it's a morally superior position to take. I don't like it.

Which I don't follow. We are Democrats and we believe in science. It's not a baby so why all the fuss other than social perception. I can understand not enjoying a surgery, but I cannot understand all the emotional distress you ascribe to the procedure.

Why don't people say this about any other issue? Do we ever hear anyone say, for instance, "I'm personally opposed to same sex marriage. I myself would never marry someone of the same sex. But, I'm willing to allow people to marry their same sex partners in spite of my feelings about it."

This bullshit only ever comes up when abortion is the issue.

How many of the people who come to that conclusion are going about proclaiming to everyone that they are "personally opposed to same-sex marriage"?

you get it

because I'm not in a position to need one. What I object to and find insulting is that anyone--you, the OP, anyone--feels it proper to decide for someone else what the "narrowest circumstances" would be to allow a woman to have an abortion. Yes, OP says she is pro-choice, and good for her. I question, though, whether she--or you--understand that abortion rights are about something much bigger than abortions.

And "personally opposed to abortion" is something I'm just sick of hearing. Either you believe women are fully-functioning adults with a moral compass equal to your own or you don't.

But I'm not talking about morality here; I'm talking about respect for women as adults who can be trusted to make decisions about their own lives, whether it's abortion or applying for a job.

And I do believe that nobody *wants* to have an abortion. I do not believe, for example, that women intentionally become pregnant so they can abort. I do not believe, and my experience bears this out, that choosing an abortion is in and of itself a *happy* thing.

Perhaps I was not clear about moral compasses. Let me try it this way:

Either one believes women are fully-functioning adults with a moral compass equal to one's own or one doesn't.

There is a disctinction between supporting abortion rights and personall advising a woman to have an abortion.

The OP supported the former (without qualifying it as to when an abortion woudl be allowed). The qualification was on personally advising someone to have an abortion.

I will say that if a person truly believe a zygote is a human baby, it makes the moral argument more.complex.

I do "know " it assuredly doesn't begin when the sperm fertilizes the egg or at the actual moment of birth . It's somewhere in between . SCOTUS came up with a good arrangement where they balance the rights of the mother against the viability of the fetus.


I am pro choice. I can respect a person who is anti-abortion if their opposition is coming from a good place and that means all life is precious and the individual has dignity from the womb to the tomb. I can not respect a person who believes the state has the right to commandeer a woman to carry her pregnancy to term against her will but feels the state has no responsibility for the well being of that baby and mother.


We are all entitled to our own moral compasses. We are not entitled to our own laws.

Several women in particular here say they are not personally opposed to abortion and think its a great choice and that is their right.

That means it is my responsibility to know that if I am to have unprotected sex, I must choose a pro-life partner. My wife was also pro-life.

It does not mean I can impose my belief on others. I will fight to the end to protect a woman's right to choose. I do believe in the use of birth control pills. So when does a fertilized egg become human? There is both the unknown and unknowable. This may be unknowable.

Being pro-life means supporting any government aid for women with children, giving any personal aid I can to same, supporting any group that helps women with children. It takes a village to rear a child.

I'd join you enthusiastically in that last paragraph you just wrote.

Seems to me one cannot claim to be "pro-life" and at the same time deny human-caused climate change.

Seems to me one cannot claim to be "pro-life" and oppose reasonable regulations on what is now wanton and reckless access to guns of any and all kinds.

Seems to me one cannot claim to be "pro-life" if one is in favor of the death penalty.

Seems to me one cannot claim to be "pro-life" if one is against any and all efforts to SUPPORT that life once that baby is BORN. If one approves of canceling or otherwise doing away with programs that support the poor, single heads-of-household (usually women raising kids alone), public school lunch (and sometimes breakfast) programs, assistance programs and food stamp programs - that HELP PEOPLE CONTINUE TO SUSTAIN LIFE when they otherwise would not be able to afford even the basics of life support.

If one is going to insist he or she is "pro-life," then by Jove he or she needs to be full-on about it instead of just focusing on how to control a woman's body and therefore - HER freedom and HER life.

You can't be pro life unless you believe a poor child should have the same opportunities as a rich one.

That's it.

AND you can't be pro-war, either, and still say you're "pro-life." Because war is only about killing and wreckage and horror and death and more killing.

Respecting and protecting the right for each woman to choose, to me that means respecting whatever those personal choices are.

she ended up having an abortion. before that, her catholic mother tried to force her to have an abortion at 5 months along because she wasn't married.

i'm not saying this is true of you, but a lot of people say never about abortion until they personally find themselves in a situation they are not prepared for. If they are democrats they can simply support a woman's autonomy over her own body.

