Erica at times I think you're a blow hole but other times I love you, right now I love you!!

Great piece!!!

Dear It's a Child.....
Actually, women DO have the right to control thier own reproduction. As of the early 1970s. Thanks to the Supreme Court of the United States, who know a lot more about privacy rights than you do.

Back in 1970, my mom had a good friend who had four children, from 1 to 8 years old, when her husband left her for someone else. She was pregnant when he left. She worked as a bartender, with my mom, making good money and supporting her children. Another child would have ruined all of thier lives, and she had to protect her existing children. Abortion was not legal at the time and she died in an unsafe, back alley abortion, which was what she could afford. Her four children were raised in foster care and thier lives and futures were ruined, without their mother. The heart-rending decisions that others sometimes have to make are not your decision for good reason, because you cannot possibly know what they are going through, and the choices they are having to make.
Pro-Child, Pro-Choice

@2:

Committing a symbolic act of violence against a lawfully abiding civilian (i.e., not a uniformed member of the military in a warzone) with the intention of intimidating other civilians (say, abortion providers and seekers) is a pretty good definition of the word "terrorist".

Of course, you present your argument in entirely loaded terms by suggesting that Tiller was motivated purely by money (with some malicious blood lust thrown in for good measure) and then blaming the victim: saying that he "[knew] someone might come after him" is tantamount to saying he was asking to be killed, and that he had no right to practice his perfectly legal profession without fear of bodily harm. The argument only works if you presume that Tiller was an indiscriminate baby killer, which most people don't believe to be true.

By the way, I actually think that it's quite perceptive to say that Tiller was killed because "some nutjob is mad his radical cell hasn't conquered the world yet." Still think the shooter wasn't a terrorist? (I'd argue that this semantic point is obviously true even if you agree with the fundamental morality of vigilante justice against abortion providers.)

There are lots of hard, ugly questions surrounding the practice (and prohibition) of abortions, but people like you clearly prefer to pretend there are no ambiguities; you do not to have to confront the grey areas of reproduction, so it is your privilege to perch on a pedestal and moralize to everyone else, meanwhile distorting the views of people who disagree with you.

According to Merriam Webster, terrorism is:

"The systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion."

According to this definition, the anti-abortion movement has not yet risen to the level of terrorist. They'd have to threaten the lives of many more doctors before they get to that lofty goal But they're damned close. Dehumanizing abortion doctors as they do is the stepping stone between a political movement and violent radicalism.

And only five months into this pro-choice president's term. It's only going to escalate.

Man with Hat: Read a fucking article on the subject and you'd know know that Christians have been killing and intimidating doctors ever since Roe v. Wade.

Man With Hat: Read up on the subject and you'd know that Christians have been killing and systematically intimidating abortion docs for three decades.

You guys always use that back alley BS to cover up your lies. Abortion must be recriminalized, and as far as I'm concerned, women who have them should do time.

My great-grandmother died from a back alley abortion. I never got to know her. Let's be fair; women are going to get abortions anyway. Why not make them safe, clean and legal?

If you don't want abortion legalized because of your religion, remember that the First Amendment guarantees both freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion.

If it's some other source of your ethics that wants to keep abortion illegal, think of all the other things that people do that I'm sure you don't approve of, but are still legal. Morals, ethics and religion are weak arguments against abortion.

Oh, and @ "It's a Child...", I'm sure the reason women are objectified is Roe v. Wade. There was no way that objectification of women was happening before abortion was decriminalized. It certainly wasn't happening in Western culture for thousands of years before that.

