It's Time for an Abortion Pride Movement

Opinion by Jacob M Appel
(March 23, 2009) in Politics / Abortion
Everybody is proud these days. While “pride” as a collective concept may have originated with the Gay Rights movement of the 1970s, now marchers in the St. Patrick’s Day parade are as likely to sport pins boasting “Proud to be Irish” and my Jewish friends are as proud to be Jewish as my Muslim friends are proud to be Muslim—although I always wonder if they wouldn’t be equally proud if they had been born into the opposite faiths. Recently, I even spotted a bumper sticker on a jalopy that declared: “Proud to be humble.” While the Book of Proverbs may warn us that “pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall,” the political and social reality today is that pride is a necessary prerequisite for acceptance and equality. That is why the moment is ripe—more than ripe—for an Abortion Pride Movement.

The anti-abortion movement already has its own pride movement. If one reads about reproductive issues in the conservative media—which I often do—one is bombarded with tales of mothers who have sacrificed personal and professional opportunities to bring fetuses to term. The implication is that while bearing a child when one is ready is a blessing, bearing a child when one is not prepared garners one extra moral credit in the cosmos. Similarly, while having a healthy baby is a cause for joy, some opponents of abortion profess that having a baby with a devastating or even fatal birth defect is proof of the mother’s fortitude and character. If one believes that human life begins at conception, this is logically the case. However, if one believes that life begins after conception—as do a wide majority of Americans, if polls on such issues as embryonic stem cell research are to believed—then the suffering caused by transforming an unwanted embryo into a living baby, who will either endure debilitating disease or will enter a deeply inhospitable home environment, is not at all a cause for pride. It more is akin to deciding that the world is flat and then boasting of not falling off the edge.

In contrast to women who have foregone abortion, women who have chosen to terminate their pregnancies are rarely encouraged to take pride in their decisions. That is unfortunate. In the current political climate, deciding not to bring a fetus to term, if a woman is unready to parent, or if that fetus is likely to lead a life of great physical suffering, is a courageous and noble moral choice. Recognizing that thirteen or fourteen years old is rarely a wise age to embark on the process of parenting takes personal insight—but it also requires wisdom, at that young age, to terminate a pregnancy and so spare a child from growing up with another child for a parent. In short, women should not merely have the right to end unwanted pregnancies, they should have the right to be proud of having done so. Surely, there is enough suffering in this world already without adding infants with Tay-Sachs disease and Lesch-Nyhan syndrome to the mix. Women who step up to the ethical plate and have the strength to say, “This is the wrong time,” or “This is the wrong fetus,” should hold their heads high in the streets.

That is not to say that terminating a pregnancy may not prove a difficult choice. Even if one believes that fetuses are not human beings, one might take a risky or inopportune pregnancy to term for a host of reasons: fear that one may be too old to try again, a desire to reach common ground with a spouse or partner, etc. But the difficulty of making a personal decision should not be mistaken for doubt regarding the morality of the conclusion. While choosing to terminate may be difficult for women under many circumstances and for many reasons, if they have made the correct choice for themselves, they should be proud that they have done so. And our society should be proud of them too. Our message should not be merely toleration or resigned acquiescence, but genuine joy that someone has made a decision for their own and for the collective good.

Somehow, many supporters of abortion rights have been lulled into accepting the rhetoric that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare.” That may be good language for winning elections, but it does a profound disservice to the millions of women who have abortions in this nation each year. Abortions should be safe and legal. That goes without saying. But rare? Abortions should be as frequent or as infrequent as are unwanted pregnancies. I dream of the day when women are not afraid to walk the streets with pins reading, “I had an abortion and it was the right decision,” and when station wagons bear bumper-stickers announcing, “Thank me for having an abortion when I wasn’t ready to be a parent.” I admire those individuals who work to ensure a women’s right to choose. But choice is a merely a foundation. Ultimately, women—if they so desire—should feel comfortable expressing public pride in their brave and wise choices.
Regarding Opinion
It's Time for an Abortion Pride Movement

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Livvy
    How does this guy find work?

    This article is so retarded, that when I think of the author typing it up, I see a drooling baboon who's just recently had half his brain removed writing his "thoughts" on a napkin with a crayon.

    Bumper stickers reading “Thank me for having an abortion when I wasn’t ready to be a parent "?

    The reason it's ok to be proud about raising an unexpected child and not ok to show pride in aborting one is that carrying a child to term, going through labor, and raising a kid for the next twenty years is hard work - getting a shot in the belly is not.

    I think I'm going to make a bumper sticker that says "thank me for taking the time to get the pneumococcal vaccine " because that would actually deserve more respect from others than the paraphernalia the author is envisioning.


    - LivvyUS March 23, 2009 5:40PM

    Reply to this Recommend (5) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • Don L
      Abortion Pride?

      I have a bumber sticker for those who would not only slaughter the nost innocent but be proud of it (assuming your name is not Satan)

      ABORTION - IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN!

      - Don LUS March 24, 2009 10:07AM

      Reply to this Recommend (4) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • F2XL
        I'd get that sticker anytime!

        In the meantime, I would sure like to ask Obama the following:

        "Since you support a woman's right to choose , do you ever wonder what your life would be like if your wife exercised that right?"

        - F2XLUS March 25, 2009 1:02PM

        Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • Naumadd
          Questions

          Of course, had his mother exercised that right, your question would be rather moot, wouldn't it?

          The question rightly in the mind of Barack Obama isn't whether his mother was free to choose to give birth to himself - that question is rather academic now - but rather will his own daughters be free to make that very same choice themselves or will a dictatorial culture impose its decision on them.

          The question comes down to the very same question asked by the founders of our nation - does the individual own themselves or are they the property of society or, more significantly, property of the state. Entire nations today - to include the United States - continue to wrestle with that very question even though it has been repeatedly and satisfactorily answered for centuries.

          Conclusion - the individual rightly belongs to themselves and only to themselves. No other human being, no society, no government can rightly own a human being. Nevertheless, individuals, groups, communities, cultures, nations, governments continue to think a human being can be - and OUGHT to be - treated as property.

          Human history shows repeatedly that this view is untenable because it runs exactly opposed to the values fundamental to civilization.

          Barack Obama's mother was at liberty to make her own choice. Let's hope his daughters will be at liberty to do the same as their grandmother ... or something entirely different.

          - NaumaddUS March 26, 2009 3:31AM

          Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Thinker
    Irony

    I find it ironic that abortion rights advocate fail to appreciate they were all taken to full term.

    That having been said, let's be honest about abortion. Recent abortion data suggest that at least 90% (and as much as 98%) of all abortions are elective surgery, and not the result of rape, incest, or health issues. We're killing fetuses because we can't take responsibility for our lives.

    The final irony is that we wouldn't allow the above with our pets .

    - ThinkerUS March 24, 2009 9:56AM

    Reply to this Recommend (5) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • Johnny
      Cause and Effect

      "We're killing fetuses because we can't take responsibility for our lives."

      Poor sexual education (aka abstinence-only ) has lead to young people that lack the knowledge to make responsible choices when it comes to sex. Thus once faced with that truly tough situation, lack the ability to take responsibility for their poor choices. So they look for a way out.

      Complete and thorough education would get less unwanted pregnancy ; less unwanted pregnancy would result in fewer women seeking abortion .

      +++ +++ +++ +++ +++

      The problem is that you have religious groups that are playing tug-of- war with themselves. They don’t understand that they pull on one end demanding abstinence-only (less thorough) sex education, and lose ground when abortions rise. Then they pull on the other end demanding no abortions (or at least fewer), and lose ground when more sex education is requested.

      These two issues are related, but religious groups fail to see this, or refuse to admit it. These two issues will not make any real headway until those groups realize that the cause of one effects the other. When and if they ever come to that realization, the interesting question will be which they value more; the children ’s innocence (ignorance) or the lives of unborn fetuses.

      - JohnnyUS March 25, 2009 2:01PM

      Reply to this Recommend (4) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • mangueken
        You can add

        The Pope's recent claim that condoms help increase the spread of aids. Using them must also get more people pregnant, I guess.

        - manguekenUS March 25, 2009 4:46PM

        Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • Mojoanne
          The Pope is right

          It is well known that condoms have a pregnancy failure rate between 2% when used perfectly and 15% in real world applications. Check Consumer Reports if you don't believe me. Just think what it is for viruses and other STDS which are smaller than sperm. Read the condom expose on www.hli.org if you think throwing condoms will fix the AIDS epidemic.

          - MojoanneUS March 25, 2009 11:11PM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

          • mangueken
            How to use statistics

            Condoms fail 15% percent of the time which means they are roughly successful 85% percent of the time. Compare that to all the good Christian social workers who follow the pope's orders in third world countries who say don't use condom for either case ( pregnancy or STDS) and the rate for not using it shoots up to 99% chance of becoming pregnant and / or getting a STD.
            Please throw the condoms out there. It may not solve the problem but it would do a lot to slow down the spread.

            - manguekenUS March 26, 2009 8:07AM

            Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

            Thank You for your Comment

            We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

            • richardsonkr
              How to use facts

              There are no Christian social workers "following the Pope's orders" and telling people not to use a condom. They're telling people not to have sex at all, which is 100% effective, as opposed to 85%.

              - richardsonkrUS March 26, 2009 11:50AM

              Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

              Thank You for your Comment

              We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

              • mangueken
                There are

                but what is you're real point? I can agree that abstinence is 100% effective. But in the real world the starting point is, many people are having sex and they should be encouraged to use all available forms of protection against unwanted pregnancies and STDs.