If I got a young woman pregnant I would have counseled the woman to have the baby, and raise it as a couple or as individuals, her or me. If she decided to terminate the pregnancy I would be sad and profoundly disappointed but it is not my body and consequently not my decision to make.

if you haven't been in the situation all you can do is speculate. my friend, still a good friend, drove me to the clinic and felt the need to let me know that if it was her, she would have the baby and give it up for adoption. Then later she had an abortion herself, twice.

The analogy that jumps to mind is when people tell me they would kill the woman who killed my child. Well you do not know what you'll do when your child is killed until it happens. i at least knew that before Bekah died. I would wonder whether I would simply fall down dead when given the news. It turned out I did not fall down dead. It turns out that even if I believe that killing her killer would constitute justice, it would put such a stain on my soul that I wouldn't get to be with Bekah when I die.

You assume so much but it really sounds to me that you have not been faced with the actual situation.

I'm an old hippie. almost all of my friends had abortions, some more than one. this was the 1970s before AIDS and herpes, and later, in the 1980s. Before state legislatures passing ridiculous and punishing bills to stop women from having abortions. Roe v Wade was the law of the land, and it still is.

I appreciate your willingness to concede that it is her body, her choice. My daughter's father said that immediately after i let him know i was pregnant. But when i decided to have her, he changed. he had people try to talk me into having an abortion. he asked me what i'd do if he said choose, me or the baby. Eventually he accepted my choice and she was one of the greatest joys and loves of his life, no 2 ways about it. My point is he didn't really know how he would react until he found himself in the situation. nobody does.

Life is a precious thing, and your mother had a wonderful son.

That's what the whole idea of CHOICE is about. Being pro-choice means you can absolutely choose NOT to have an abortion. That's why I call that side of it "anti-choice." The pro-choice movement allows for true choice. You can choose to have one or not to have one. No one's telling you what you can and can't do - in the privacy of your own life, your own body, AND the most intimate and personal parts of that body OF YOURS. The anti-choice movement offers NO choice at all. It only seeks to dictate - and dominate. NO flexibility. NO alternatives. NO relief or solutions to desperate situations and problems. NO options.

If the anti-choice movement was open and generous about supports for women to whom they give NO options, I'd sympathize. But they would dictate that a pregnancy goes, whether or not. A pregnancy goes whether you wanted one or you were raped into one. A pregnancy goes whether you're physically able to sustain it or your life is put in danger by it. More of the "IGMFU," "Sucks to be You" myopic, closed-minded, short-sighted, cold-hearted, and most often downright CRUEL policies of that side.

at the heart of it i think is respect: respect that women are human beings who have bodies that are theirs and theirs alone. we cannot be told what to do with our bodies. straight up, and that is the democratic position, and i fully support it and expect my democratic candidates to do so as well.

ultimately I miscarried, but I did not (and would not have) chosen abortion. In addition I had the month following being raped to consider it under different circumstances - and still would not have had an abortion. I have also had the opportunity to talk with my daughter in similar circumstances when she had not had her period for about 2 months after having her last sexual activity - urging her to take a pregnancy test to find out one way or the other, for the epress purpose of being able to make a choice, while the process of abortion was still physically easy.

Other women would make different choices - and while I fully support education about reproduction, wide availability of access to means of preventing bearing children ahead of engaging in sex, the choices a woman makes when she finds herself pregnant are just that, her choices. Not mine.

but did.

That doesn't mean anything more than that. It doesn't tell us anything about DSB or anyone else who is both pro-life and pro-choice.

It shouldn't matter to you if someone is pro-life in their personal beliefs, AS LONG as they are pro-choice in their political belief.

so what? i could have sworn we were talking about democrats who are anti-abortion.

i stand by my assertion that people don't know how they will react until tested. this is true for many high stress situations. anyhow. peace

I personally would not choose abortion but I fully support a woman's right to make her own choice. That right should never be taken away.

If a woman wants one she will always be able to get one. The only thing the state can do is raise the probability it won't be safe.

I can't understand the closing of Planned Parenthood facilities that guide women through difficult times. They also provide birth control education which is very important. I realize some are even against birth control but just the use of condoms can prevent pregnancy and STD's.

And if they change the Constitution to define birth as beginning at conception which will never happen women of means will go to Canada or Mexico.

This will just an impose a burden on women without means.


I don't think the anti-choice people thought this through very well.

the way the Supreme Court is heading with Trump appointees it will eventually overturn RoevWade? I'm afraid that's where it's heading. It would be a real travesty to women's rights.

