Rabid pro-lifers and rabid pro-choicers are both equally nasty and equally hard to get along with, and the funny thing is neither one of them speaks for a majority of people, neither men nor women. Most people want legal limits on abortion, but most want it basically legal in the early parts of pregnancy, with some reasonable limits. In fact, women are more likely to support limitations than men are. The shrieking name callers on both sides are a result of poor decision-making by the Supreme Court. Both would be marginalized if we had simply allowed the democratic process to play out on this issue, but instead they wind up dominating. It's a damned shame.

"Wizard's Third Rule: Passion rules reason." - Terry Goodkind, 'Blood of the Fold'

I'd have to agree that it just isn't worth it. As Dean said, "neither one of them speaks for a majority of people, neither men nor women." I think that there are valid points that both sides hold, but yelling, screaming, and hating won't accomplish much, except for a hoarse voice and more hating.

What Dean said. Unfortunately, it would be worse at this point to undo Roe v. Wade.

"Most people want legal limits on abortion, but most want it basically legal in the early parts of pregnancy, with some reasonable limits."

"reasonable limits". Does that mean its okay to kill some of the unborn ?

"And neither one speaks for the majority ?"

Really, I've never heard any of the living propose that they themselves ought have been victims of their mother's abortion desires. So I guess I agree with that point. After all, who speaks for the dead minority ?

"It's not worth it."

Excuse me, but it is worth it. Unless of course you're Hiliary Clinton and the other loudmouth
political activists.

And where does Mr.Kerry stand ? Well, I suspect if its a vote he will be there.

What Dean said.

I have learned that no matter what I have to say that if people can't hear it, it isn't going to be listened to.

I, like most, tune out when people start to yell. They are lucky too, because as I get older, I also just walk away.

The pro-life, pro-choice issue. It's my body, my decision. As Porky Pig says, "That's all folks."

I know it's hard to imagine it, but what if abortion was truly a private issue? Between a woman, a man, a doctor?

Some wouldn't have to vote with their uterii.

I wish the government had never gotten involved one way or the other, in the business of either supporting or denying it. And even if it is, it would be nice if parties would keep it the hell out of their platforms.

Maura, that has always been my stance on abortion as well. Of all the so-called "Women's Rights" issues, that one turns me off the most.

It might be my imagination, but it does seem to me that in this election, it hasn't been much of an issue. I would like to think that the strident extremes have proved themselves so ineffectual, most of us are ignoring them. Most of us recognize that there are so many other issues that are more important than one that has already been basically settled.

I agree with Bill of indc journal who wrote this post: It is not worth it. No mind or heart was ever changed by shouted obscenities and invective, boorish signs or shoving matches.

This topic is far too important to give any credence to wingnuts, wackdoodles and the tinfoil beret crowd acting out their neuroses in the streets.

The shrieking name callers on both sides are a result of poor decision-making by the Supreme Court.

I think, perhaps, they are more a result of traumatic toilet-training techniques, or the like. No matter the bones one has to pick with the Court, The 9 cannot *possibly* be held to account for *that.*

[shudder]

I sort of read this issue the way Dean does, maybe or maybe not for the same reasons. Most people don't want unlimited abortions. Most people don't want legal abortions totally eliminated.

The nice thing about life in a constitutionally defined republic is that the government in the end typically goes for what most of the people want. Ask the ghosts of Jefferson Davis, Representative Volstead, and numerous others.

I agree too with Katherine, being an old-timer myself. People begin shouting at me, I walk. If someome gets up close, blocks my escape route and tries shouting into my ear, I've been know to take physical action.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

I'll agree that shouting is not good tactics, or good for much, at all. The weak shout, after all.

But, I begin to suspect from listening to this comment thread that those who are in favor of abortion just want the issue to go away because they are losing.

And since I'm not a Libertarian, I have no compunction about legislating against the use of a person's body to take drugs, engage in prostitution, or have an abortion. And indeed, what about the baby's right to his or her own body?