                - manguekenUS March 26, 2009 3:32PM

                Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

                Thank You for your Comment

                We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • Mojoanne
        abstinence does not lead to abortion

        It is a myth propagated by Planned Parenthood who receives $330 million of our tax dollars that abstinence only education is incomplete, less thorough, or a failure. They get 12x the money that abstinence only education does, dispense contraceptives out the wazoo, and still there is a problem. Consider that we have a greater variety and easier access to contraceptives now then 40 years ago, and yet there are still thousands of unplanned pregnancies. Why? Because the media is over-sexualized, and there is an attitude of casual sex with multiple partners being okay. It's not. Abstinence teaches kids responsible behavior; condoms and contraceptives only mask the problem for a little while. Abstinence kids aren't dumb; they learn all the biology, mechanics, and shortcomings too.

        If Planned Parenthood was serious about comprehensive sex education, why don't they teach about fetal development, the miracle of pregnancy , and parenting skills? They are only interested in promoting sex; you can see it by their pornographic teenwire website.

        There is no tug of war among religious conservatives; we value both born and pre-born children . You don't know the real facts why abortions rise. States with liberal abortion laws have more abortions than the ones that regulate its practice. Legality made abortions rise not abstinence education.

        - MojoanneUS March 25, 2009 11:03PM

        Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • memerider
          Restrictive abortion laws

          It is a fact that in states with more restrictive abortion laws, a black market has risen up to meet the demand and they are simply not being reported.

          The only reason it was legalized in the first was because it was extremely common and untrained hacks were injuring and killing girls and women.

          I appreciate people having beliefs and choosing not to have one, but criminalizing it would be counterproductive.

          - memeriderUS April 25, 2009 11:19PM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • Naumadd
      Failure ...

      I cannot speak for other abortion rights advocates, however, this advocate is all too aware that he was "taken to full term". I am aware that my mother was free to choose as she saw fit for her own life - yes, she was an unwed mother in the beginning. The point in my advocacy is not the choice my mother made - thankfully - but rather that she and others like her are free to make their own choice.

      What gets me about the abortion opposition is the inherent arrogance that they can know better what is right for the life of another than they who are faced with an unwanted pregnancy . It is, in fact, impossible for you to have a better understanding of the experiences and facts of the life of even a single other human being than they have themselves - let alone know better than an entire class of human beings. I advocate choice in abortion because of this inescapable truth - I cannot make such a decision for a life I am not personally living. This is not to say I will necessarily agree with what they decide - it is merely saying I am not and no one else is in a position to decide for them and I'm not arrogant enough to impose my view in such a personal dilemma.

      My mother was free to choose and she chose to give birth. My simple wish is that every other potential mother have the same freedom she had to make their own choices and live with the consequences thereof. I would not see my own mother enslaved to the "will of the majority". I'll not see any other similarly enslaved and I'll forever do what is necessary to oppose and resist the efforts of individuals attempting to institute such a condition on any other human being.

      And just so we're clear, no, an unborn fetus is NOT a human being in the same sense the mother is a "human being". If that fetus is able to survive independently of the mother, then, by all means, give it the liberty to try. The fetus may or may not have a "right to life", however, it can never be argued the fetus has a "right to the womb of the mother". One has a right to life, however, no one has the right to survive off the back of another. If the fetus has individual rights, so does the mother. If it is her choice to be liberated from the needs of the fetus, she has the right to do so. I've argued elsewhere that, although a pregnant woman MUST have the liberty to abort, it cannot be argued she has the right to destroy the fetus. Abortion need not necessarily mean the destruction of the aborted fetus. If the fetus cannot survive on its own, those who wish to take responsibility for its survival ought to be free to do so, however, the fetus has no legitimate claim to the womb of an unwilling mother. If that is your position, what you are essentially arguing is the partially-developed fetus deserves liberty from the decisions of the mother but the "fully-developed" mother does not deserve liberty from the choices made by or for the fetus. Such a position contradicts itself in its fundamentals. One cannot hold both positions in any intellectually consistent manner.

      - NaumaddUS March 26, 2009 3:56AM

      Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • The Almighty God
        Wrong

        Your entire premise would be valid if only the unborn child did in fact belong to and was in fact owned by it's mother. Said child's
        DNA is separate and different from the mother she is only responsible for the childs well being (thus the term "MOTHER") and therefore must act in the childs best interest, killing and murder are not maternal traits for humans. So since the child is it's owner it has rights according to our declaration of independance and was created with rights equal to those of the mother and everyone else.
        There is no law but Gods law. Thou shalt not commit murder.

        - The Almighty GodUS March 27, 2009 12:23AM

        Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • The Almighty God
        You sir are are not human

        My first reply was penned too quickly as you really offended further down in the drivel.
        What grievous offense did this child commit that warrants a needle to the brain? That it is not able to sustain life without it's mother and has no right to the womb? You'd make a great Saddam or Udday or Qusay. The offense must be just being created at the wrong place at the wrong time. Sorry Timmy you were just for screwing not for living and that's my right.
        Every action bears responsibility of the action, the time for choice is before the conception after that the womb is forfeit just as freedom is forfeit by a thief who chooses to pull the trigger, once pulled the choice is made and consequences are due.

        - The Almighty GodUS March 27, 2009 1:04AM

        Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • HomeoftheBrave
    Pride and Murder - A New Concept

    Livvy is right... how DOES this guy find work? I'm so proud I killed my baby ..... I should have a parade? There used to be a time when people were concious of what life is and how important it is, that it deserved respect of the highest order. We jail or execute murderers on one end of the spectrum and revere them on the other end of the life sprectrum? How disjointed and ludicrous is that?

    - HomeoftheBraveUS March 24, 2009 9:57AM

    Reply to this Recommend (4) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • Livvy
      Killing's as easy as 123...or not.

      For the author to even suggest women should show their pride in aborting their unborn children shows that he has no concept of what it means to take a life.

      I've killed people before. Been to war , seen combat, etc. Am I ashamed of what I did? No. But I would never, ever think it appropriate to declare pride in taking another life in such a trite way as wearing pins declaring just how great I am. Nobody would think that's appropriate. How is it more appropriate to take pride in ending your own unborn child?

      This author acts like killing is as easy as doing the funky chicken. Taking another person's life, even out of necessity, is a heavy, heavy burden that only the ignorant or depraved would ever celebrate.

      - LivvyUS March 24, 2009 4:20PM

      Reply to this Recommend (2) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • wordworker
        RIGHT ON !!!

        Livvy, I couldn't have said it better! I was going to weigh in, but you've said all that needs to be said. Thank you for your service, by the way, from a Vietnam vet.

        - wordworkerUS March 25, 2009 1:33PM

        Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • Livvy
          Right back atcha!

          Thanks for saying so, but somehow, I doubt my experiences in Afghanistan even begin to compare with the horrors of Vietnam. *Sigh*...those were the days... Back when war was war and men were men :)

          I mean, we even had working showers where I was stationed.

          Still, one thing is still certain - going to war changes one's perspective. Just a bit.

          - LivvyUS March 25, 2009 4:52PM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • Naumadd
        Personal definitions

        What you say may be true if one defines an incomplete pregnancy in precisely the same way you do. I understand those who think as you do believe all people ought to define "fetus" or "embryo" or "pregnancy" in a very specific way, however, perhaps you miss the truth that people other than yourself are simply under no arguable obligation to define terms in ways you believe to be the correct ones.

        If your issue is with "taking a life", how exactly do you define "a life"? From an arguable point of view, "a life" and likely dozens or hundreds or thousands of lives have been "taken" every time a meal is provided to you. You take many lives in brushing your teeth or washing your body. "A life" or perhaps more is lost with each of your monthly cycles. The list can go on and on.

        The point is two-fold, how do you define your terms and with what argument do you insist others must define those terms in a way agreeable to you? You may believe the abortion of a human fetus is "taking a life", and I may not entirely disagree with you, however, I can never agree with your or anyone else's insistence upon the liberty to impose your definitions on the decisions of another with regard to abortion in their personal lives.

        I'm all for responsible action with regard to your own pregnancy, however, I cannot ignore the inherent contradiction in insisting on the individual rights of a fetus while deliberately ignoring the individual rights of the pregnant female. You cannot insist on liberty for the one while denying liberty to the other. I would, of course, insist that the situation isn't one of "two persons" but rather one person who is pregnant with only the potential for another person. I would insist we aren't discussing two rights but rather only one right. If at some time the fetus is truly an independent life, then and only then do we have a situation involving two rights.

        In any event, it always right for one to take pride in responsible action according to one's values. That is what the emotion of "pride" is - the feeling one has upon achieving something one values. Certainly, you values may be irrational. "Pride" makes no comment about whether values have to be rational - they just simply have to have been achieved for "pride" to be appropriate. You do not believe "pride in abortion" is appropriate. But, of course, "abortion" is not among your values and thus to take pride in it would be inappropriate. I'd be the last to say it OUGHT to be your value, but I'm also the last to say it ought NOT be anyone else's value.

        That's a personal choice.

        - NaumaddUS March 26, 2009 4:17AM

        Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • Livvy
          Still doesn't make this guy legit

          I agree with you in the regard that my values may be different than others', but when it comes to abortion (and bickerings between pro-choice and pro-life) I'm afraid that this author has offended both sides of the coin.

          Every woman I've ever known who's had an abortion had a hard time with their emotions during and after the ordeal. I say ordeal, because it was for them.

          I think this article is offensive to women in every sense of the word. The author seems to think having an abortion is so easy for us that we would think to celebrate it. I'm having a fantasy of this guy getting ripped apart and chewed up by feminists everywhere even as I type this.

