They never acknowledge that a pregnancy is a state of a woman's body, and are only too happy to give pregnant women the legal status of government-controlled walking incubators.

That suits men fine. Control of women has always been their primary concern, all throughout history.

Some things never change, except we women don't stand for it any more.

And some of you men, will need to deal with that.

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

-- verycold

There is nothing inherently 'good' about abortion or allowing ALL fetuses to be delivered into environments that contain significant potential to ultimately destroy an optimal existence many normal babies enjoy.

Not only this, the guilt most out-of-wedlock children will bear as they slowly come to the realization that their very existence is deeply despised by the most 'caring' and 'religious' (because their taxes go to support bastard children) is bound to be an issue in their development. [yes, the sarcasm drips mightily]

A resolution and a compromise that can settle the insanity on both sides would, in fact, be good.

That suits men fine. Control of women has always been their primary concern, all throughout history.

Some things never change, except we women don't stand for it any more.

And some of you men, will need to deal with that.

-- peeps1

You suck.

More women are fighting against abortion than men. Abortion is NOT a man versus woman issue!

Your angst is such a worthless cloak for your vast emotional vacuum.

Conservatives want to outlaw abortions, but they also want to take the government out of the business of public health. Liberals actually would save more lives.

Here are some liberal concerns: The U.S. has an outrageously high rates of low-birth-weight babies and infant mortality. A national health-care program would save untold numbers of innocent lives.

Liberals would ensure prenatal care and well-baby visits for every mother and child. Conservatives, on the other hand, want to abolish all public health and welfare programs. Liberals encourage medical research and public health programs that fight childhood diseases. Conservatives want to get rid of these programs - largely, I think because they help minorities.

I think the definition of liberalism is compassionate concern for the well-being of every citizen, rich or poor, in the womb or out of it. The definition of conservatism is: you are on your own. If you don't thrive, and if your children don't thrive, tough; it's probably because you are lazy.

Why are liberals called baby-killers, when they are actually the ones who protect the health and well-being of the weak and the innocent. This whole issue is framed wrong.

Wanting to make it illegal again is quite another. This is a distinction that is chronically blurred in this discussion. 100 years of prohibition in the U.S. (and current illegality in many countries in the world today) proved definitively that making abortion illegal does not stop it. It drives it underground, where it becomes dirty, squalid and often fatal for women. The ONLY thing the criminalization of abortion accomplishes is to punish women. Either you're okay with that, or you're not.

you are in no position to have any say in the matter. I strongly doubt you have the qualifications to determine who should and should not be given an honorary degree.

Have you heard the pope protest this at all? Funny, neither have I.

I think not being part of a vampiristic, cannabilistic religious cult is a very healthy thing, don't you?

The leaders of the "pro life" movement are men, and always have been. Churches are dominated by men. In fact, the Catholic Church mandates, that it must be dominated by men.

If government (another male dominated institution) is mandated to govern my daughter's womb, against her wishes, it is indeed a male-dominated institution versus woman's bodies issue.

I have no interest in controlling other people's decisions over their bodies. Most women don't want others involved with their bodies, my husband wouldn't want others involved with an abortion decision if there was ever a circumstance where we would consider that. It is not me who is seeking legal control over others.

Talk to a "pro lifer" and get a lesson in who is swimming in angst. Don't point out history, it gets them nervous.

I'm sorry to break it to you, but reallynow *is* pro death, but only in special cases.

Special cases to reallynow = people he doesn't like or who live in the wrong place.

It seems to me that the real issue being discussed is not, in practice, abortion vs no abortion; or guns vs no guns; but _which_of_ guns and abortion that the public is willing to tolerate as the lesser evil.

In the Red rural areas, where there's plenty of space but not many people, guns are celebrated and abortion is stigmatized; in the Blue urban areas, with their teeming millions, abortion is supported and guns are condemned.

The result is a territorial dispute over a detail of timing. The American people have long ago agreed to killing some of their least valued members; the only question now is when and how; either prenatally by means of D&C, or postnatally by means of firearms.

Neither the pro-gun-anti-abortion nor the pro-abortion-anti-gun stance can honestly be called pro-life or pro-choice. Both allow the destruction of life, and both forbid it, albeit in opposite ways.

Others have noticed this contradiction and call it hypocrisy. I'm more lenient, for I see this as a matter of economics and population density; ultimately an ecological issue.

As for solutions, I have none, beyond palliatives like social justice, full employment, contraception, and honest policing. The problem is existential: there is no free lunch, life is troublesome, and mankind is still part beast.

Until the Messiah evolves, both guns and abortion will remain, as what I call "dark rights"; that is, rights dreadful to exercise but even more dreadful for the State to forbid.