Um: I support the cause of the protesters pictured as much as any one, but the sign proclaiming "defend the clinics defend abortion" that also has "www.socialism.org" is doing more harm than good. Way to try to alienate much of your potential support, and further deepen the political rift in what should be a completely personal issue.

i guess the old addage applies as it always does: before you hate, take a good look at yourself.

it's sad that there are unwanted pregnancies in the first place. however, as a pro-choice individual that has 19 years of sex education under my belt, i'd say pro-lifers can go to their hell for their acts of vigilante-ignoramus. and for the hate for pro-choicers that jesus tells them not to have in their hearts. and the hypocrisy that they demonstrate in their organized, conditional "religion". i am led to believe that they are not interested in helping the problem. they just want other people to change and do things their way. i do believe that if more women were educated about their bodies and sexuality like me--abortions would not become a last resort for so many.
i definetly don't agree with abortion as a form of birth-control. that's what sex-education is for!!
there may not be any negotiating with "terrorists", but there is enough information out there to give pro-lifers less to protest. remember, they are messengers for god, and god is never wrong!!

oh, and isn't that something, that pro-lifers should TAKE the life of dr. tiller. i guess being pro-life is just for the unborn. dumb-ass hypocrites. just sayin.

The murderer had at least one phone number for Operation Rescue on the dashboard of his car. I have little doubt that these anti-choice (I will not disrespect life by referring to these backwards assholes as pro-life, and encourage others to do the same) at the very least are turning a blind eye to any knowledge they have of their most extreme members plans. This is all a part of Christian fundamentalists desire to turn this country into a theocracy.

On a similar note, enjoy these clips of anti choice activist Randall terry's appearance on last nights Randi Rhodes show. He's a real loony.

http://nlsngrc.blogspot.com/2009/06/rand…

As a Christian, my position is consistently pro-life. That means I don't want to see babies aborted, abortion doctors killed, anyone killed during a war, anyone killed via the death penalty, anyone killed period. Humans should not take the life of another human, whether in or out of the womb. That is my position, but I only control what I can do and can only act on my position. I can also hope that every other human will do the same. I understand that others have a different position and will make different decisions than I would.

In the context of the abortion argument, I would technically be pro-life based on my above comments. I like to call myself pro-choice however, as legally/legislatively I don't have a problem with women being able to choose, I just want them to choose in the way that I consider right. I understand that others have a different position and will make different decisions than I would.

For these reasons I don't find that the terms "pro-life" or "pro-choice" represent my viewpoint very accurately because they have become so loaded with stereotypes on both sides. Am I both? I guess so...go ahead and choose, please choose life.

An interesting thing in the debate over terms like "pro-life" and "pro-choice" is that there is no third option (because it would be ridiculous). There is no "pro-death" position. Pro-choicers are often interpreted as pro-deathers by pro-lifers, but the pro-choice position is about having the right to CHOOSE between life or death, not a position of choosing/advocating/celebrating death all the time as is often the accusation. It is most likely (and statistically speaking) a decision that life is chosen most often by pro-choicers...they just want to choose for themselves.

As an aside, I do not like religious arguments for or against anything (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) that is a legal issue. Please make legal arguments. Roe v. Wade should be upheld or overturned based on legal arguments.

Nice post, "Try this on for size".

@16. thanks for admitting that you are a christian. i see that you too uphold the conditional argument that goes with organized religion.
"I like to call myself pro-choice however, as legally/legislatively I don't have a problem with women being able to choose, I just want them to choose in the way that I consider right."

again choice is not to be under speculation of anyone besides the person that is making that choice.
'i don't have a problem with you living, just do it the way i think it is right'--does that seem fascist to any one else?

#19 Re-read my post. Not forcing my viewpoint on anyone legislatively or otherwise. I am allowed to have a preference for everyone to behave in a certain way, balanced by a realistic understanding that they obviously won't. I can only control my own actions and have no interest controlling anyone else's.

When you say "again choice is not to be under speculation of anyone besides the person that is making that choice", I think you are wrong. You get to coose no matter what anyone thinks. Your choice is not related or dependent on anyone's opinion. If you want to live in a world where noone will have an opinion on any of your choices, you will be disappointed. We live in an extremely complex world with millions of different viewpoints.