Because, Tadeusz, nobody who favors a woman's right to choose whether or not to bring a pregnancy to birth shall ever agree that it is a "baby" and not a "fetus" until it completes the process of birth and thus acquires constitutional rights.

A fetus has no rights, according to this doctrine, if its mother dertermines it shall not be born and become a baby. Or if it has any rights, those rights are superseded by the right of the woman carrying that fetus to alone determine whether she shall or shall not become a mother with that particular fetus.

That may not square with the gospel according to the male prelates of the Roman Catholic Church, but it sure squares with the gospel of what most women apparently want. And their right to choose is what this is all about.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

I haven't seen any recent polls, but I thought the majority of women in the US are against abortion. Dean? Rosemary? Any polling information you have at your finger tips?

I just wanted to interject myself on this thread really quick and say the following, especially to catch 22:

I wasn't commenting on whether being against abortion or for abortion or anything is a viable position, just about the fact that almost nothing is worth debasing yourself to the level of inhuman, mouth-frothing rage and obscenity that I saw today.

You think our country is so much more civilized than a group of palestinians dragging body parts through the streets, or Fallujans dismembering bodies? Think again.

If the police weren't there in force I HAVE NO DOUBT that many of the hundred thousand or so people at that rally would have torn each other limb from limb.

And unless you are defending your life or those that you love, NOTHING is worth such debased nastiness and evil.

Hope that helps.

Tadeusz, I think you're right about which way the pendulum is swinging. There are a lot of reasons for the shift- such as the widespread availability of good birth control, decreased stigmatization of illegitimate pregnancy and increased use of high-resolution ultrasound.

The thing that I find odd, is the shouting from the pro-choice folks regarding the pictures shown by the pro-life folks. Crass? Most certainly. "Lies?" I don't think so. I know this because I went into my medical residency full of the conviction that abortion on demand was right. I believed that until the morning I had to perform several consecutive abortions. After two, I simply couldn't do any more and I went to the director in tears. I'm also sure the women on the receiving end of the suction cannula wasn't having a great day, either. Until the rubber meets the road, and you see the little life go literally down the tube knowing what it is, it's all just an imaginary problem.

In subsequent years, I had to dismember bigger babies who had already died, in order to spare the mother the trauma of labor. One of the things I had to do was count all the little limbs, thorax and head to be sure everything was accounted for. Could you imagine doing that to a previously live baby? I couldn't.

I guess it's clear how I feel about this issue. However, I have also seen women in the most dire of straits, having to deal with pregnancies that are devastating in their timing. One cannot look at abortion in isolation from the sexualization of almost everything around us. On this issue, the American psyche is decidedly schizophrenic. Sex is okay, but motherhood isn't. Most American pregnancies are "unplanned"- we have the highest rate in the developed world! But, it isn't because there's no access to birth control, that's for sure.

It frustrates me to see this kind of waste of energy (the marches) when it would help a great deal more to figure out how to keep women from having to make this choice in the first place.

I should have put "illegitimate pregnancy" in quotes. I don't even know why I used that phrase, it's ugly.

I'm pro-choice, but great post Dani -

an interesting footnote from the march was the number of med students and doctors that were there - and I was a bit surprised how angry some of THEM were ... how vehemently they chanted with the rest of the angry masses.

It's really disturbing what people do when they get into groups, I suppose.

"And unless you are defending your life or those that you love, NOTHING is worth such debased nastiness and evil."

Bill.

I could not agree with you more. Your point is well taken. Actually, in all my years I have never been political on this issue. I am not in the 'rabid' political crowd. And am not telling anyone what to do. I tuned into the radio today and was disgusted to listen to Hiliary Clinton playing (screaming) to her audience and have always been turned off by NARAL and its current president. Do these people every fade from the scenery. I do happen to have some anti-abortion leanings. Perhaps because I am one of ten children. I figured out today that my mother was actually pregnant seven and one-half years of her life. The NARAL crowd are unworthies in my view. What do I know I'm a male.