Exactly. Look what happened in Texas, after they choked the life out of women's health clinics. Maternal death rates DOUBLED.


https://www.texasobserver.org/texas-maternal-mortality-rate-tops-developed-country-lawmakers/

(snip)

Advocates point to major family planning cuts in 2011 as one possible factor in the rise in maternal deaths, by severely reducing access to preventive screenings and other women’s health services. The closure of many Planned Parenthood clinic has forced women to drive hours to the nearest provider, said King Hillier, vice president of public policy and government relations at the Harris County Hospital District. Hillier was one of the first to notice anecdotally a large number maternal deaths in Houston; he worries the problem will only worsen if the Legislature does not deal with the issue of access.

“The key is prevention, prevention, prevention. We can either put money up on the front end or more expensively on back end,” Hillier said. “Medicaid expansion or granting postpartum women longer eligibility for Medicaid coverage would go a long way to address this issue.”

Sheesh - if you just google "maternal deaths increased in Texas" you'll get a staggering horror in the list of titles alone. Every one of them states that the Texas maternal death rate is the worst in the nation - AND ALSO in the entire developed or industrialized WORLD.

that it could happen in this country is unbelievable. We seem to be going backward in this country instead of moving forward. Shutting down vital facilities such as Planned Parenthood defies logic.

Between their personal beliefs and the application of those beliefs on fellow Americans not similarly disposed.

To fully comprehend would require an understanding of the Constitution and an ability to subjugate one's opinion to the freedoms afforded to all of us.

Why do so many Christians claim to be persecuted in America, when they have unfettered freedom to practice their religion? It's because there are so many who DO NOT submit to those beliefs and practices. They want to impose their will and their beliefs on everyone.

They don't get it. And THAT'S the problem.

I don't get to impose my sense of right and wrong on you and you don't get to impose your sense of right and wrong on me. We decide as a group by carefully weighing the rights of the individual against the rights of the group.

I am also against the death penalty, war, mistreatment of other humans and all that. It is, however a fine and moving line that we draw saying that abortion is not the same thing.

We get past this by saying a fetus is not a human, which seems rational. But we really aren't sure. A fetus is certainly a potential human, so where does that fit in with the schedule of rights we have evolved?

We are setting the agreed upon rights of a real human woman and her body against the presumed rights of a potential human-- there is no easy ethical answer. (Feel free to disagree)

One easy, but probably false, answer is that the fetus is a human-- Catholics go so far as to say a soul is created at conception. This is scientifically ridiculous, but it is a belief, so we have to deal with it somehow, and just denying it doesn't seem to work. We have to remember that as misguided as they may be, the "pro-life" types are passionate believers in their cause. (Yes, if only they were that passionate about living humans...)

And then there is the belief that a woman has absolute control over her own body. Largely true, but aside from pointing out the cases where none of us have complete control of our bodies, a fetus is not simply a polyp to be removed.

I could go on, but what's the point... Abortion has become a religious issue, and Americans are not supposed to incorporate religious doctrine into law. Worse is a bunch of male Senators whose experience with pregnancy is praying for their wives in another room declaring abortion sinful and therefore illegal.

I don't see how those are good analogies. Wouldn't you jump at the chance to outlaw those things, except perhaps for war in very limited circumstances?

the death penalty is for guilty people while abortions kill the innocent. They also defend war as national defense.

I am merely making the point that whichever side you are on, it is difficult coming up with neutral ethical reasons. Each side, of course, claims it is easy because, well, they are right.

Although I am opposed except in cases that impact the life of the mother, I am fully on board with a woman's choice to make that decision for herself. I am against any government control by law over anyone's body, for any reason.

It's a privacy issue.

Well said. in my opinion, it is all about power and control over women. It is oppression. Otherwise, the RW would not be against full coverage of birth control, which would reduce abortions.

Correct.

In fact, the right to privacy is more than prohibiting the state from compelling a woman to give birth against her will, it safeguards a comprehensive right prohibiting government from interfering in matters both personal and private, beyond the purview of the state.

The right to privacy allows every citizen to make personal decisions in accordance with his own good conscience and good faith – including deciding not to terminate a pregnancy.

To oppose the right to privacy is to oppose the most fundamental liberty guaranteed by the Constitution: that of self-determination.

I am 71, had my first child when I was sixteen. Four more followed. That was my decision. If I would have had an abortion, it would've been my decision. I would never, never take that away from anyone, just like I would've never wanted anyone to take that away from me.

Unless you are running for public office to hold the power to create and remove laws, your personally held beliefs are not an issue.

They are an issue once you are running for public office.

It says little of a person's convictions, their closely held values, if you do not act in their defense.

Once you are in office, those values take on a very different color, you are empowered to act on them.

Doesn't mean you would vote to overthrow Roe v Wade but you may be persuaded to compromise, you as a politician, get something "X" and in return vote with others of like mind to restrict access to reproductive healthcare options for minors or cut funding to PP just a little. Nothing earthshaking on it own maybe but just one more cut in the "death by a thousand cuts" to women's rights.