          As far as defining the word "life" - a fetus develops in a cephalocaudal fashion - meaning from head to foot. It's going to start developing a brain and a heart within the first trimester. Most of us associate brain activity with "life" - which is why it's so hard for people to pull the plug on their loved ones if they have even the most remote brain activity.

          Just after the first trimester, a pregnant woman can feel her unborn child moving around inside of her. If, after that point, any woman decided to get an abortion, I just don't think they could walk away from that with pins and ribbons and bumper stickers proclaiming how proud they are.

          My personal opinion on abortion is this; people don't get pregnant by accident in the year 2009 as much as pro-choice activists say they do. Aborting the fetus within the first 2 months isn't the same as those half-birth abortions pro-life activists put on trucks. And the laws governing abortions should be in the hands of the state, not the federal government.

          This author almost makes abortion sound like an alternative to birth control. It shouldn't be. It is messing around with mother nature and unless it's really necessary, why do it?

          - LivvyUS March 26, 2009 5:53PM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • mangueken
      You forgot

      going through all the work and time spent with your child and then sending them off to go die in countries we invade.

      - manguekenUS March 25, 2009 4:48PM

      Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • Mojoanne
        not all the same

        You have a point regarding the defense and sanctity of all human life. However, there is a huge difference between deliberately killing an innocent human being which is intrinsically evil and an adult going to war in service of his/her country even if that war is unjust.

        - MojoanneUS March 25, 2009 11:23PM

        Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • mangueken
          Arbitrary difference

          Evil is a subjectively applied term. When and how it is used has changed over the course of history. Even Christian sects have been known to use it against each other for theological differences.
          While I'm a little put off by the article, I did agree with the idea that women should be proud of the reproductive choices they make - since those decisions most effect their lives.
          Painting a legitimate choice that a woman can make among the various options as evil is unjust.
          If we need to help people make better choices about their sex lives or learn how to be safe while having sex or even making sure that contraceptives are made available as cheap as possible to as many people as possible; I totally support that. I also think that if some women decided to carry the baby to term and give it up for adoption then there should be programs setup to help them cover the prenatal costs and medical expenses, but this would still be just one of the options available: covering the costs may make it more appealing to more women.
          I don't think forcing women to have babies they don't want to have is an option and it's definitely not going to teach anyone to be more responsible.

          - manguekenUS March 26, 2009 8:35AM

          Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

          • Livvy
            There already are "programs"

            "I don't think forcing women to have babies they don't want to have is an option and it's definitely not going to teach anyone to be more responsible."

            Nobody's asking women to do that. This isn't what the article is about. It's about taking a serious matter and turning into something you can put in a parade. Abortion is not a joyous matter. If you're pro-life then this article is disgusting. If you're pro-choice - this article is still, at the very least, ridiculous.

            It would literally be on the same level as celebrating getting any other shot.

            "Painting a legitimate choice that a woman can make among the various options as evil is unjust."

            I've heard this song and dance just about one too many times. It's the year 2009. Let's get real here. We have birth control for the young, the old, the heavy bleeders, the light bleeders, the ones who only want to have 3 periods a year, and people who have heart problems. We have ribbed, thin, thick, large, small, extra large, and blueberry flavored condoms . We have the dep. Women and men can both get their tubes tied. The only reason someone should be having an abortion is in the case of rape or endangerment to the mother. Neither of those scenarios belongs in a parade.

            Abortion doesn't belong in the "legitimate choice" category. It belongs in the "last resort" category - also not a parade ticket item.

            And you can go on about "unexpected pregnancies" all you want, but kids get sex education at 11 these days. If you don't know that part A + part B = trouble down the road, by the time your primary sex organs have matured - well then you're probably too stupid to breed.

            - LivvyUS March 27, 2009 5:36PM

            Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

            Thank You for your Comment

            We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

            • mangueken
              I'm not for the parade either

              I objected to saying that an abortion is evil.

              "And you can go on about "unexpected pregnancies" all you want, but kids get sex education at 11 these days. If you don't know that part A + part B = trouble down the road, by the time your primary sex organs have matured - well then you're probably too stupid to breed."

              Unexpected pregnancies can happen because of contraceptive failure. So the option to have an abortion is legitimate and necessary.
              Sex education in schools is not universal. Just imagine the the sex education quality in the schools that can't even teach evolution .Unfortunately (or fortunately), being able to breed doesn't take any intelligence. But then, really, that is beside the point.
              And the only song and dance that gets old is the one where, other people try to tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies. Like you said, it's 2009 choice just means having one, everyone should be used to having choice by now.

              - manguekenUS March 27, 2009 6:50PM

              Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

              Thank You for your Comment

              We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

              • Livvy
                I might have anger management issues...

                "Unexpected pregnancies can happen because of contraceptive failure. So the option to have an abortion is legitimate and necessary."

                While I agree with you, it's sort of apparent that some pro-choice activists are getting just a little too flippant about the abortion movement. First off, I just want you to know, that I am in no way a baby person. I don't really understand how anyone ever gets the desire to have a screaming fetus ripped from their uterus. And I don't like kids either.

                That being said, the issue of abortion is getting out of hand. It used to be: "well it should be legal, because there are some cases where the mother's life is at stake." Then it became about feminism, and womens' right to choose. Guess what?! If you're having sex without contraceptives you sort of already made a choice, now didn't you? And I understand that contraceptives fail sometimes, but how often? Like, 2% of the time if you can't figure out how to get the condom on?

                What appalls me most is the recent argument about what counts as life. Some people honestly think that a fetus doesn't count as being alive until it's exiting the birthing canal. If you can't figure out that you're pregnant by the second trimester, or you just can't make up your mind whether you want to keep it or not until then - you've got issues.

                And because I am sort of a feminazi, it really peeves me when guys get on board the pro-abortion train. Especially to the point that the author of this article has gotten to. Guys who are ok with fucking you but not ok with raising any unwanted children should be shot in the testicles. A personal philosophy, but still.

                As I said before, the contraceptives we have in this day and age are becoming more and more effective. Abortion should be almost a non-issue by now.

                And what schools can't teach evolution or sex ed these days?

                - LivvyUS March 28, 2009 11:09AM

                Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

                Thank You for your Comment

                We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Pablo
    Pride?

    "But rare? Abortions should be as frequent or as infrequent as are unwanted pregnancies."

    And what should unintended pregnancies be? Barring sexual assault, the vast majority of unintended pregnancies are the direct result of carelessness and are a failure of self control. What's to be proud of? It's not as if pregnancy just sort of happens like the flu or a yeast infection.

    - PabloUS March 24, 2009 9:58AM

    Reply to this Recommend (3) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Capejasmine
    ummm

    Ok!

    You quote the bible . Did we not also learn....Thou Shalt Not Kill?

    Be proud you had an abortion ? How about being proud someone raped, and, or murdered another human being? How about being proud of those who sexually assault, and abuse children ? Hey! That person killed an endangered species . Let's make it a front page news story, and give him a medal.

    I don't believe in abortions. If one is not ready for the raising of a child, than one might take better precautions to ensure that a child isn't concieved. Or better yet.... if the maturity factor isn't there to raise a child, perhaps these persons aren't ready for sex in the first place. With everything we do, comes responsibility. Abortion is the easy way out...and nothing to be proud of. It speaks for the lack of ones character. It doesn't exemplify it.

    - CapejasmineUS March 24, 2009 10:00AM

    Reply to this Recommend (3) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Mary Ann24
    What about adoption?

    This article completely ignores the alternative to abortion - adoption . No child has to enter a "deeply inhospitable home environment ." It does take maturity and nobility to recognize that one is not ready to be a parent - and then choose adoption. There really are no such things as unwanted children - somewhere, usually very close by in large numbers are people ready, willing, eager, desperate for the child---even those children who are not perfect whom the writer says should never be born at all.
    There is nothing particularly brave or wise about abortion - to choose abortion is to choose the easy way out - to choose the way that lets you cover it over quickly, to pretend it never happened at all. I suspect that many of those who choose abortion don't really choose it but are coerced into it by those around them who want to cover things over. How about the bumper sticker "Thank me for giving my child up for adoption when I wasn't ready to be a parent."?
    My authority for these comments is that I became pregnant, after a "non-consensual" episode. I was mature enough to know I wasn't ready to be a parent, and mature enough to know that someone else was. Of course, silly me, I just couldn't convince myself that the fetus I was carrying wasn't "human" until the magical moment when its head came out of my body, and the magic human dust fell on it.

    - Mary Ann24CA March 24, 2009 10:02AM

    Reply to this Recommend (4) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • JoeMama
    The end of possibilities

    By your logic the choice to have an abortion should be celebrated? Should we celebrate the nonexistance of Stephen Hawking, probably the finest mind of this age, because he has a disease that could have been detected early enough for him to have been terminated? Should we celebrate the nonexistance of President Barack Obama, as he could have been deemed an unwanted pregnancy by a young women "not ready to be a parent?"

    Whether you think you know when life begins, the only constant here is when the possibility of that life is ended. I am not ready to take away the right to have an abortion, as I am not sure myself when life begins, but I feel very secure in saying that it should not be celebrated.

    An abortion, among other things, is the permanent end to a possible life that could have had tremendous meaning to the world, or just a small group of loved ones.

    Certain things that are not illegal are still looked at with trepidation. Would you celebrate the insurance company that declines a patient's claim in such a way that it shortens their life? It is perfectly legal in many cases and happens every day.

    Just because it is not illegal does not make it an action worthy of pride. If you can live with your decision, good, but don't make certain actions attractive when in the long run even the most hardline abortion advocate will never say that this is an action one will take joyously.

