There are plenty of moral arguments for abortion, starting with knowing that the live you may give some child could be in extreme poverty, or in an abusive home, or a life of some kind of hellish deformity.

You are correct in stating that there exist thoughts (arguments) justifying abortion.

You are entirely wrong suggesting that the arguments make abortion a moral action.

Abortion (generally), like war, is immoral but is an often 'necessary' brutality.

...The rights of the mother trump the rights of whatever she grows inside her.

-- stchrisb

Obfuscation does not become the intelligent.

In almost all cases, the 'whatever' will not evolve into a mass of nothing such as a goiter or a cancer.

The 'whatever', in this case, will evolve over several months into a living, breathing human being.

Your 'rights' exist. But because they exist and can be justified does not make them moral.

The fact that so many women put significant effort into the complex thought required (as correctly suggested by the article) to have an abortion illustrates the rather harsh realities of how unsettling the procedure of abortion actually is.

There IS a moral component here that WILL subjugate the logic of a woman who supposes she is 'moral'.

If you really want to BE moral AVOID the abortion OR refuse to engage in sexual practices that present you with an unwanted child.

Hardening the heart into accepting your 'growth' as mindless mass does make accepting abortion far easier- BUT, not at all moral. Morality exists as a dichotomy, it doesn't lie well with gradients.

Abortion is about utility. It is about a singular and personal choice to correct a mistake, a failure, a deviation, or an unwarranted outcome. Once this level is broached you don't suddenly become MORAL you only become practical.

I prefer to state things as they are- not apply a rose-colored wash over certain human necessities.

Pro-life? I think not. Anti-choice--yes, they are.

-- trisha08

The excessive use of turning an ideological opponent into something evil is chilling to me when the judgment polarizes and misappropriates.

Rest assured, most of the folks who are anti-choice ARE very much FOR the protection of human life.

MOST of them probably share the same exact mainstream family values as you would.

Their aspirations are no less noble than those who wish to justify abortion as an alternative way of protecting the future of human infants from unnecessary harm.

This is one reason why the abortion issue will continue to rage for decades. Demonizing and continually presenting ideological opponent as extreme backed by narrow stats (abortion bombings or babies aborted alive) has shaped the debate on both sides for decades, literally, to little affect.

No man has the right to an opinion on abortion,he can't get pregnant.My experience has been that if you scratch A so-called "pro-lifer" a revenge-seeking death penalty advocate will bleed. Anti-abortionists should take their grand-standing energy and put it to use in serving the unfortunately born by helping those children as Habitat for Humanity and CASA volunteers.

I don't even know who Randall Terry is never having followed the pro-life or pro-choice crusaders. I do find it interesting that the woman at the heart of Roe vs Wade is herself pro-life now. Equally I find it interesting, although not surprising, that good is slowly winning this issue. Polls now say that there are more pro-life than pro-choice supporters in this country. That is probably the best news I have seen in a very long time.

The focus isn't about any one individual, but collectively what a nation supports and how that is measured. Those that are loud today about torture techniques used in Iraq say it is because it represents the decency of the US. Those individuals do not want to be a citizen of a country that condones torture. Those same individuals often object to capital punishment and thus is the reason many states are choosing to change their laws. Both these sentiments are good ones. They can be argued by those believing otherwise, but if I had to choose I would say being against torture and against capital punishment is the better position.

That is why it is the height of hypocrisy to hear those same people support the killing of a fetus, choosing instead the rights of the mother over her baby. We can no longer use the excuse that a fetus is just a blob of cells, because medical advances now tell us how early that blob develops a heart, legs, spine, etc. Pro-choice supporters are supporting a procedure that kills babies. It really is that simple. Deny all you want, support your reasons which there are many good ones, but in the end you have committed murder. A war being waged can have many supporters that equally have valid reasons for going to war, but still...lives are lost.

It isn't about winning as the title of this article suggests, but about looking closely at issues that we support, and perhaps reassessing their goodness.

No man has the right to an opinion on abortion,he can't get pregnant.

-- Kilchis

Foolish logic that would remove you from existing as a functioning, contributing human.

I would warrant you have MANY opinions on issues relating to subjects you are entirely removed from which DOES NOT preclude you from levying opinion.

You've posited a worthless notion here. Better stick with your core thought process, or, if you wish to debate what you've presented be prepared to suffer the consequences.

Like it or not we are all interconnected in some form or fashion, however disparate our views, which creates an automatic inclusion and processing of ideas and opinion.

Rejecting opinion solely based on experience is like cutting off civilians who've never battled in Iraq from opining on the atrocities committed on that particular field.

The list refuting your misinformed logic is endless.

Surely you can't really mean that men don't have a right to an opinion about abortion. It's a men's issue, too; men are the second party to a pregnancy, after all. A man shouldn't be able to compel a woman to choose one way or another--that's a violation of bodily sovereignty--but they certainly are allowed to have their opinions and philosophies about the subject.

The subject of aborting a disabled fetus supposedly for the sake of avoiding the child's future suffering is a sore one with me. You have to be intellectually honest--it's impossible to represent a multiplicity of experiences to yourself. You CANNOT represent to yourself the experience of being disabled. You CANNOT make the argument that to be disabled is inevitably to suffer. You can't argue that never existing is worse than disability or even pain. This is not borne out by the lived experience of many people with disabilities at all; that some with disabilities choose to end their lives means nothing in the context of the way one particular disabled individual may or may not feel. The real reason to abort a disabled child is either because it's so hard to take care of a disabled child or because of the social shaming and opprobrium that parents and family members of children with disabilities experience. I know this; I have a disabled child.