You inferred that I was saying "'i don't have a problem with you living, just do it the way i think it is right'--does that seem fascist to any one else?"

That isn't what I was saying (and I certainly said nothing fascist...it is those type of comments that hurt open and frienly discussion). A more accurate way to paraphrase what I was saying is "I don't have a problem with you living how you want, do it how you think is right and I will do the same, even if we disagree on what is right." Again, not fascist, reasonable and respectful of any and all.

#20 Not sure I can relate much to valuing a steak more than a fetus. Which would you rather eat? Isn't the anti-aborion putting it's energies on a human that is alive, albeit dependent on the mother, but absolutely alive?

I value a steak more than a fetus, steaks are tasty.

It's a child, not a choice! Even when that child has NO BRAIN and couldn't possibly survive outside the mother's body, you still shouldn't abort! Because, um... God and stuff!

Dear Ms. Barnett,
If there can be no "common ground" between the majority of those who oppose abortion (pro-life) and the majority of those who support abortion (pro-choice) for several reasons, let's consider a few reasons why the pro-choice movement is institutionally inimical to finding "common ground":

1. The pro-choice movement won this right by judicial fiat. After 1973, those who support abortion never really had to find common ground to convince their fellow citizens to grant the right to abortion through the legislature (Federal or state). Legislative efforts have been focused on keeping abortion legal and beating back any restrictions, but never on convincing anyone why abortion should be legal in the first place. (Compare this with marriage equality - legislatively-achieved marriage rights are far more palatable to the people than judicially-derived marriage rights.)

2. Most of the pro-choice movement bases its arguments on faulty science instead of on valid philosophical grounds. The fetus *is* human - human DNA, human blood type, human organs, human development. Instead of trying to find common ground by admitting the validity of the science and then arguing to permit abortion anyway as a necessity or free choice or the lesser of bad options, the pro-choice movement has worked very hard to devalue human life by characterizing the developing fetus as just a "blob" or a "parasite" or a "collection of cells" with no intrinsic value or dignity.

3. In despite of Roe v. Wade, many pro-choice activists oppose any legal restrictions, as on third trimester abortions. When the Supreme Court "found" the right to abortion in the "penumbras" of the Constitution, it envisioned that while a woman's right took precedence in the early stages of pregnancy, the state had a compelling interest in later stages of fetal development. Instead of seeking common ground to restrict late-term abortions and shoring up early-term abortions, the pro-choice movement denounced any limitation (parental notification, waiting periods, or late-term restrictions) as an undue burden that created a "slippery slope".

4. Much of the pro-choice movement demonizes the pro-life movement at every opportunity. Labeling the entire pro-life movement as "anti-choice" or "zealots" or “murderers” or “terrorists” may make good copy on a fundraising flyer or blog headline, but willfully discounts the strong moral opposition abortion engenders in the many of the devout. Instead of finding common ground with the majority of pro-life people (who incidentally don't attend protests and would never advocate murder of anyone), the pro-choice movement has found it more convenient to avoid real dialogue for nearly four decades.

None of this discounts the often-serious deficiencies on the pro-life side of the equation - some are only opposed to abortion, some support the death penalty, some create a side-show spectacle, and some are just as eager to avoid common ground as an ardent NARAL activist. Some, a few, even act outside the bounds of the law, and the law must punish them accordingly. Whatever else Dr. Tiller was, he was acting within the bounds of his conscience and of the law – his murderer may have been acting according to the dictates of his conscience, but his malformed conscience led him to murder another person – illegal and hardly pro-life. Cardinal O’Connor once stated that should any who oppose abortion in the name of Christianity feel compelled to commit murder, they should start with the cardinal himself.

Now let’s consider what common ground between the majority of pro-choicers and majority of pro-lifers might look like.