P.S. You and Marc have done really well subbing for Dean.

Thanks.

Katherine, lets fire up the way back machine and go to 1804. I'm taking 800 dollars to buy me a slave with. What! your's offended? It's my money, it's legal, and you obviously don't care about morality. The Female's decision is the one she makes before the dick goes in. Once conception takes place there is another human involved. Your baby. Thousands marched today, right? If the aborted children of the last two decades had made it there would have been millions marching. Look at the way concervatives are slowly coming to outnumber liberals. That is called the Roe effect. Conservatives raised their children to be conservative. pro choicers murdered theirs. History will record the abortion craze of the late 20th century as a genocidal event. They will look on it with the contempt and horror a 21st century human holds for slavery. Abortion on demand will end in the next decade. By the normal processes of democracy. We will out number you. When every vote counts, the pro choice movement is killing it's future. But that is how smart they are. Darwin gets the last laugh. I just cry when I think of the millions of beautiful babies murdered since Roe vs Wade.

Bill, one of the abortion providers in my city is an ordained minister as well as a physician. He believes he is doing God's work, too. If this isn't proof that the answers are not crystal clear, I don't know what is. I appreciate the opportunity to debate this issue on a thread that is reasonably free of name-calling. Thanks.

Abortion will never end, "ableiter". That your side on this issue can overturn Roe vs Wade is uncertain. I happen to be a Republican and a conservative, in terms of gun rights, tax and spend, foreign policy and much else. But I also support the right of women to choose for themselves whether or not their own pregnancies shall be required by the state to result in a live birth. If you think I am the only Republican and conservative who thinks this way, you could not be more mistaken.

I believe that RU-486 will be the factor that beats you in the end. It will become available, and it's use to instantly terminate a pregnancy in its earliest days will become ubiquitous.

And even if your side in this argument should be able to end a woman's right to choose in this country, do you imagine you speak for the world? The most Catholic countries in Europe have the most busily used abortion clinics. Spain, for example. And in China, mass abortion has long been state policy for keeping in check what is already the largest single population on this planet.

Do you think you will be able to ban women from traveling to other countries for their medical care, if that becomes necessary? Dream on.

I think that concomitant with the rise of the anti-abortion camp is the rapid destruction of the Roman Catholic church in this country. Increasingly, Catholic parents are more concerned that turning their small children over to the care of Catholic priests is tantamount to setting the stage for the molestation of that child. I am certainly not a beliver in anything. But I have Catholic relatives. I know what is on their minds. Do not imagine for a minute this factor is not being discussed all across the United States.

So maybe, just maybe, we shall see who buries whom. And about what.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

Catch 22:
"Really, I've never heard any of the living propose that they themselves ought have been victims of their mother's abortion desires. So I guess I agree with that point. After all, who speaks for the dead minority ?"

You won't find me arguing that the world would be better off without me, but if I hadn't been born, I wouldn't exist to resent it.

Also, while I understand Dani's point, it does appear that there are plenty of women doctors who can handle performing abortions. Do they feel no compunction, or do they feel that they're helping a woman act on a difficult moral and ethical choice that they nevertheless reason is hers to make? I can't know. I'm not saying that Dani's reactions were insignificant, only that what they prove about the difference between theory and action is not established. I do agree completely that in general social terms, it's troubling that so many women are in a position to consider seeking abortions.

As far as the march itself goes, is anyone really all that surprised? Single-issue activists are by nature single-minded; expecting moderation out of them, especially when they're together egging each other on, seems unrealistic, if not foolhardy.

"Look at the way concervatives are slowly coming to outnumber liberals. That is called the Roe effect. Conservatives raised their children to be conservative. pro choicers murdered theirs."

Albeiter, exactly what are you basing the idea that conservatives are outbreeding the liberals? I'm just curious as to whether you're making this up or you're basing this off of some sort of credible scientific study? If you have proof of this statement please do provide it.