That is why it matters.

Be in women's rights, LGBT rights or immigration or the imbalance of our justice system toward people of color.

Power.

The power to act on those beliefs, for good or bad, changes everything.

If you believe the Democratic Party should never support a pro-life office holder or candidate, which of the pro-life Democrats WHO ARE ALREADY in office will you work to remove?

The philosophical argument is thorny enough. I won't touch the political argument other than to say Democratic voters get to choose their candidates during the primary process and it is up to each individual to apply his or her litmus tests to the candidate.

"I understand that you want to run for legislative office as a Democrat. Is that so?"
"Yes."

"What is your position on abortion?"
"I am pro-choice. Personally, I would not choose abortion."

"Would your personal position on abortion compel you to legislate against it?"
"Absolutely not! I am pro-choice."

"Thank you."

Am I missing something here? It seems pretty clear to me.

"I understand that you want to run for legislative office as a Democrat. Is that so?"
"Yes."

"What is your position on abortion?"
"I am pro-choice."

"What is your personal position on abortion"
"I just said, I'm pro-choice. I support the Democratic platform."

"Thank you."

The whole "personally opposed to abortion" thing is a political ploy that throws women under the bus.

been unable to post on DU for a long time and excited to be back.

Looking at all the opinions in this discussion, and other opinions out in the world, I have a few comments to add:

I am pro-choice. My personal moral position on the subject of abortion no one's business but mine. I will comment that I am over 70 and grew up in the world of pre-Roe v Wade and the many horror stories of unlawful abortion world prior to that. For people my age, there is little dispute of the legal issue. It is my life, it is my body, it is my RIGHT to make this decision for myself.

Consistently those who claim to be pro-life are opposed to abortion either completely or based on certain rigid conditions they have adapted. Only they don't stop here. We allow "pro-life" and leave it at that. Those same proponents insist for the most part on calling those who are pro-choice as "anti-abortion". Failing to give us the respect of our own philosophy and what it means to us, not to them.

I am politically fine with Democrats holding whatever opinion they choose and still become candidates for office in the Democratic party. It is our choice to support them, or not to support them. We can go back to being a "BIG TENT" and we should. What is unacceptable to me is the rigid propoganda of the debate about what terms are acceptable. If someone tells me they are pro-life, I KINDLY ask them some questions about what that means to them, not condemn them and reject them. I often find we are both pro-choice, but we wouldn't have known that if i had not demonstrated some open-mindedness to finding out.

outlawing or limiting the woman's right to choose is the only thing we should, in my opinion, bring to the political table.

& leave their personal feelings out of it. When they claim they are pro-choice, but add that they are personally opposed to abortion, that is a judgment statement. "I think it's bad & I wouldn't do it, but I won't tell you not to do it." Fuck that shit. And particularly when that sentiment comes from a man. Just can it. We don't want to hear it.

I am pro-abortion. If a woman wants one, she should be able to get one. Easily! Cheaply. No traveling across the state or state lines to find a clinic. No ultra-sounds to show them a clump of cells. No false education to try to influence them. No judgment calls about the procedure or the woman or the doctor. No more shaming.

I think throwing reproductive rights out as a litmus test is a bad move. It sends the message that it isn't really a core value of the democratic party & I worry it will encourage more anti-choice candidates. I'm sixty & this will always be a deal breaker issue for me & based on the many threads over the past few days, I'm not the only one. The quickest way to lose women's support is to put our reproductive rights on the bargaining table.

Here's a really good twitter response to this issue: https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029400358

Has anyone noticed the GOP'S obsession with everyone's genitals? Where Americans go to the bathroom, whom they have sex with, what type of birth control they use--they never run out of ways to interfere with American's private, personal, and very normal behavior. There's something decidedly creepy about it all.

Of course there are always lines. We don't live by ourselves on an island. However those lines are drawn collectively with an emphasis on the sovereignty of the individual.

Should be pro all life. But when it comes to the life of a woman and the life of a fetus that cannot survive without the woman we must chose the life of the woman. And it is the womans life and nobody elses so what happens between a woman and her doctor should be there.

But humanity must learn respect for all life and respect for self. Repugs who are "prolife" are also prowar and prodeath penalty and that is hypocrisy. All life is important not just life in the womb. And war kills way more than abortion maybe we should focus more on ending war and leave women and their personal decisions alone.

Many women, especially, say they could never abort (especially when they've got a sprog or two at the cute stage), but realize they are simply not qualified to make the choice for any other woman and resent the intrusion of church dogma into US civil law.

I've got quite a few friends like that. Of course, once those cute little kids turn into teenagers and Mom's on her own career path, she changes her mind about possibly aborting a change of life pregnancy. That happens, too.