How about: Better pre-natal/neo-natal health care for those in need? Recognizing the state's valid interest the longer the fetus develops, and implementing third-trimester restrictions, while demanding stronger first-trimester protections? Strengthened adoption services and reform of the foster system, with a goal of ensuring a loving home for every child?
Stronger paid leave for adoptive parents? Enhanced head-start programs? Institute full-day school programs, rather than ending the school day three hours before mom's or dad's own work-day ends? How about greater sex-education programs, to impart the biology of sex? Or sex-ed, partnered with local churches, so that sex ed also imparts respect and morality? And too, insisting on using each side's preferred self-reference - pro-life and pro-choice? And also, trying to understand the other side's point of view?

Both sides can disagree over the fundamental issue - abortion - but work together towards many common goals which would reduce the incidence of abortion and perhaps restore some of the dignity lost over the past four decades.

Peace, Matthew16

Dear Ms. Barnett,
If there can be no "common ground" between the majority of those who oppose abortion (pro-life) and the majority of those who support abortion (pro-choice) for several reasons, let's consider a few reasons why the pro-choice movement is institutionally inimical to finding "common ground":

1. The pro-choice movement won this right by judicial fiat. After 1973, those who support abortion never really had to find common ground to convince their fellow citizens to grant the right to abortion through the legislature (Federal or state). Legislative efforts have been focused on keeping abortion legal and beating back any restrictions, but never on convincing anyone why abortion should be legal in the first place. (Compare this with marriage equality - legislatively-achieved marriage rights are far more palatable to the people than judicially-derived marriage rights.)

2. Most of the pro-choice movement bases its arguments on faulty science instead of on valid philosophical grounds. The fetus *is* human - human DNA, human blood type, human organs, human development. Instead of trying to find common ground by admitting the validity of the science and then arguing to permit abortion anyway as a necessity or free choice or the lesser of bad options, the pro-choice movement has worked very hard to devalue human life by characterizing the developing fetus as just a "blob" or a "parasite" or a "collection of cells" with no intrinsic value or dignity.

3. In despite of Roe v. Wade, many pro-choice activists oppose any legal restrictions, as on third trimester abortions. When the Supreme Court "found" the right to abortion in the "penumbras" of the Constitution, it envisioned that while a woman's right took precedence in the early stages of pregnancy, the state had a compelling interest in later stages of fetal development. Instead of seeking common ground to restrict late-term abortions and shoring up early-term abortions, the pro-choice movement denounced any limitation (parental notification, waiting periods, or late-term restrictions) as an undue burden that created a "slippery slope".

4. Much of the pro-choice movement demonizes the pro-life movement at every opportunity. Labeling the entire pro-life movement as "anti-choice" or "zealots" or “murderers” or “terrorists” may make good copy on a fundraising flyer or blog headline, but willfully discounts the strong moral opposition abortion engenders in the many of the devout. Instead of finding common ground with the majority of pro-life people (who incidentally don't attend protests and would never advocate murder of anyone), the pro-choice movement has found it more convenient to avoid real dialogue for nearly four decades.

None of this discounts the often-serious deficiencies on the pro-life side of the equation - some are only opposed to abortion, some support the death penalty, some create a side-show spectacle, and some are just as eager to avoid common ground as an ardent NARAL activist. Some, a few, even act outside the bounds of the law, and the law must punish them accordingly. Whatever else Dr. Tiller was, he was acting within the bounds of his conscience and of the law – his murderer may have been acting according to the dictates of his conscience, but his malformed conscience led him to murder another person – illegal and hardly pro-life. Cardinal O’Connor once stated that should any who oppose abortion in the name of Christianity feel compelled to commit murder, they should start with the cardinal himself.

Now let’s consider what common ground between the majority of pro-choicers and majority of pro-lifers might look like.