Also, you assume that people who have had abortions never actually have children(which I'll grant you is true in some cases, but by no means the norm). You also assume that everyone who is pro-choice has abortions, which I can assure you is not true. I myself, and many people I know, are pro-choice but still think abortions are vile and irresponsible, and would never have one.

Maybe it's wise to point out that I realize Dani may not have been saying that any reasonable person in her position would have reacted as she did, but rather that people should know what their beliefs translate to in real life before sounding off about them.

Albeiter,

"The female's decision is the one she makes before the dick goes in" is an illogical point if you are presuming that she is a slave, if she is raped, or if her birth control doesn't work.

Morality is a personal choice and is not defined as a code of ethics followed by a mass public as opposed by a religious sect or outside source.

Whether I am moral or immoral cannot be decided or judged by you based on my decisions or words of a few posts or opinions. That would be a hysterical position.

Genocide is the mass killing of people. If I agreed to your logic, every woman that had a miscarriage would be a murderer.

I have one question for you: If every pregnancy went full term, would you be willing to support those children whose mother's are teenagers, drug addicts, raped, don't want their children, or cannot afford to care for them? If so, are you a foster parent? Are you an adoptive parent?

I wish abortion did not have to happen, but in our society, given our current intolerance (as evidenced by your abusiveness) it is the case. Young women are uneducated, unsupported, and financially ill equipped many times to deal with the demands of children. In addition, rape is a reality--historically and currently.

Until women, children, and men are suppported individually and societally, abortion will be an alternative.

Instead of being agressive, you might try solving some of the problems instead of being one.

Whatever one's position on abortion, individual human existence begins at conception. I am not speaking generally but with regard to individuals. It is indisputable scientific fact. Somehow, the democrat party and others have sold
out on that specific factor. And then we have large money making organizations brain-laundering the minds of the pre-teens that abortion is just another medical option on the menu of sexual preferences. My daughter who was unmarried and pregnant asked me what I thought.
I told her abortion was killing someone. Apparently it sunk in as we now have a nice grandson. If the pro-choice crowd want their own poisonous point of view so be it. But I refuse to be a spear carrier in that army. Nor do I agree that the American Bar Association have as its official political stance, the pro-choice point of view. That is disgusting.

Catch 22, the question for many is not when the life process begins, it's when the fetus gains a soul. There's been a debate literally for thousands of years about whether the fetus attains a sould at conception or over time, and neither side can prove it. I believe I read somewhere that a few Catholic Popes a few centuries ago believed in delayed ensoulment so they thought early abortion was ok but not later abortion. Abortion is not a black and white issue and never will be(barring God coming down and setting us straight, but I somehow doubt that will ever happen). I don't know when a fetus gains a soul, so I'd personally not take the risk of destroying a sentient being, but others are willing to take that risk. We can't prove abortion is murder as much as we can prove it isn't, that's the problem with the issue.

Frankly, I've always found the "woman's body" argument specious--a fertilized egg/fetus/baby is most certainly something unique, otherwise it would not become a human being, with all that implies. What magical quantum conversion do "pro-choicers" believe takes place when the scissors cut the cord that transforms it from a "clump of cells" that can be extirpated with impunity to a "baby" that must be adequately cared for or you face legal punishment?
As a motorcycle rider I am barred from riding without a helmet simply because the consequences may hit my fellow citizens in the tax bill for a few dollars--a rather less important effect than the death of a human being in a partial-birth abortion. Yet I am not allowed to use the "my body" argument. Why not?
While there are moral positions at either end of the spectrum, I feel there is a middle ground, one that I would like to see staked out as at least a starting point.

The youngest known viable birth was 18 weeks. It can therefore be stated that at that point, the baby CAN possibly survive outside the mother. It can now no longer be realistically argued that the baby is just a part of the mother's body. However, the chances of survival increase the longer the child remains in the womb, protected, fed, and continuing to develop under the ideal circumstances. In what way does this differ from the mother's requirement to feed, shelter, and care for her child after birth or face legal sanction for abuse or neglect?
This argument then extends onward down the gestation period towards the completely unsupportable atrocity of "partial birth abortions." The facts about these have been almost completely ignored (one might even say "covered up") by the mainstream media. Even here in San Francisco, I have yet to encounter anyone who would argue in favor of those (except for the dogmatic "my body/abortion on demand" types). In fact, even self-proclaimed "pro-choice" types have been forced to equivocate when I have faced them with the facts on those. (Most have not truly considered what was being done--or did not know.)