    I find this viewpoint innapropriate in the extreme and am quite unsettled to have even read it. I can only hope that it does not get widespread viewing, and if it does, it is looked upon as an abberation of an illformed opinion.

    - JoeMamaUS March 24, 2009 10:02AM

    Reply to this Recommend (3) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Gritz
    Abortion Pride?

    Not sure how to proceed with this. When one states they were "not ready to be a parent " does that also mean at least one person was not "ready to be born"? Or another way is to state this in basic terms is I had sex, got pregnant and therefore, the person that pays is the one that has done nothing except to be conceived to a person that now has the right to murder them. Killing in the name of convenience hardly represents the best that we as humans have to offer.

    - GritzUS March 24, 2009 10:03AM

    Reply to this Recommend (3) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Yojimbo
    A joke?

    Must be an April Fool's Day piece that got published a week too early by mistake.

    - YojimboUS March 24, 2009 10:07AM

    Reply to this Recommend (4) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • subtext
    Abortion Pride - "Just Cut It Out!"

    This article has to be a rip-off from The Onion. It sure reads that way.

    Just imagine the new catchphrase: "Safe, legal, and frequent!"

    Isn't it the role of an ethicist to make moral choices? The author argues that the decision to abort is brave and wise. However, the decision to raise a child in the same circumstance is also brave and wise for many women.

    If there is no moral difference, why should we celebrate one choice over another?

    The most chilling phrase in the entire article:

    "This is the wrong fetus"

    No. This is the wrong bioethicist.







    - subtextUS March 24, 2009 10:10AM

    Reply to this Recommend (4) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • Morganfrost
      Abortion pride?

      This article smacks of depravity.
      It's one thing to tolerate something; it's quite another to celebrate or take pride in it. At a minimum, one must acknowledge that any abortion results in the termination of a potential human life; on the other end of the scale, an abortion may be said to terminate an existing human life. The loss of a life may-- one may argue-- be a necessity; it should never be a cause for celebration.

      - MorganfrostUS March 24, 2009 11:03AM

      Reply to this Recommend (2) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • Naumadd
        Pride

        Smacks of depravity? It's all a matter of perspective, isn't it? You cannot set a fine Thanksgiving table without having taken quite a few lives to fill it - and not simply that of the turkey or hog. Keeping in mind the murder of both plant and animal in order to provide that full table, is it then wrong to feel pride in that setting and meal? Is that not - directly or indirectly - pride in killing? Why reserve your prideful killing for any species OTHER than human beings? Why not remain rather humble in ALL of your killing? Why the human arrogance?

        There are, in fact, numerous examples of human beings taking pride in the lives they take when one steps back from human arrogance and look at the full truth regarding how much other life is destroyed that we might survive.

        And yet you scream it is "depraved" for an individual to take pride in following through on their value of aborting an unwanted pregnancy ? I'll grant you, putting it on a bumpersticker is rather taking pride to an extreme but, still, depraved isn't a word I'd have used for it. "Depraved" is, in fact, having a particular value - regardless of its rationality or irrationality - and behaving completely contrary to that value.

        Of course, "depraved" isn't the word I'd use. I call that "irrational". Add that to a value that in and of itself is also irrational and you have yourself a human being who probably needs professional help.

        There is nothing inherently depraved or irrational in achieving what you value and feeling pride for the achievement. Interestingly, one can justify feeling pride and yet remain appropriately humble in its expression. Inappropriate expression rather than inappropriate pride is what most individuals object to.

        - NaumaddUS March 26, 2009 4:35AM

        Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • Morganfrost
          Yes, smacks of depravity.

          "It's all a matter of perspective, isn't it? You cannot set a fine Thanksgiving table without having taken quite a few lives to fill it - and not simply that of the turkey or hog....Why the human arrogance?"

          I forgot to mention that I'm a human, not a turkey or a hog, so I do take a human perspective (should I put a disclaimer in future posts?). If you see things from a hog's perspective, well, perhaps it's the company you keep.

          "There are, in fact, numerous examples of human beings taking pride in the lives they take..."

          The fact that there are numerous examples of something is irrelevant to the question of whether or not it is depraved. And, in case I was insufficiently clear, I do make a distinction between human lives and animal lives.

          "And yet you scream it is "depraved" for an individual to take pride in following through on their value of aborting an unwanted pregnancy ?"

          I didn't scream; I typed. But, yes.

          "'Depraved' is, in fact, having a particular value - regardless of its rationality or irrationality - and behaving completely contrary to that value."

          No, look it up. It means (per the Oxford English Dictionary) "rendered bad or worse, vitiated, debased, corrupt," or, more specifically, "rendered morally bad, corrupt, wicked." And that is precisely how I used the term. You may be a moral relativist, but it will be impossible for you to have a serious discussion if you turn into a linguistic relativist.

          I say that terminating a human life because it is inconvenient or unwanted is morally bad. You say that everyone should be able to decide on his or her own values, and then should be immune from criticism provided that he or she acts according to those values (or according to whatever they were at the time of the act, I guess). I think you'd be safer in my world than I would in yours...

          - MorganfrostUS March 26, 2009 7:46AM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

          • Liberacion Igualdad
            Distinctions and argumentation.

            "And, in case I was insufficiently clear, I do make a distinction between human lives and animal lives."

            Here is the key.

            You make a distinction between humans and other animals to justify the killing (and I suppose, also the use, enslavement and exploitation) of the latter but not the former.

            This is exactly the same distinction that many pro-choice individuals make, but in regards to human-fetuses.

            Unless proper argumentation is presented, you are basically making an arbitrary distinction between humans and other animals [remember, humans are animals]; something that is also true for the pro-abortion position if there is no proper argumentation.

            In order for both of your propositions to hold any validity, you must present an argument justifying the dissimilar treatment of other animals that doesn’t contradict your argument for the equal treatment of human fetuses.

            “Life” is no good argument, as pointed out by Naumadd, because fetuses, humans, other animals, plants, fungi, viruses, bacteria, sperm, etc. are indeed, all alive.

            Just to add another example, “rationality” is no good argument either, since, besides the fact that humans are not the only rational animals on earth, fetuses are not, by any means, rational; etcetera.

            I think this is what the abortion-debate should be focused on.

            On another note, you don’t need to be a hog to look at things from a perspective that includes them in your circle of morality . Empathy does the trick quite fine.
            After all, you don’t need to be a fetus anymore, to be arguing in favor of them, do you?

            What do you think?

            - Liberacion IgualdadCL March 27, 2009 12:06AM

            Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

            Thank You for your Comment

            We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

            • Morganfrost
              What do I think?

              I think the argument you're trying to make is patently ridiculous.

              The human-animal distinction is so obvious as to not require much subtle "argumentation." I am a human; I am not an animal, and you and everyone else knows exactly what that means. Moreover, it is not incumbent upon me to present a justification for according different treatment to things which are obviously different; indeed, to the extent that "argumentation" is required, it would be in order to support the idea of treating things that are not alike in the same manner-- why should a chicken or a fish have the same rights as a human? Should they be allowed to vote ? And, since you brought them up, what about viruses and bacteria? Can I kill them, or would I have to prove it was self-defense? Is self-defense even a justification? Can I bake bread, or does the act of killing the yeast fungus constitute a form of debased savagery?

              Moreover, your human-fetus distinction is misleading. Many people would say that a fetus is a human. However, even among those who deny this, at the most extreme, the distinction is that the fetus will shortly be a human-- at the least extreme, the distinction is nothing more than a six-inch journey through a narrow space.

              - MorganfrostUS March 27, 2009 4:45AM

              Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

              Thank You for your Comment

              We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • EJHill
    Form the line

    Those of you who are proud to have been aborted please form an order line on the left!

    Hello? Anybody there?

    - EJHillUS March 24, 2009 10:34AM

    Reply to this Recommend (2) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • ertdfg
    Hooray

    I didn' t have an abortion ; but I killed some children after they were born because I figured their parents weren't ready to raise kids .

    That's pretty much the same thing, right? I removed them from the responsibility to raise kids, lowered the population, and created less children and babies as a result.

    Sure some people say that randomly murdering kids who I think to be in an unsafe environment is a bad thing. But I think its great; what better thing to do for these kids than to kill them?

    Sure maybe those kids could be adopted, or their parents might be better than I expect... but who could take that chance. obviously killing them is the only rational choice.

    Some people consider me a murderer, but I consider myself a brave and wise leader for the collective good. The pride of being a baby-killer.

    (No, none of the above is real; and the fact that its necessary to add this is a sad mention of society and thought both; but it does fit in well with the tone and intent of this article).

    - ertdfgUS March 24, 2009 12:22PM

    Reply to this Recommend (2) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • pgrossjr

    - pgrossjrUS March 24, 2009 12:50PM

    Reply to this Recommend (3) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Uzma
    Parades? Are you nuts?

    Abortion parades? I can imagine the floats.Vacuum blenders? Needles? Or will it be based on what method is used during a specific trimester? Lets include some pictures of what abortion looks like and have people carry the posters.
    That'll really get the pro-death movement excited and flame the pride.
    Can you see the idiocy? ( I have my doubts. )


    So you want people to take pride in their irresponsibility?

    They couldn't control themselves, weren't on birth control or whatever, and a consequence happened. Heaven forbid you have to suffer for your actions.

    As someone already mentioned 2% or less abortions happen for the 3 accepted reasons. Rape, incest or mothers life in jeopardy. The rest of killed because of convenience. The person doesn't want to give up their fun, their life style or just don't want the responsibility.
    How about instead of celebrating a person getting out of the consequences to there actions, you help educate them so they don't get the consequence in the first place.