How about: Better pre-natal/neo-natal health care for those in need? Recognizing the state's valid interest the longer the fetus develops, and implementing third-trimester restrictions, while demanding stronger first-trimester protections? Strengthened adoption services and reform of the foster system, with a goal of ensuring a loving home for every child?
Stronger paid leave for adoptive parents? Enhanced head-start programs? Institute full-day school programs, rather than ending the school day three hours before mom's or dad's own work-day ends? How about greater sex-education programs, to impart the biology of sex? Or sex-ed, partnered with local churches, so that sex ed also imparts respect and morality? And too, insisting on using each side's preferred self-reference - pro-life and pro-choice? And also, trying to understand the other side's point of view?

Both sides can disagree over the fundamental issue - abortion - but work together towards many common goals which would reduce the incidence of abortion and perhaps restore some of the dignity lost over the past four decades.

Peace, Matthew16

We should all remember that abortion rates were going down until shortly after bush took offisce and started putting restrictions on. Better sex ed and access to birth control reduces unwanted pregnancies, which in turn reduces abortion. If you really don't like abortion support these things and leave the rest of us alone.

Abortion is an ugly terrible choice. But I still stand by the simple philosophy of old bumper stickers: Every child born should be a wanted child.

Children need parents, and parents that want to be parents. Forget the child=zygot and choice-vs.-life arguments for a second: citizens should not be forced by their government to become parents. That's highly unamerican, wouldn't we all agree? Parents that already have several kids (the last few months of tabloid covers have several examples) should not be forced to have yet more children... risking putting that entire family, entire generations, into poverty (which comes with crime, health issues, and morality problems of its own) and straining state and charities. Single moms forced to raise mentally-warped rapist's offspring? Jobless teens pushed into parenting while partying with drink and drugs? No. There's no reason or love in that.

Yes, adoption is an option, but even if you give an unwanted child up to an adoption agency or orphanage, you still indeed have become a biological parent. My government telling me when I must become a parent? Controlling the breeding of our people? That's the thing of nightmares and communist regimes.

Parents should teach morality, their faith should inform them, and we should all make nice, humanistic and sympathetic choices. Our common ground is: NO ONE WANTS THERE TO BE A RELATIVE INCREASE IN ABORTIONS. But no law should force it because none of us wants law to REPLACE morals .
Anti-choice chirsitians: who do you want to teach your values? A systemized hive of secular bureaucrats in a capitol city somewhere, ruled by the whim of an initiative vote,... or your own family at the dining room table interpreting your holy book correctly, passing heartfelt wisdom from generation to generation regardless of changing laws and political leaders? Think about it.

And those unwanted children given up to orphanages? What life will they likely live? Foster homes, risking abuse, losing consistant love until someday, maybe, just the right person adopts them? What loss do we force on them? What costs and responsibilities do we add to an already inflated, inefficient government?
What lesson do we teach (children learn what they live) when we tell them they were abandoned by their parents but that's ok? That the law should support, nay, force it as the only option, the only result of unwanted pregnancy?
Or... they can learn the lesson that parenting should be taken damn seriously, and that loving families are valued highly, that sex is only for people ready to make serious decisions, and that they are wanted & loved.

I much rather would choose to allow abortion and risk judgement than 'play god' murdering doctors, and force unwanted children into life - adding pain and suffering to the world. My role is, and every Christian's role should be, to bring love to the world, to enlighten, to exemplify good. I have faith that Happy parents and Wanted children are the better recipe for success, are more clearly an example of good.

I'm surprised how many anti-choice folk visit thestranger.com: To you I say:
Abortion is not desirable: We should work to make sure all the alternatives are presented accurately and to all. It's more personal, and takes one-on-one work to get the same moral message across to people's hearts rather than to lawbooks (it's also easier to ignore laws and codes than one's heart). It's harder work than relying on the government to take care of nationwide morality for you - but it's the right choice. It's the good work: no one promised it was easy. Get to it. Ignore the distractions of Roe V Wade and abortion clinics, of symbology and 'battles'.
Your mission is never to preach to buildings, or courts, or systems - it's to preach to people.

(I'll yield the soapbox when I'm good and ready)

Yes, I think abortion of a non-viable fetus should be a legal right, and counterintuitively, I think no one should have to ever use that right. Much like I think that killing someone else in self-defense should be legal, but should be something no one ever has to do.