There will still be those that believe for moral or religious reasons that a human being comes into existence at the moment of fertilization; and there will still be those who think the baby is still something like an vermiform appendix even when only the head of a full-term gestation remains in the birth canal. But instead of each side trying to go for "the big score," maybe we could at least initially offer some legal protections to babies 18 weeks old and up.
It would be a starting point that could be explained and defended logically, at least, and I have reason to believe from the reaction my suggestion has gotten from acquaintances on both the left and the right that many would find it a relief from the current "black versus white" of the existing situation.

Anyway, just some thoughts for providing a middle ground.

Katherine- You have raised some very valid issues. People like to be simplistic on this topic, but it isn't a simple situation.

Arnold- Your comment about Catholicism and abortion is a non-sequitur. However, I would like to point out that the acceptance of abortion in Spain has less to do with their Catholicism and more to do with their Europeanism. Europeans in general are much more relaxed regarding abortion and birth control, to the point where the population growth (especially in northern Europe) is negative. So, albieter's comments about population growth may, at some level, be correct.

Americans are the best church-goers in the first world, and our birth rate is among the highest. This does, however, conflict with the marketplace's idea of sexuality and produces the schizophrenia which I mentioned in my previous post. For our society, especially, there are no easy answers.

Finally, Sean, I don't know why you think there are plenty of female abortion providers. If for no other reason than that women doctors are in high demand, and it's a lot easier to do something else that won't get your office picketed. This also explains why many providers are on the "margins" of the medical community. However, I do know abortion providers (male and female) who believe they are doing a service- and you know what? They aren't BAD people. You are right, I know only what I see, think and feel. Obviously, they see, think and feel something else.

Toren, I have never heard your "18 week" statistic, and I would appreciate a link on that, since that beats the previous "best" record by about a month.

The more I read this thread the more I become convinced that there will be no convincing some people that there can be any kind of middle ground on this issue. I happen to be pro-life, and I, like Dean, wish Roe v. Wade had never happened. Left alone, the issue might have eventually resolved to one that would be purely medical between the woman and her doctor -- which is how it should be.

Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world. So I can only hope that increased education and availability of good, dependable contraceptives will eventually lead to no unwanted pregnancies, thus making abortions completely unnecessary except for extraordinary medical reasons.

Heather, we already have increased education and availability of good, dependable contaceptives. Why there are unplanned pregnancies is a big mystery to me- a few I can see, but 50%? With half of those being aborted? Something doesn't make sense.

Arnold,

I posted this in an earlier thread, but it's worth repeating. You seem to fundamentally misunderstand the state of the Constitutional law regarding abortion. Birth is not the critical point -- viability is.

Most abortion proponents today have given up on the "it's not alive"/"blob of cells"/"parasite" theory of fetal development. Which is good because that theory is biological nonsense.

The issue is, and always has been, when "it" is a "person" both ethically and Constitutionally.
You appear to be under the mistaken belief that an unborn child isn't a "person" within the meaning of the Constitution until it's born.

That is not accurate. In fact, that is the most extreme of the pro-abortion positions. Wesley Clark got into trouble with that during his campaign. He said, in effect, that he support abortion any time before birth. The Supreme Court has never accepted that position.

The key point in modern abortion jurisprudence (post-Casey) is viability, not birth. As the Court explained in Casey: "The woman's liberty is not so unlimited, however, that, from the outset, the State cannot show its concern for the life of the unborn and, at a later point in fetal development, the State's interest in life has sufficient force so that the right of the woman to terminate the pregnancy can be restricted.
* * *
We conclude the line should be drawn at viability, so that, before that time, the woman has a right to choose to terminate her pregnancy." Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 869-70 (1992)(plurality opinion). Prior to Casey, the Court used the even more arbitrary trimester system of Roe. A viable fetus is a limited-rights "person" under the Constitution.