    It really isn't that hard not to spread your legs. A condom takes what 5 seconds to put on? More and more birth controls are being covered by insurance companies. Seriously, there are ways not to have a kid if you aren't mature enough to deal with it.
    But let me ask this, if a person isn't mature enough to be a parent , should they really be participating in the act that creates a child?

    I love the examples others have given. Stephen Hawkins, by your "thoughts" should have be "proudly" aborted because what could he possibly contribute to society with his handicaps?
    So because a person isn't born "perfect" they don't have as much right to live?
    You quote scripture how about reading the rest of the Bible. For example..
    Psalm 139:13-14 (New International Version)
    13 For you created my inmost being;
    you knit me together in my mother's womb.
    14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
    your works are wonderful, I know that full well.

    God creates every human being, specifically. And just because that child may not conform to today's standards of normal doesn't mean that child doesn't have value and worth. It doesn't mean that child can't grow up into something very special.

    This entire article just reeks of ignorance.

    - UzmaUS March 24, 2009 1:56PM

    Reply to this Recommend (3) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Dank
    No laws should force women to be breeders

    Abortion should be the woman's right. Entirely. The rights of the woman have precedence over the fetus. As it should be.

    - DankUS March 25, 2009 11:41AM

    Reply to this Recommend (3) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • JKM121
      Which woman?

      The one carrying or the one being carried?

      - JKM121US March 25, 2009 7:24PM

      Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • Dank
        Response

        Either

        - DankUS March 25, 2009 8:29PM

        Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • JKM121
          A Man's Right to Choose

          So then, can I assume your not sexist and that you subscribe to the notion that no law should force a man to be a provider? I mean, why should he have to feed his kids ? It's his money that he earned, right?

          - JKM121US April 16, 2009 3:10AM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

          • Dank
            Response

            The only choice a man has is to take the risk of empregnating a woman. If he does, SHE has the right to decide whether or not she wants to have the baby . If she chooses to raise the child, she's fulfilling her share of the responsibility. The man has to do his share by providing financial support, whether he wants to fulfill the role of being a father or not.
            BTW, the same should apply if the man raises the child. I was given child support when I was divorced and had custody of the kids .

            - DankUS April 16, 2009 11:52AM

            Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

            Thank You for your Comment

            We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

            • JKM121
              Responsibility

              So a man has to take responsibility, but a woman doesn't?

              Furthermore, the woman is just as 'at fault' for her pregnancy as the man is (with certain exceptions such as rape) since whe is pursuing a course of action that normally leads to pregnancy.

              That said, I agree that a mad does have that responsibility, whether he wants it or not; my point is that a woman has the similar responsibility, whether she wants it or not (with some possible exceptions, as would be covered by justifiable homicide).

              - JKM121US April 17, 2009 4:29PM

              Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

              Thank You for your Comment

              We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • Mojoanne
      right to kill?

      What right does a woman have that trumps another person's right to continue living? Life is the first inalienable right. No one should have the legal right to kill another person through dismemberment, poison, drugs , or forcing an early delivery. We treat people on death row more humanely than aborted pre-born babies. When a couple consents to sex, they also consent to the possibility of their sexual act resulting in pregnancy . Pro-choice before conception pro-life afterward. Pro-abortion efforts would be better spent empowering a person's right to choose if and when to have sex.

      - MojoanneUS March 25, 2009 11:45PM

      Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • Dank
        Necessary right

        I have already commented on this particular point.
        Society should have no right to make laws controlling what a woman can or can't do with her body.
        It is sad that , sometimes a fetus must be destroyed, but society is much better served by having babies born to women who are ready, willing and able to raise them.
        Historically, in times of famine, the babies were considered expendable when the survival of the group was at stake. That has been a stark fact of life in certain situations.
        The adult members of a clan or tribe have always been more valued than children or infants, because of the adult's ability to contribute in critical situations.
        I realize that that is not the sitution in most parts of the world, today, but the bottom line is that adults must have the right to decide for themselves whether to reproduce or not.

        - DankUS March 26, 2009 8:13AM

        Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • Mojoanne
          society not only has a right but a vested interest

          Society and governments in particular already make all kinds of customs and laws about what people can do with their bodies. The medical and pharmaceutical industries are highly regulated. I can't just pop whatever drug I want into my body. Certain substances are considered illegal. A doctor won't even remove my healthy appendix just because it is my body and I want it done. Food and drink is controlled. Laws even govern the age when one can get piercings and tattoos. I could on with other examples, but you get the point.

          - MojoanneUS March 28, 2009 1:30PM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

          • Dank
            There are laws that apply to everyone

            There are laws in society (several of which I don't agree with) to restrict our behavior.
            And, throughout history there have been many laws made in different societies to establish control over women, in effect, making them second class citizens. Women are entitled to juust as much right to control their own destinies as men are.

            - DankUS March 28, 2009 1:56PM

            Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

            Thank You for your Comment

            We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • jennyeverettking
    interesting in concept, but not in practice

    Without question, "pride" in abortion is an interesting concept, no matter what side if the debate you are on. Let's set political and religious views aside for a moment and remember (as the article as much as acknowledges): If you believe abortion ends life, then it's wrong. If you don't believe it ends life, then it's acceptable. Until we can agree on the premise, we aren't going to agree on the conclusion.
    But regardless its stance on abortion itself, this article fails to recognize one very important element: The trauma that abortion causes to women. I assume the author believes that encouraging a sense of pride would help alleviate some guilt and sadness over the procedure. But being *proud* of abortion is like saying, "Proud to have possibly impaired my own future fertility" or "Proud to have had to make a desperate choice."
    How about a movement of pride for preventing unintended pregnancies? I personally feel proud that I take responsibility for my own fertility on a daily basis, but who'd wear a button for that?

    - jennyeverettkingUS March 25, 2009 12:21PM

    Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • lostlo
      Thank you!

      I'm very much pro-choice and this article struck me as ridiculous. Yet all the comments seemed to be attacking it from a pro-life perspective. Thanks for sharing your moderate, reasonable view.

      I've known several women who had abortions or gave up children for adoption , some of whom had multiple abortions. It was absolutely the right thing to do in some cases, but these women do not show anything approximating pride.

      Over and over I see comments that having an abortion means you refuse to take responsibility. For some women, enduring the trauma and paying the cost for an abortion *is* taking responsibility for a mistake, like getting pregnant with an abusive man and drinking/smoking meth during early pregnancy .

      I will readily defend these decisions from the condemnation readily handed down by those who are very far removed from the reality of the problem. That does not mean that I will celebrate them.

      Finally, I embrace the "abortion should be rare" idea not because I'm dumb and was somehow "lulled" by the other side, but rather because unplanned pregnancy should be rare. To assume otherwise is absurd, does the author really believe that the pro-choice movement supports forcing women to carry to term? That's very lazy reasoning. I don't want abortion to be rare because women are having unwanted babies, I want birth control to be readily and cheaply available - along with comprehensive sex education - so women are empowered to avoid having to make such a difficult decision in the first place. Duh!

      - lostloUS March 25, 2009 3:30PM

      Reply to this Recommend (3) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • Mojoanne
        dumped the worng one

        The woman should dump the abusive man or addict and not the child. Why does the child have to be murdered for his or her irresponsibility?

        - MojoanneUS March 26, 2009 12:42AM

        Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • lostlo
          Easier said than done

          I used to be very judgmental of abused women when I was young. Why don't they just leave, I thought. How stupid must they be to think such a man really loves them.

          Once I was deep in my own struggle with alcoholism, the man I loved turned out to be abusive. I had to face the fact not only that I had made such a horrible miscalculation, but also that my uninformed judgments about addiction and abuse were completely misguided.

          It's really easy for you to just type the sentence "the woman should dump the abusive man," but in many cases women stay in an abusive relationship despite horrible physical abuse. Many addicts die without getting clean. Do you think these people are all just stupid, or evil, or can you be open to the idea that maybe, just maybe, these problems are more difficult than you are acknowledging?

          Yes, I can agree that it would be better for an abused addict to get clean and leave her abuser rather than submit to his orders to get an abortion . However, if she is not able to do so, she is not doing anyone a favor by bringing a fragile life into a harsh and dangerous world without any way to protect or support it.

          To be honest, though, I'd rather you continue to be judgmental about addiction and abuse than have to learn the truth the hard way, like I did. I would not wish that on anyone.

          - lostloUS March 26, 2009 12:17PM

          Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

          • Mojoanne
            judging

            You are making judgments and presumptions about me. Furthermore, it appears you are using your own experience to subjectively read more into my statement than what is really there. How do you know that I do not understand people's struggles with alcoholism, addictions, and abusive relationships? You do not know my history or work experience.

            In my statement, I not judging them or dismissing how difficult it is. What I am saying is that it is a poverty that an innocent child must die because of another person's problem. There is no turning back the clock once you have an abortion . There is, however, hope and resources for people with addictions and domestic violence in their lives. That fragile life can easily be loved, nurtured, and protected by another set of caregivers.

            - MojoanneUS March 28, 2009 1:12PM

            Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

            Thank You for your Comment

            We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

            • lostlo
              Sorry

              You're right, I don't know anything about your or claim to. Sorry. Are you an addict, or have you been abused? I'm not sure how your work experience is relevant; if you mean that you have worked with addicts or victims of abuse in the past, that may give you access to information about these things but that does not imply understanding... usually that's not the case (again, in my experience... that's all I can use as there is no research with verifiable facts about these things).

              The reason that you came across as dismissive to me was your original statement: "Why does the child have to be murdered for his or her irresponsibility?"

              If you are familiar with the cycle of addiction and abuse, you already know the answer to this question. Furthermore, your question is an example of false dilemma - no one says that children have to be murdered.