Viable fetus, say 32 weeks or later? You might get my sympathy but not my vote. But before viability, the baby-to-be isn't a live person yet. Yes, the cells are alive, a baby is being built, organs are developing and hearts beating, yadda yadda. But it's still a variation, albeit wildly changed, of the egg that women carry around all the time; Until it can survive sans host, without machines and computers and other unintended medical intervention. I'm both pro-choice and anti-infantcide.
It's not my science, it's not my law everywhere, but it's my morality and what I teach.

Is abortion murder? Do I possess the wisdom to say? Do you? I'm not about to risk the lightning bolt from the heavens and egotistically suppose that I am so holy as to make that call.
But, if you believe so, why not try to pass laws to put the instigator of that murder, the mothers , in jail? Or call for the vigilante eye-for-an-eye murder of mothers? Why, ironically, kill 17+ doctors? If you think mothers are killing their babies by choosing to have abortions, more of you should push for laws to put these supposed murderers in jail. Those babies will of course then end up in jail, *cough* I mean, state care, then, I'm sure... And we'll get to see how well the orphanage/adoption argument works then.
Yes, I'm being snarky: because the reason the anti-abortionists don't go after the pregnant women is they've turned a blind eye for the sake of better PR: few would give your groups any money or show up to rallies if you called for the deaths of women, and especially potential mothers of babies. They are virtually innocent, when compared to the family-planning medical pros they hire. Only because of PR value though. And that's a dishonest argument, to say the least.

"Freakonomics" has the best breakdown on true abortions stats and the surprising stats of what really happens to those unwanted babies and those various prochoice or anti-choice mothers... - both sides should read that book.

It's a priveledge and a right to choose. It's an obligation to provide every opportunity to avoid that choice. It's the mission of several holy books to preach alternatives and teach your children well. It's not legal, to government, nor morals, nor god's law, to murder for the sake of your argument. The ten commandments are in Islam, Judaism, and Christianity - all three, and they all more or less agree that any murder, regardless of how offended you might be, is breaking with the commandments - it's sin. You are to love your neighbor, and in doing so, you'll be giving a stronger testimony than any act of vigilantism.

You're right wileEcoyote, I am male and I do think between my legs! Good thing you were here to put me in my place. Stand tall wileEcoyote, you're a winner!

@23, 24, 27, 28, 36, 39, 43, 44, 45 aka wileEcoyote
Um, if you look at both Brandon J and Maximus's posts, you may notice they are not "pigheaded right wingers" or
"talibangelists" (though that is a fun inflammatory word!).
The "Because, um... God and stuff!" in post 35, I think, pretty clearly shows that Brandon J is on your side. So, in conclusion, stop flaming folks for the sake of flaming. It is not furthering the well-thought out dialog some folks are trying to achieve. Kudos to Rev. Smith, Try this on for size, and some common ground (and everyone else who is thinking before they type), it is awesome to see thoughtful attempts at dialog on the internet.

Thanks @46. I couldn't say it myself because I was just having too much fun.

*wild applause for Erica*

I'm tired as fucking hell of arguments like, "I'm pro-life but I don't agree with this killing!" and "I respect everybody, even you immoral women who abort!" So-called 'pro-lifers' who try to distance themselves from this killing are still sowing the seeds for violence against women just like the 'it's immoral but not illegal' or 'safe, legal and rare' shippers are. And they are chickenshit as hell for doing so.

If you really feel, deep in your heart, that women should not have control over their own bodies - including our crazy ol' no-male-equivalent-hen parts! - then you anything you say to promote the idea that the state should interfere with our control over ourselves is indeed an anti-woman statement. PERIOD.

It is a short hop, skip and a jump from 'noooo - only in this one case should women be controlled by external means!' to, 'okay, maybe in this case, too!' and 'okay, i guess you have a point there!' and then? WOMEN = NON CITIZENS YET AGAIN.