Thus, before viability, the states have no right to regulate abortion. After, they do have a right to regulate in favor of the life of unborn. Of course, it's more theoretical than practical because of technical statutory drafting issues related to a health of the mother exception.

Dani, you'd obviously be in a better position than I to know whether the proportion of abortion doctors who are women is the same as the proportion of overall physicians who are women. In the print and broadcast media coverage of abortion/birth control/family planning issues, I've never noticed that there were discernibly fewer female than male doctors quoted, and it's not as if the same recognizable names always come up. But just to be clear, I wasn't envisioning a minimum W:M ratio for "plenty."

Dani:
I cannot link it as I read it in a book of "medical curiosities" some years ago. It seemed awfully young, but....
Personally I feel that a more reasonable and supportable lower limit is 24 weeks or thereabouts, but again, I'm trying to cut some slack here so that a middle ground can be reached. I can seen a lot of pushing and pulling on both sides for a 24 week figure...18 weeks is a lot harder to argue with.
But the number is not as important as a degree of consensus. If the literature does not admit of any reliable survivals earlier than (say) 20 weeks, then that would be my proposed figure.
As I said, at least it would be a start.

Wow, there's a peace-loving nuance-sipper if I ever saw one. Look at that pointed finger. It's issuing from a *clenched* fist. Good lord.

I suspect she's needed an outlet like she got for awhile. I think it's good for people to let fly. The people she was yelling at are to be praised for giving her the opportunity to do so. "Right into their smug faces," as she'll probably report it today to her friends. More power to her.

Y'know, I was there the whole day and didn't see any of the seething, screaming, or spitting Bill mentions. Obviously the rally was preaching to the choir, but that's okay---the choir needs to hear the word as well.

Of course in ANY group that big there's bound to be an asshole factor, but as a whole it ran smoother than piss off a plate.

And the point is that the White House has declared a War on Choice, and that DOES threaten my life and my loved ones. This is WORTH getting angry about Bill (and it's worth having a great party afterwards as well)

Don - you weren't standing by the silent Episcopols that were standing on the parade route, then. I wasn't shocked that some people were angry, what I was shocked about was the fact that thousands and thousands of people lost their monds at quiet and respectful counter-protestors. I can see how where you were during the march could give you a totally different take, however.

On behalf of the entire Left, let me apologize to any the silent Episcopols who were yelled at while they were repectfully attempting to limit my rights. I'll bring this up at the next meeting, and ask my fellow liberals to try not to scare the poor right-wingers so much.

However...we ARE going to keep yelling at the religious right leaders who are attempting to turn their religious views into law, with donations from those silent Episcopols.

Don - I'm pro-choice, and I was repulsed at what was coming out of these people's mouths. What I heard transcended the issue - it was animalistic.

Bill, let me ask you a few questions:

1) Which of these do you consider the bigger problem: A few nasty exchanges on a public street, or the wholesale assault on choice by the White House?

2) Did you see any violence? Did pro-choice crowds beat up any counter-protesters, or was this just and exchange of words? Compare that to the number of abortion providers murdered or clinics bombed with the silent approval (or active support) of those counter-protesters?

3) How did those "animalistic" words compare to the hate-filled rantings that Operation: Rescue screams at the top of their lungs at young girls at clinics EVERY SINGLE DAY? Which side of this debate do you think has a longer, more wide-spread, lengthly record of slinging verbal abuse?

Sean, I don't have any stats on the ratio of male to female providers, either, (I bet there aren't any accurate ones) but that's my take on it.