              Unfortunately I can't really address your points because I've never seen the word poverty used in that way before, if you care to explain I'd like to learn more about what you think.

              Thanks!

              - lostloUS April 3, 2009 4:29PM

              Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

              Thank You for your Comment

              We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

              • memerider
                The false dilemma

                I don't think abortion is murder, even late term ones. I don't think women should feel guilty for having them. I think women who have abortions should be free to speak openly about them. I think it would help others choose to be more careful and not have them.

                Even if one thinks abortion should be legal and readily available, anyone who has had a pap smear knows that it has to be uncomfortable. It's a surgical procedure. I think it would open up an entirely new dialogue--and convince a lot of girls and boys to be more rigorous with birth control--to hear about actual abortion experiences from people who are not under attack.

                - memeriderUS April 25, 2009 11:44PM

                Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

                Thank You for your Comment

                We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • Naumadd
      Points

      I believe the real point to the whole presentation isn't pride in abortion but rather pride in doing what one believes to be right.

      That sort of pride is always appropriate - even if what one BELIEVES is right, in fact isn't. One ought to be proud for at least attempting to do what is right, even if one makes errors in those attempts. Naturally, there is more appropriate pride in doing what is genuinely right but, ought we not at least give everyone who tries some credit for the effort?

      In any case, I don't get the author is saying one ought to take pride in killing but rather pride in acting according to what you value. The first may or may not be inappropriate, however, I get the author believes the second is not.

      I happen to agree.

      - NaumaddUS March 26, 2009 4:41AM

      Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • jennyeverettking
        wrong message

        I understand your interpretation, and I believe you're correct (and, for that matter, you clarify the author's stance nicely). But I understand "pride" to be reserved for ideals. Abortion is not an ideal but rather a necessary evil (using the word "evil" very loosely). In the vast majority of situations, there is no happy way to resolve an unintended pregnancy . (With the possible exception of "surprise" babies born to commited couples.) I feel that the positive connotations of a word like pride fail to acknowledge the emotional struggle of a woman considering abortion .
        I can't help but notice - I am implying nothing here, just observing - that in these comments it seems to be men who advocate for pride in abortion. I wonder if that has to do with the fact that a man has never truly experienced the firsthand knowledge that his body has the capacity to ultimately bring another human being into the world. Pro-life or pro-choice, that is a daunting responsibility -- not to be undertaken lightly, yet not to be interfered with lightly, either.
        Especially when we consider the teen pregnancy epidemic, I maintain that "pride" sends the wrong message about the gravity of abortion.

        - jennyeverettkingUS March 26, 2009 7:33PM

        Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • memerider
      Trauma?

      I don't think it's traumatic unless one is taught that it is, or one is verbally attacked about it. People who believe a religious teaching that states it is wrong should act accordingly.

      It's a relief to many girls, and they don't even really think about it afterwards unless someone else brings it up. I suspect most girls and women are relieved and not that many have religious guilt trips.

      - memeriderUS April 25, 2009 11:30PM

      Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • JDalco
    You kidding me?

    The state should stay out of this. Abortion is a personal choice. I don't agree with it but I won't make it illegal either.

    To go from that to taking pride in it is sick. How can you take pride in stopping a child from being born. You do what you have to do and you live with the choice, but it is NOTHING to be proud of.

    - JDalcoUS March 25, 2009 12:38PM

    Reply to this Recommend (2) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • JKM121
      Does that include armed robbery?

      or a host of other illegal choices?

      - JKM121US March 25, 2009 7:27PM

      Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • Mojoanne
      the state has a right

      The state exists to support the health , safety, and welfare of its citizens. When these things are threatened, the state has a duty to step in and protect human life. The state has a vested interest in children being born just as it does to prevent rape, robbery, murder , etc. One could argue the criminal is making a personal choice as well, but it does not give him the right to victimize someone else. Thus, the state makes it illegal. In the case of abortion , pre-born babies are the victim and sometimes the mother. Abortionists also like to see to it that their clients do not have the time or information to choose wisely. Why else do they block consumer protection laws for mothers entering abortion mills?

      - MojoanneUS March 25, 2009 11:57PM

      Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • JDalco
        the State does not have Rights

        Folks, the state does not have RIGHTS. The state has the powers granted to it by the people through the Constitution and that is it. This is not covered in the Constitution depending on when you think life starts, so that is the ultimate argument here. . .

        - JDalcoUS March 26, 2009 5:43AM

        Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • leliathomas
    This Debate Will Never Move Forward Without Logic

    Let me preface this with the fact that I (personally) would rarely make the awkward and difficult choice to abort a fetus; I would only ever consider abortion if I came to find out the baby had a condition that would affect my life and its own, forever. I don't believe in God or that babies are his precious little gift or anything like that, but I even doubt that I would abort if I were raped. This is just my morality . However, that being said, I 100% believe in two things: (1) states' rights to decide this, thus ending the federal/national chaos and (2) women's rights to choose in those states or to travel to those states. I do not prescribe to the theory that if it's illegal, it will stop happening; if it's illegal, it will just be more dangerous for the women who want an abortion. Something so delicate should not be decided on the federal level, thus radically changing (for better or worse) the lives of so many women at once. Now, onto the logic...

    I find a prideful nature is rarely helpful in a debate. There is psychology and argumentative philosophy to back this up. The more belligerent you are in your cause, the less likely the people who already disagree with you are going to listen.

    I realize that some who are very political and open about their beliefs in abortion rights equate this to stifling open discussion and not "giving the other side a taste of its own medicine ." It doesn't stifle discussion, though. It hopefully leads the way to more educated, logical and polite debate. For instance, I reckon that when a debate has made it to a bumper sticker, it's no longer a logical or thoughtful one, in which case neither side converts the other and both parties go home bitter. (It should be unfortunately noted here that this is precisely the sort of illogical arguing that mainstream media outlets lap up, in order to give "good," dramatic stories and make election times into a circus cavalcade. Neither the pro-life or pro-choice side should be unaware of the fact that their irrationality makes for a great news story.)

    Pride is overrated. Pride often turns into arrogance and stubbornness. Honest, thoughtful and open opinion sharing, however, speaks volumes about a person. I would rather be the woman who speaks logically, than the one who uses a bumper sticker to stay up on the soapbox for one second longer.

    Women across all parts of the political and moral spectrum have the option and the right of showing their pride and getting on "pride bandwagons," yet I am highly doubtful that that will get us anywhere. (When has it, to date?) We need science and education to lead the way in this debate, not petty name calling, bumper sticker proselytizing or fanatical yelling outside of abortion clinics. If women who feel strongly about this spent half of the time actually researching and studying the fetus, childbirth and women's health as they do irrationally arguing, we would likely know much more about the pros and cons of abortion.

    - leliathomasAU March 25, 2009 12:42PM

    Reply to this Recommend (2) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • stilltrying
    Ethix? Did sum buddy say ethix?

    Bioethicist. Seriously? This guy must be only looking for a fight or something. This is bizarre, critically tacky, or just plain devoid of ethics, this type of creepy "pride". I am shocked he bothered to invoke anything of the Bible in this, seeing as he quite frankly must be agnostic or entirely anti-theist at heart. How very, very strange he is.

    I frankly can appreciate the decision to have an abortion , but to dance around about regarding how it's a right, when birth control and not being a bunch of sluts (and I mean the boys and the girls, Skippy) seems to be a bit more ETHICAL, than believing that the guilt of abortion alone is not enough reason to try to avoid it at all costs. But, if you have no sense. if you are dumb as a tree stump, I guess guilt is over not giving it up to any moron who buys you dinner if the concern, not about abortions? Wow, this is just so... bizarre!

    - stilltryingUS March 25, 2009 12:49PM

    Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • Livvy
      Hilarious :)

      I laughed at your title line out loud for almost a minute...Just thought you should know. It perfectly captures my opinion of this author.

      - LivvyUS March 25, 2009 6:20PM

      Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • ToddG
    Comments missing the point

    Many of the comments so far are either missing the point entirely or conflating several different issues. The author is trying to challenge the conventional wisdom of the sanctity of life over the quality of life. While he may have been well served by suggesting adoption as a good alternative in many cases, the good of terminating a pregnancy of a fetus with severe disease is worth discussing. Also, whether by abortion or adoption (of which I have heard is sometimes even more difficult), deciding that one is not prepared to raise a child is an important decision. Moreover, given the challenges of making the decision, it may be appropriate to be proud of struggling with the choices and coming to a conclusion. It is not the killing that the author is suggesting we be proud of after all.

    Moreover, any challenge to the argument that says either that we were the product of a pregnancy not terminated, or that some particular individual such as Stephen Hawking was not terminated, is a poor argument. There are some cases in which the adversity makes a stronger individual, but how many individuals went through great pain to no benefit? How many individuals have succeeded and given so much to humanity who did not suffer? There are plenty of people on this planet, and without solutions to our energy and water problems, having more would make everyone's lives a bit poorer. I realize that some could take this argument to suggest that eugenics is a good idea, or that anyone who gets a horrible disease should just be killed. There are a variety of other arguments that I would then bring to bear to counter such claims, but those can be left for another discussion (if you are interested I will certainly discuss them).

    - ToddGUS March 25, 2009 12:52PM

    Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • stilltrying
    Professional academic

    Oh, I see! Judging from the volumes of degrees he has, this author is a professional student. Wow, that must be a nice life.

    Out here in the real world we see people ruined by decisions that they think will make the "pain" go away, only to be haunted by it their wholes lives. Pride, indeed.

    I guess studying ethics and having a sense of them are two vastly different things, in looking at this guy's thinking. Abortion pride and bestiality acceptable, I've seen all I need to. This guy takes mindless, academic openness to a new high. Or, low.