But it doesn't *have* to go that far - because ONE instance of, 'Oh wait, that's not really your body! It's an agent of God carrying the fetus to term!' is one instance too many. YOUR GOD put us in the driver's seat of gestation. IT IS ABSOLUTELY OUR FUCKING RIGHT TO SAY WHAT HAPPENS TO US. Now put your ideology back in your fucking pocket and back away from the health clinic, you gun-toting, flag-waving lunatics!

So sick of this horseshit I can barely see straight.

It is OUR BODIES we are fighting for control over. How much more fucking personal does it need to get than that? I don't get a say in your dental care or your viagra scrips, you don't get a say in my reproductive health care... or any other health care I want for my own fucking body. STAND DOWN.

And while you're at it, quit with the fucking terrorism already. Jesus god.

The man who shot Tiller was part of an aggressive, violent, intimidation campaign that has been targeting women and health providers for decades. Their campaign is the embodiment of terrorism. They use violent language, brutal imagery, and scream demeaning slogans at women who are seeking their legal right to health care. They violate a woman's right to private medical care and decision making. Their whole effort is aimed at creating fear in the health care system and fear in women. Creating FEAR and demeaning women and health care practitioners in any circumstances empowers fanatics to think that it is ok to wage this war of terrorism. This is their tactic- this is why they are constantly arrested as well, because they don't care about the law or breaking it. Anti-choice fanatics are waging a war of intimidation, which I call terrorism against women, and health care practitioners. The war they are waging with their terrorist and mob-like tactics has forced doctors from performing their jobs for women in need of late term abortions, leaving women without proper healthcare. These terrorists wage psychological warfare against women and girls in need of LEGAL MEDICAL SERVICES. It is time to stop protecting the terrorists and end their campaign against women. Pro choice, pro child, pro woman, pro sex education. Sienna Reid

The "my body my choice" argument is deeply illogical. There are far better arguments available, such as "it's a fetus, not a baby, it has no working brain and therefore no sentience." You have control over your body, you don't have control over the bodies of those who live inside your body once they can be considered humans under the eyes of the law. It's that point which we should be debating, not this nonsense straw man of whether women have the right to not have children. Why do you think they call themselves "pro-life" if all they want is to stop you from having sex and not having babies? Show me one example of a mainstream pro-life activist arguing that abortion is wrong because the state should control what a woman does with her body, and not the woman. If you could actually listen to people instead of sticking your head up your ass, you'd realize that the people we're dealing with are not monsters (with the possible exception of the monster who slaughtered a law-abiding doctor) but rather individuals who define a worthwhile life slightly differently than you. Would you say the same sorts of things about vegetarians who wish the kind of murder that takes place in slaughterhouses were prevented by laws? The state has the right to prevent murder from taking place. It is up to you to convince the state that abortion isn't murder. If a man kills a woman, he uses his body to do it. The state limits what he is allowed to do with his body in order to protect the body of another sentient being. If you would prevent any murder, you must tell people what they can and can't do with their bodies. It doesn't matter if the act takes place within a woman's body, if the victim is also a person. The decision one of whether the victim, is, in fact, a person. It's perfectly logical to say that a fetus is not a person, given its lack of reasoning, logic, and language. It's even logical to say that the fetus' personhood is debatable, wheras the personhoods of the people whose lives would be ruined by the fetus' birth (including the future child the fetus would become) are not, and therefore the fetus should be terminated for the greater good. It's just not logical to say that a person can't possibly live inside another.

Late term abortions absolutely shouldn't be done unless there is good reason. However, I have yet to see any hard and fast evidence that Dr. Tiller ever provided a late-term abortion hastily or without good cause.

