that turn men and women off from feminism.

US World headline:

Seat Belt Use by Pregnant Women Could Save 200 Fetuses a Year

Original research article title:

Fetal Outcome in Motor-Vehicle Crashes: Effects of Crash Characteristics and Maternal Restraint

The bias is in US World mentioning "200"? If anything, the US World headline writer buried the lede and moved "fetuses" to the end of the hed.

The Salon writer is probably very educated and should consider less educated women for whom this information may save a life(ves).

"There's something of the absurd in this that reminds me of that bumper sticker that informs other drivers you have a baby in your car. They are meant to think: Oh, NOW I won't smash into that car in front of me, since I've become aware of the baby involved!"

A quibble: That is NOT the purpose of the "Baby on Board" signs, which by the way are not bumper stickers and which should be posted well above car bumpers. Take it from someone with several family members in the law enforcement/emergency response/medical fields -- people who have actually relied on those signs.

The purpose of those signs is to notify emergency responders, in the event of an accident, that there is a baby or child in the vehicle as well as the more readily seen driver or other adults. The driver may not be in a position to tell the EMTs or firefighters or good Samaritans who are first on the scene. There have been some tragic cases, even locally in my region, where adults were pulled from burning or otherwise wrecked vehicles but first responders did not know to retrieve the children, who were unseen in the mangled mess and who perished. (I actually know one of the families that went through this.) There are also some cases that I know of personally where those signs saved lives. It's not a perfect precaution because the sign can be obscured in a wreck, too, but having a sign is better than not having a sign.

Also a quibble with Carol: Not all information about safety of fetuses is intended as part of a campaign to deny women reproductive rights, or to elevate the rights of fetuses over the women carrying them. Seems to me that the fact that 200 fetuses are saved annually by seat belts is indeed useful information in and of itself, and not at all insignificant.

There ARE pro-life vegetarians and vegans. The animal rights movement is divided on the abortion issue. This was made clear by Ingrid Newkirk, Executive Director of PETA, in a 1992 interview with conservative talk show host Dennis Prager in Los Angeles. In 1998, the Animals' Agenda ran a cover story about the debate within the animal rights movement over abortion. And in either 2003 or 2004, on the Democrats-For-Life e-list, Maria Krasinski mentioned a poll that found animal activists evenly divided over the abortion issue.

Activists on both sides of the abortion issue are engaged in a propaganda war.

Dr. Bernard Nathanson (co-founder of NARAL; a physician who presided over some 60,000 abortions before changing sides on the issue), wrote in his 1979 book, Aborting America:

"...the Right-to-Lifers are not in favor of all 'life' under all circumstances. They are not in the forefront of the save-the-seals crusade. They are not devotees of Albert Schweitzer's 'reverence for life,' or its equivalent in Eastern religions, in which the extinction of cows or flies somehow violates the sanctity of the cosmos.

"Turning to the human species, they do not necessarily oppose the taking of life via capital punishment. Where were they when Caryl Chessman was executed for a crime he likely did not commit--and a rape at that, not a murder?

"They were likely not notably in the opposition while the United States was sacrificing lives on both sides of a questionable war in Viet Nam.

"They are not 'pro-life'; they are simply anti-abortion."

However, Dr. Bernard Nathanson goes on to say about those who prefer to be called "pro-choice" rather than "pro-abortion":

"This is the Madison Avenue euphemism of the other side. Who could possibly be opposed to something so benign as 'choice' ? The answer is: Almost anyone -- depending. The diehard opposition to civil rights and public accommodations for blacks Americans in the '50s and '60s was 'pro-choice' with a vengeance. Some whites wanted the 'right' to serve hamburgers or rent hotel rooms to whomever they wished.

"Most of us now oppose the concept of choice in such ugly claims. The true question is, What choice is being offered, and should society sanction that choice? In any honest discussion we must focus upon what is being chosen, without hiding behind the slogan."

Regarding animal rights and prenatal rights: John Stuart Mill wrote: "The reasons for legal intervention in favor of children apply not less strongly to the case of those unfortunate slaves -- the animals."

Henry Bergh, founder of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), successfully prosecuted a woman for child abuse in 1873, at a time when children had no legal protection, under the then currently existing animal protection statutes. This case started the child-saving crusade around the world.

Cardinal John Heenan wrote in 1970: "Animals...have very positive rights because they are God's creatures...Only the perverted are guilty of deliberate cruelty to animals or, indeed, to children."

In both cases, we're discussing extending rights to an excluded class of beings; beings on the fringes of our moral community, which are only accorded marginal personhood, which is inconsistent at best.

For example, the unborn are considered children only if they are "wanted", and animals like pets are considered part of the family, while other animals are considered "food," clothing, tools for medical research, etc.

I think it may have been law professor Gary Francione who said back in 1988, "I'm sure there's some way we can keep abortion legal," and though I'm sick of hearing pro-lifers use this single quote (from one individual who was not necessarily speaking for the entire animal rights movement) as an excuse not to support animal rights, there is a ring of truth to it.

Jeremy Bentham wrote: "The question is not 'Can they talk?' nor 'Can they reason?' but 'Can they SUFFER?'"

If sentience, or the ability to feel pain, rather than membership in the human race, is the criterion for personhood, then "there's some way we can keep abortion legal."

I mentioned this to Rachel MacNair, past president of Feminists For Life, a Quaker pacifist, vegan, and psychology professor, in 2004. It didn't faze her. "Only in the very early stages of pregnancy," would abortion be legal, she replied.

brightstar65 writes: "...baby fetuses after 3-4 months generally are sentient..."

A 1981 article by UC Berkeley law professor John T. Noonan, Jr. entitled "The Experience of Pain by the Unborn," similarly observes:

"...we may conclude that as soon as a pain mechanism is present in the fetus--possibly as early as day 56--the (abortion) methods used will cause pain. The pain is more substantial and lasts longer the later the abortion is."

Carol Crossed, who is now with Democrats For Life, and who wrote the forward to my 2006 book, The Liberal Case Against Abortion, noted approvingly back in 1995, that even with sentience, rather than membership in the human race, as the criterion for personhood, day 56 as the threshold for pain means most abortions would have to be outlawed.

If we start with the premise that sentience, and not species membership, is the criterion for personhood, the burden of proof is now upon pro-lifers to demonstrate why we should protect the member of a sentient species even at an insentient stage of development.