the religious right has made this whole thing a battle about a word, and an imprecise one at that. Many people have been convinced that a fetus is a "life." Once they form that belief other beliefs flow from it: that "taking" that "life" is "murder." All of these beliefs are formed at a level of abstraction removed from real life consequences.

When the beliefs are tested in the real world -- for example, when a friend or family member experiences an unwanted pregnancy or when, as in South Dakota, people are asked to apply abortion restrictions to obviously blameless women -- they fail. If a "pro-life" person in South Dakota refuses to ban abortion to the victims of race or incest, what does that say to the underlying premise? The fetus produced by rape is no less alive than the fetus produced in other ways. Doesn't that suggest that "life" really isn't the issue?

The term "life" is about as hard to define as "love." That doesn't mean that it is not powerful or significant, but that its not an appropriate term for legislation.

"Choice" is a far more meaningful term in the debate, but not because it is a term significant in itself. "Choice" is meaningful because it reminds us that an unwanted pregnancy puts a woman (and possibly those around her) at a difficult crossroads. When we remember that, we remember that the best person to decide on the path is the one who has to take it.

Kley,

When you talk about how abortion can never be right because it is about taking a "life," what does the word "life" mean to you? Do you feel that "life" is something that begins at the moment of conception, before the embryo possesses human features or attributes or has any capacity of sensation or consciousness? If so, what is that "life"? Is it "life" in the same way that we are alive, or that animals are alive, or are you using the term in some other way? And what caused you to reach this conclusion? Do you know there is nothing in the bible that would really answer this "life" question?

I understand that your beliefs are fervently held. But do they have a sound basis in reason and experience? If not, maybe you should put them back on the table and look at them again.

Midwestern woman,

What makes you think that your view is "normal"? When you think of abortion, do have a picture in your mind of an unmarried woman having unprotected sex? Do you understand that many unwanted pregnancies happen because of a failure of birth control and/or happen during marriage? Do you feel those women are just as deserving of the life-altering consequences of a forced unwanted pregnancy?

And by the way, do you think all women and sexually active girls receive the type of information they need to make wise decisions about birth control? And of course, you must be in favor of giving them that information, right? Given your position that once pregnancy happens your screwed (pardon the pun) you must support efforts to prevent the pregnancy in first place, right?

I have an eleven year old boy, enamoured of baseball and games and sports. I share his general interest, and love his enthusiam, but when he gets going on people's batting averages or some other statistic, I just want to disappear. I also think many children's games are far best left for childen. He and his friends have been playing some strange hybrid soccer/dodgeball game in the next room for hours and, although I treasure the sound of their laughter, I have very little interests in the mechanics of their game. In fact, it seems pretty -- er -- lame to me.

Whatever that makes me, I guess I am.

I think it started with Rush. A bunch of disaffected and marginalized people in the early nineties listening to their AM radios and being told that IT IS OKAY TO HATE. And that felt good to them -- because hate is empowering, and when you have very little power hate is about the only thing to climb up on.

It also started around the time that "PC" began to carry negative connotations. What is political correctness, but avoidance of speech that injures or distresses some person or some group? Condemnation of hateful rhetoric has always existed, as you point out in your article. I think what happened in, say, the eighties, is that the social recognition of marginalized people grew so much that our sense of what might offend grew exponentially. Twenty-five years ago, male executives could call their secretaries "girls" and not get any heat from it.

The rapid expansion of political correctness unwittingly expanded the hate, because it left people on the wrong side of the sensitivity issue in a way that was embarassing and alienating. I remember 20 years ago, being told in law school that I should not say "you guys" to refer to a mixed group. Well, duh, I say now. But back then it stung. It stung to be told I used inappropriate speech.

For some people that sting, that sense of social embarassment, drove them away from trying not to offend. And a whole new social group emerged of people unwilling to try, and proud of it.

This kind of merged with the rush-listeners, and left us in the bad spot where we are today.

I was in Hawaii, Boston and Washington DC in the 1980s, which I consider to be a pretty broad if not exactly representative slice of america. I don't remember a lot of hate speech on the left. I remember angry speech directed at political opponents, such as Reagan et al. But not the type which Rush began to spew. It really wasn't about personal attacks back then, in my personal experience.

From my vantage point the hate did not go both ways.

It definitely does now, to a degree. For me and my family and friends, this started in about 2002.