This issue has a contentious debate around it for a reason; it's a moral gray area. People who just want to protect helpless children are demonized as the worst kind of male chauvinists and totalitarians. People who just want to help rape victims heal and prevent unwanted children from ruining people's lives are demonized as insane hedonists who would rather kill babies than use proper protection. What's needed is prosecution to the fullest extent of the law for those who took the law into their own hands and committed clear murder in an effort to prevent murky murder. If abortion providers feel intimidated, the law should provide them with more protection, particularly if there are only two late-term providers left in the country.

Now please stop your moralizing and demonizing and go home. It doesn't help anyone for you to mis-characterize the issue and paint with broad strokes.

Which is better for a child: having a parent who is uncaring a neglectful because they never wanted a kid, or being aborted before they're even old enough to know pain?

And how can someone support life by killing? If you are pro-life, be pro-all-life. How is murder the best solution to what you deem to be murder (and, technically, killing a grown personis more likely to land you in prison and/or hell-- while abortion is legal, shootings are not)? Remind me, how is killing a fully functioning being not worse than ending the life of something with the brain function of a sunflower? If you fight fire with fire, you only get a huge goddamn fire.

This IS terrorism. The aim of this crime was not only to stop the abortions this doctor alone was performing, but to intimidate other doctors into stopping the work they do for women. However you define it, that is terrorism.

Hmmm. With very few exceptions, I'm seeing a lot of extremism on both sides here. Sigh. Erica, you say that "'common ground' is code for ceding women's rights to a storm we didn't create." Also "One side believes women have a right to determine their own destinies and the other believes women should cede control of our bodies to the state."

This simply isn't true.

I'm a pro-choice woman who has borne two children, parented two more, and semi-parented many, many young friends, neighbors and students. Abortion is a complicated decision, which is why I believe it should be legal. Sometimes it is the right choice. Sometimes it is not about empowering women, but abusing them.

I had a dear friend who was addicted to several different drugs and a heavy user of many more. Despite birth control, she accidentally got pregnant. I would not wish the state of her body on my worst enemy, much less on an innnocent child. I supported her decision to terminate the pregnancy. Though we both grieved the necessity, it was the responsible thing to do.

In the late sixties/early seventies, a friend of my mother's had given birth to something concieved while on the Dalcon Shield (a disasterous IUD). The doctors refused to let her see it, and said they couldn't tell whether it was a fetus or a false pregnancy. My mother had the Dalcon Shield and suspected she was pregnant. My mother had a D&C to ensure any potential pregnancies would be terminated. It was the right choice.

But when an woman gets pregnant and her abusive boyfriend/spouse says "get rid of it, bitch!" That's not about empowering women.

When a teenager gets pregnant and is told that if she has the baby and shames the family, she will be thrown out on the streets. That's not women's empowerment.

When a man says, "Why should I pay for the damn kid? I told her to have an abortion!" That's not women's empowerment.

What about when a woman is told by her boss "Have a kid and you're fired."? What is that? Honesty or bullying? It's certainly illegal. But it happens, frequently.

What about when society says "It is not our problem to support mothers. After all, the kid was their choice." What is that? The societal norms and expectations are based around men and childless women. Women with children are considered "less", and those contemplating abortion are often told they will lose everything valuable if they have a baby...school, career, independence, even the ability to think clearly. Are those expectations really about empowering women? In this situation, does abortion support women in determining their own destinies, or serve mostly to preserve the status quo?

How about when a 19 year old girl with Down's Sydrome and a pregnancy in the 28th week is given a multi-day abortion procedure with inadequate medical supervision that ends in her dying from sepsis? Is that empowerment? Her name was Cristin Gilbert. Google it.

Sex, pregnancy, abortion, childbirth, women's health care, medical consent, and parenting are complicated. There can be good reasons for any of the available choices. There can also be terrible reasons for these choices, choices that aren't choices at all.

Because it is complicated, I don't think a governmental, top-down approach is a good idea. But neither is screaming insults at each other.

Let's talk. And yes, that means letting go of our righteousness ON BOTH SIDES and finding "common ground." Because both sides have important things to say.