Toren, I would be willing to bet that the surviving 18-week fetus you read about was probably a very growth-restricted 24-week baby. Those little guys are fighters- it's like they know they are going to have to make their debut early. I think there are reported cases of survival as low as 22 documented weeks. Intact survival (where they grow up A-ok with no problems is, sadly, not until a few weeks later).

Don,

1. It's not a wholesale assault by the White House - and I consider a strategic approach to remaking the world's political landscape as an issue that dwarfs those issues in any case - I fully believe that Bush can be beaten back/controlled on the abortion issue.

2. I saw folks go after the counter-dems but get blocked by the cops, and I saw people throwing things and spitting. Without the massive police presence, there would have been violence, no doubt.

People that bomb abortion clinics or kill providers are animals, and you are painting with too broad a brush in assuming the alliance. I'm not maligning all of the pro-choice people, after all, I am one, and there were 500,000 - 1 million people there yesterday. I was just suprised at how nasty many of them are.

3. I have PERSONAL experience with what you mention, as I escorted a friend through a phalanx of brutal monsters a few years back - but I'm not passing judgements on either side here or speaking in generalizations about who is right or wrong.

Wait 'till the post at INDC.

Remember, folks: guns don't kill people. Abortions kill people.

Don, some perspective please.

The number of abortion provider murders overall since 1977 is 7, with none since 1998.

Statistics as reported by prochoice.org

I don't recall the White House leading this assault. And I don't mean to minimize their deaths, but 7 in 27 years does not sound like an epidemic.

And I know most would not expect me to have to say this, but there's at least one person out the who would, it is hateful and wrong to murder an abortion provider. It's hateful and wrong to scream at people entering or leaving a clinic. Ditto all the other violence.

Bill, thank you. Thoughtful and interesting comments/observations. We don't see quite eye to eye, but I believe you've written some of the most honest remarks about this controversy that I've ever read.

High praise - thank you.

Katherine, murder requires intent. So having a miscarriage (spontanous abortion) induced by say, a car wreck, a fall down the stairs or even just a detached planceta would not be murder. Maybe if you threw yourself down the stairs over and over, until you aborted. BTW, no rape occurs in a vacumn. There is not a single one that could not have been prevented, except maybe the incestous ones. A little SA would prevent most rapes. I have stopped two gang rapes in my life, once at the price of a 22 in my left calf. Not much can be done when some sick bastard rapes his daughter. At least before the fact.
Arnold, How many Saudi wives have you seen at the 7-11 lately? It would be extremly easy to keep females in the country. Just make them wear Black burlap sacks. When a MBO (moving black object)is spotted, the muttawa swoops down. When the Taliban takes over here in the US, you will quickly learn that the Roman technique of killing one in ten is very effective at keeping populations in line. While you might tell yourself that you will take up arms to defend your rights, I'll bet you don't. I do agree about the Catholic church thingy. My children are to old for that and my grandchildren are to young, so I hope we missed the curve so to speak. I'm a hard atheist but my wife is catholic so my sons all went to catholic schools. But they went for the education NOT the religion. Religion they can find on their own. My position comes from the political opinion that governments exist to serve their citizens. I submit that killing them is NOT serving them. That is why I am also against the Death Penalty. I think it is hypocritical to be both pro-choice and anti-death.
I do question that 38 million abortions figure. Where does that come from? 100,000 a month, more or less seems high. 30,000 per diem, or almost 4,000 per hour. I still see abortion as genocide.
"[n] systematic killing of a racial or cultural group "
I'm willing to take a stab at defining unborn children as a cultural group. if there are any takers out there.

Re: Rape

"There is not a single one that could not have been prevented, except maybe the incestous ones."

This opinion/belief makes the victim of rape to blame for a crime committed against them. It is equivalent to saying that everyone that is murdered or robbed could have prevented it. Do you realize what you are stating? This is a completely illogical and an antiquated position to take.

Although it may be a popular to portray on television shows, I don't think it would wash in the court system. If the rape victim was a man would you say the same?

Nevertheless, I completely disagree with the point you have made here. If this is a basis to your argument, your argument has completely unwound itself in my eyes.