    - stilltryingUS March 25, 2009 12:54PM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Mojoanne
    life begins

    A bioethicist who does not know when life begins is not worth his salt. A fertilized egg that begins cell division and growth, which is what happens at conception, cannot be anything but alive. It surely is not dead or in a state of suspended animation. The sperm and egg had to be alive even for fertilization to take place. To claim that life begins at any other moment on the continuum between conception and death is to deny a fundamental scientific reality.

    Contrary to what Mr. Appel claims, the majority of Americans know that life begins at conception. Even uneducated pregnant mothers know their baby is alive when they hear the heartbeat, see the ultrasound, and feel him or her kick. They also know their child had to be alive before they heard, saw, or felt any of those things.

    To deny life begins at conception is only a pathetic attempt to justify the intrinsic evil of killing an innocent human being. Furthermore, Mr. Appel's proposal is a slap in the face of women who regret their abortion or the 62% who felt pressured into aborting and would have birthed their child if only given a little support. Where is his and other abortion supporters' compassion for them?

    - MojoanneUS March 25, 2009 12:56PM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • leliathomas
      "Alive" is Possibly a Poor Term

      "A bioethicist who does not know when life begins is not worth his salt. A fertilized egg that begins cell division and growth, which is what happens at conception, cannot be anything but alive. It surely is not dead or in a state of suspended animation. The sperm and egg had to be alive even for fertilization to take place. To claim that life begins at any other moment on the continuum between conception and death is to deny a fundamental scientific reality."

      The problem with this definition of life is that it makes a lot of other things alive and/or self-aware. For instance, under this definition, your skin is much more "alive" than you would probably think it to be, and yet your body has no issue with shedding it; you have no issue with scratching at it, thus violently tearing away extremely minuscule bits of flesh. So perhaps this definition of life is unhelpful, because it applies to too many things that we take no issue in removing or altering.

      In my opinion, life begins at the point when a baby can survive, with medical help, outside of the womb. At present, the youngest premature infant was born after 21 weeks of gestation. (It should be noted that preemies of this extreme have many health problems and a high risk of death and future health conditions , but this is just the point I see things from.) This is a relative term for life, but in the absence of hard science on the matter, it is the one I go with personally. It proves that life is possible after this point, perhaps even before.

      If we use that concept, nearly 60% of abortions occur well before that 21 week mark, before even eight weeks of gestation ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-term_abortion ); nearly 80% occur before twelve weeks of gestation. It is unfortunate that pro-abortionists are sometimes painted as crazy, selfish baby killers who lie in wait, allow the baby to gestate for quite some time, and then "off it." The truth is much different from that. Most women make as quick a decision as possible, in hopes of doing what's right for themselves and for the future child. And people may believe that adoption is the best route, but this is a troubling procedure for both mother and baby, and not all adoptive or foster parents are good, anyway.

      At the end of the day, I think science will mostly and ultimately be in favor of the pro-life group. At present, we just don't know enough about the few weeks of the fetus, and we certainly can't help it survive outside of the womb; it causes a lot of controversy. However, I believe we will likely only discover more lifelike qualities of said fetus in the future, as well as discover how to care for it outside of the mother. But what then?

      Women without a choice, other than childbirth, will not stop having abortions.(After all, many women have abortions out of fear and concerns about carrying the pregnancy to term, and that fact is far outside of the issues of abortion.) They will just have them illegally, and likely dangerously so. It may be extremely immoral to you, but it is fact. So I must ask about that logic, as it is puts us at greater risk of losing two, rather than one. Though again, is the one really to be considered a life if it cannot have a life outside of the person who does not want it / can't care for it for any number of reasons?

      - leliathomasAU March 25, 2009 10:34PM

      Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • Mojoanne
        Ah, the old skin cell argument

        My skin cells may be alive and shed causing their natural death, but a fertilized egg is a unique human being. The fertilized egg begins the process of cell differentiation and organization on its own something that my living skin cell cannot do unless triggered to do so by scientists pursuing stem cells. A fertilized egg's DNA is like no other person in the world except in the case of an identical twin.

        You say life begins when the baby can survive outside the womb. The medical textbooks on embryology and fetal development say otherwise. There is already hard science on this subject. We already have a window into the womb and documentaries on the whole process on television.

        We use detectable heartbeats and brainwaves as a measure to determine if a person is still alive. Why not start there? A heartbeat occurs three weeks after conception.

        Being alive and self-aware are two different things. I am alive when I am asleep, comatose, or under anesthesia, but I am not self-aware. Are you suggesting I am no longer alive when I am not self-aware? Sleep, comas, and anesthesia are temporary states like time spent in the womb. A pre-born baby may be more self-aware than we think.

        Most abortions occur between 8 and 12 weeks gestation. The pre-born baby is fully formed at this age with all his/her vital organs present and functioning. Unless you are talking about RU486, abortionists tend to wait until the 8 week mark because it is easier to get at the baby and tear it out at that age than earlier.

        More abortions occur when it is legal and unregulated. And, just being legal does not make it safe.Read Lime 5 by Mark Crutcher to see what I mean. Abortion may never be totally eliminated but that does not change the fact that it destroys one or more human lives (mother and baby). Most mothers seeking abortion would continue the pregnancy if offered even a little support for doing so. That is what the pro-life community offers them.

        - MojoanneUS March 26, 2009 12:37AM

        Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • leliathomas
          There Is No Consensus

          To act as though there is scientific consensus on this is stubbornly inaccurate and biased. A quick search for news articles and medical journals will show that the debate rages on as to when life begins, and of course there's the philosophical side to it all as well. If consensus did exist, there would be a much greater uproar to federally ban abortion from those who are more educated, particularly medically; as it stands, the more educated you are, the more likely you are to agree with abortion, for any reason. (See ARDA's statistics on the bottom of this page: http://www.thearda.com/quickStats/qs_110_p.asp )

          I am agnostic and come at this from that non-religious angle. I do not believe in a spirit from any divine source or that babies are intrinsically special, and so I believe we get the part of "who we are" from our brains. While I am not arguing in any shape or form that a lack of self-awareness makes death okay, I will say that I do not know of any clear evidence at this point that suggests an embryo is developed enough to think or feel in the time period during which most women have an abortion. I would like to reiterate, as well, that most abortions occur in the first eight weeks of gestation, not between the eighth and twefth weeks, as you suggest. (See the CDC's statistics in a chart here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File :USAbortionbyGestationalAgeChart2002.png) The anti-abortion site abortionfacts.com says that pain sensory does not begin until after eight weeks. Even this is not part of a scientific consensus, however. (See here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pain.htm )

          My point about abortion prior to 21 weeks is mainly that for anti-abortion groups or adoptive parents to care for the baby, as they'd wish, the mother is forced to carry it up to this point, at the very, VERY least. Clearly, it is preferable that she carry it full-term if the baby is to have a real chance to survive. That is nine months out of her life for something that at the time she would likely abort it in wouldn't have thoughts or feelings to even process what was happening; it would prevent her from taking care of an unwanted child; it would prevent her from giving the child to parents that would possibly be terrible.

          I do not agree with abortion out of convenience, and as said elsewhere, I would never do it myself (for personal, moral reasons) unless my life was in danger or the baby would have extreme health issues. Statistics show, however, that abortions out of convenience are a rarity, perhaps because abortion, even for pro-abortionists, is not a simple decision for many reasons. But my major disagreement lies less with issues like that and more with the fact that for anti-abortionists to have what they desire, they must physically force something upon another person's body. This is particularly true for anti-abortion groups who are against it even when pregnancy will harm the mother or when the pregnancy has come about from rape or incest.

          I do believe there should be a cut off point for when abortion is and isn't allowed, and judging by statistics, that wouldn't be a problem, as very, very few women have late-term abortions unless it is for health reasons. I do not, however, believe that one group should get to decide what is and isn't allowed for a whole nation of women. This goes both ways; I believe in states' rights to decide on this matter. Again, outlawing this will just result in dangerous abortion practices that get women caught up in a web of issues.

          What the extreme "pro-life" community offers women who are seeking an abortion is a sentence to nine months where they have no control over their bodies or future. Imagine if you were not allowed to use birth control of any sort, that it was regulated federally and the only way you could access it was through risky, black market methods. It is nearly the same principle. It means you have no control over your body.

          Plenty of women who have abortions do regret it later (though there are arguments as to whether this is because of how they perceive abortion or because of how their nation's culture teaches them to perceive). (See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_and_mental_health #Psychological_effects_of_abortion) However, they were able to make a choice regarding their bodies, and that is important.

          Finally, the argument that more abortions occur when it's legal is a no-brainer. Freedom brings out the truth in people and their desires, for better or worse. You know what else happens more because it's allowed? Speech. There's more open speech in America, because it's legal. Quantity of something does not always (perhaps even rarely) indicate whether something is good or bad.

          - leliathomasAU March 26, 2009 2:03AM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • Liberacion Igualdad
      Life began once.

      Mojoanne,

      Regardless of my opinion on the article above, I think that you are misunderstanding or ignoring a basic biological fact.

      When does life begin? Actually, the question should be "when did life begin?". All evidence points out to billions of years ago.

      Does it start at conception? No. After conception? No.

      Life began millions of years ago and has evolved (not began again and again) since then.

      I thought you were clear about this, when you wrote “The sperm and egg had to be alive even for fertilization to take place.” In fact, sperm and eggs are alive! As are tumors, viruses, bacteria, plants, fungi, (we) animals , etc.

      But then you wrote this: “Contrary to what Mr. Appel claims, the majority of Americans know that life begins at conception.”

      If that’s what “the majority of Americans know” about the beginning of life, then the majority of “Americans” are plainly wrong.

      Now, if what you mean is “when does conscious/self-aware life begins?” then the whole issue changes, and your argument should too, because self-awareness, as far as scientific knowledge goes, doesn’t begin at conception.

      Regards.

      - Liberacion IgualdadCL March 26, 2009 3:49PM

      Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • ufcarazy
    Pro-Abortion related to Pro-Suicide

    If one of this guy's loved ones ever commits suicide (aborts themselves), I wonder if he will be proud of this and have a bumper sticker reading -- Thank God my loved one is dead.

    - ufcarazyUS March 25, 2009 1:01PM

    Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • leliathomas
      Poor Comparison

      This isn't a very productive counter argument. For one, the act of suicide is a choice made by the person; abortion is a choice made outside of the possible-life taken. It is comparing apples to oranges. To act as though the author's words are petty and inappropriate, but then to throw them back at him, is an unfortunate and fallacious method of debate.

      - leliathomasAU March 25, 2009 10:50PM

      Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • ufcarazy
        response

        He stated that someone who acknowledge that they are not ready to be a parent and aborts a life because of this should be proud of their decision. My curiosity lead me to wonder if he would be proud of a loved one who acknowledged that he is not prepared to continue living and aborts his own life as a result of this "virtuous" acknowledgement. I don't see the fallacy in arguing that being proud of aborting a child is comparable to being proud of someone who commits suicide.

        - ufcarazyUS March 26, 2009 11:42AM

        Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • cda92680
    Abortion Parade...Why not? (sarcasm)

    We've allowed gay "pride" every year.

    Surely, it cant be any more disgusting than some of the things that go on there.

    Abortion -- like sexuality -- used to be something that people were private about and kept to themselves in polite society . It was something they only discussed among certain relatives, close friends or with their doctors.

    Since society is no longer polite, thanks to the gay rights movement and their in-your-face displays of vulgarity, a hypothetical " abortion pride" parade couldn't be any worse.

    - cda92680US March 25, 2009 1:15PM

    Reply to this Recommend (2) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • JKM121
      sarcasm recognized

      I must still disagree; if the image of a butchered fetus doesn't make you want to vomit, I'd question the fortitude of your intestines.

      (you is intended to be generic)

      - JKM121US March 25, 2009 7:29PM

      Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • leliathomas
        Bad Comparison

        Surely one's fortitude isn't justification for or against any political or moral right. Most people don't like to think that the meat they enjoy is slaughtered, or that the medicine they use possibly killed or seriously pained mice and other animals when it was still being developed. Heck, most people don't like to discuss the pain and disgusting, yet natural events that happen during childbirth, and yet pregnancy is very clearly paraded.

        (Note: I'm not endorsing any sort of silly ' abortion parade' or pride movements. I am just arguing that one's fortitude is not a sound point of reason.)

        - leliathomasAU March 25, 2009 11:03PM

        Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • JKM121
          No Comparison

          I wasn't making any comparison. I wasn't arguing on the merit of fortitude, actually the opposite; more in line with your last comment. 'Just because we currently have indecent parades doesn't mean we have to step it up' would probably be a better way of expressing what I intended to say.

          As an aside, if the medicine they were using killed or pained any animals , they wouldn't be using it without quickly filing a lawsuit.

          When has there ever been a parade of pregnant women? That'd be almost as indecent as a gay pride parade. Oh wait, I just realized you're in a different country; I am sorry if they have had actual parades of indecent nature over there (looks like Australia?), seriously.

          - JKM121US April 16, 2009 3:25AM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • leliathomas
      Made sense, until...

      I agreed with you in the first half of your argument. I do long for the days when sexuality and a number of other things were more private and personal.

      But then it seems you felt the need to attribute the move from more private interactions to public ones to gay people and their rights. You severely generalize the gay population, likely because the media aids you in making the assumptions you've made. There are MANY gay couples who live quietly and discreetly and just want a loving relationship, but cannot have it with basic civil rights because of the government. These discreet relationships in particular have nothing to do with "pride movements" and certainly not abortion . (Arguably, the first pride movements were women in their right to vote and work, and black people during the civil rights movement. Both events came long before the gay pride parades and events, which I will agree with you are typically very vulgar and disgusting.)

      So what has caused us to move from more private outlets to the public ones? I would say advancements in communications. In the past, we had no solid way to easily and largely broadcast our opinions, and so we did not try; this was especially true if we were met with great social barriers. Now, though, media communications are much more about zooming in on particular events and people, and the Internet's tools are about broadcasting the individual. (You are on a site right now that's doing that.) An increase in pride movements and openness is more attributable to this than to homosexual couples.

      - leliathomasAU March 25, 2009 10:59PM

      Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • lioralourie
    Mother of a Baby you would rather get rid of

    As a mom of a (beautiful, amazing) 7 week baby girl with Down Syndrome, I am horrified at your self-consciously ambitious, clinical, left-brained ramblings.

    It has nothing to do with martyrdom or "fortitude and character" as you put it. Personally I refused to have the screening tests , because no matter what-- I knew I would NEVER purposefully kill the little light shining inside me, waiting to be born. Her existence , now as then, is a part of the natural order of things just the same as the rest of us.

    I think " society " would be better off with MORE Downs traits in the world-- loving, joyful and connected, guileless--and less coldhearted creeps like yourself giving spiritually and physically destructive advice in cyberspace.

    From Jew to Jew, brother, get a heart.

    liora in Beijing

    - lioralourieCN March 26, 2009 2:39AM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Naumadd
    On Abortion Pride...

    If, in your personal life, you believe having an abortion is the right thing to do and you, in fact, have an abortion, you have every right to feel pride. It is a completely justified emotion for acting on what you value. So too the individual who believes it right not to have an abortion who follows through with their values. "Pride" is merely the proper emotion one feels when one has achieved what one values. The general concept of "pride" contains no built-in distinction between whether one's values are rational or irrational. Naturally, one can justifiably feel pride for having achieved an entirely irrational value just as one feels pride for achieving an entirely rational value. The focus ought to be on the rationalism of one's values, NOT on the issue of the emotion "pride".

    The only ugliness I happen to attach to the issue of "pride" is the notion many individuals harbor that one ought not feel anything at all when achieving what one values - the notion that some feelings are ugly and therefore are inappropriate to a human life.

    Rubbish.

    All sorts of silly arguments are made for why one ought to feel no pride at all, however, none of them have ever been adequately supportable arguments. Feelings - all emotions - are a fundamental characteristic of what it is to be a human being. One will never adequately argue that a human being ought to carve out and dispose of an essential part of who and what they are. One will certainly never successfully argue the suppression of pride. To do so, you would have to argue why a human being ought not achieve what they value and perhaps why they ought not have values at all. As for the arguments against irrational thought and behavior, those successful arguments are many and continue to multiply daily.

    Regardless of the rationality of your values, you have every right to feel pride for acting on your values regarding the decisions you make for your own life, your own body. That pride is not misplaced. Misplaced pride would be pride in suppressing the liberty of another to make their own choices regarding the conduct of their own body. Such pride is misplaced because it is the pride of an irrational uncivilized brute - NOT the pride of a civilized rational human being.

    - NaumaddUS March 26, 2009 3:20AM

    Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • ChildlessByChoice
    I absolutely agree with Jacob Appel

    I am a proud (godless) American who hopes to live long enough to see abortion shame end. Many women who have chosen to have abortions spend the rest of their lives wishing they could have raised the child. But they knew at the time that they weren't capable of it. This is the first time I've read this viewpoint and I'm grateful to the writer. Women who have chosen to get abortions shouldn't have to live their lives with negative feelings about it. There are too many unwanted children in the world now. I will never believe a zygote has rights. This will always be a controversial subject, but unless you or someone you love has been in this position, then I don't think you're capable of making a truly informed judgment.

    - ChildlessByChoiceUS March 27, 2009 4:55PM

    Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • Livvy
      Jacob Appel is an ignorant quack.

      I know many women who have been in this position - none of them walked away from an abortion feeling hunky-dory enough to slap a bumper sticker on their car saying how proud they were.

      This wasn't because they lived in an area that condemned such acts. It's because by the time a fetus is the size of a sea monkey inside your uterus your brain is already pumping hormones into your body to give an attached feeling to the baby .

      It's an evolutionarily built in by-product of being pregnant. Telling women to ignore this feeling is telling them to deny their nature.

      Jake Appel isn't suggesting that women shouldn't feel shame - it's that they should feel pride. Why? They're getting a shot in the stomach. They didn't do anything worthy of recognition.

      Hey! I got a shot in the tummy for rabies once! Do I get a parade?

      - LivvyUS March 28, 2009 12:20PM

      Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • memerider
    Abortion pride

    I do like the spirit of this article. Those who chose abortion and are satisfied they made the right decision are subjected to endless attacks by the anti-abortion movement, and this should not be the case.

    I think pride takes it a bit too far, though. I doubt anyone is proud of abortion, any more than they are proud of having a tooth pulled.

    We know that belief is a powerful force, and people become convinced by their beliefs that they have the right to judge others and control their lives. Culture breeds a lot of bullies.

    - memeriderUS April 25, 2009 11:07PM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • halola
    award winning writer?

    As someone who has won many fiction awards, Mr. Appel should know how to use language correctly and precisely. This entire article is premised on equating the term "pride" with "lack of shame." These are not the same thing. Women should not be ashamed to have abortions if it was the right thing to do, but to be proud and wear a pin? This is asinine, only a man could have written this article.

    - halolaUS December 1, 2009 9:08PM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

See Related...