You do mean pro-choice. Cause nobody except a few lunatics are pro-abortion. The
term "pro-abortion" was coined by the anti-choice people (mostly white men) who
wanted to twist the political language to fit their purpose of taking reproductive
choices away from women.
I dont like abortion either, my choice and thankfully never had to come up to that
choice face to face.
Pro-choice people have to often be over the top and strident cause many of the
anti-choice people are crazy as hell, including gunning down doctors and threatening
women exercising their choice. I live in Milwaukee.... a hot bed of the anti-choice
nut cases.
Ingrid

Ann wrote:
A woman losing a wanted pregnancy is nowhere near the same thing as a
woman to aborts. And just to clarify (not that it'll stop all you
howling pro-abortionists out there) I am totally against laws
regulating abortion. I just don't like it and would never do it
myself. Personal choice. I realize that's a threat to
pro-abortionists, we're all supposed to love it.

And to stop your next blast, I'm no christian.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

wrote in message
...
You do mean pro-choice. Cause nobody except a few lunatics are
pro-abortion.

I have heard some pro-abortion advocates lately. Alexander Sanger, the
grandson of Margaret Sanger, wrote a book on the subject called "Beyond
Choice." I heard an interview with him on the Signorile show on Sirius
Radio. He made some good points and didn't appear to be a lunatic. Unless
you think that abortion is a moral issue instead of a medical issue, there
is no reason to make moralistic judgment about the person who has an
abortion. In fact, Sanger argues that a person who chooses an abortion can
actually be doing the moral thing for herself, her family, and society. The
anti-abortion movement has been wonderfully successful in framing the issue
in religious and moralistic terms just as they have turned same-sex marriage
into a religious argument instead of a civil rights or legal argument.
http://www.alexandersanger.com/book.html

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 14:33:14 GMT, "Vox Humana" wrote:


wrote in message
...
You do mean pro-choice. Cause nobody except a few lunatics are
pro-abortion.

I have heard some pro-abortion advocates lately.

Haven't heard any of them advocating bombing anti-choice people or shooting
them, though?

Alexander Sanger, the
grandson of Margaret Sanger, wrote a book on the subject called "Beyond
Choice." I heard an interview with him on the Signorile show on Sirius
Radio. He made some good points and didn't appear to be a lunatic. Unless
you think that abortion is a moral issue instead of a medical issue, there
is no reason to make moralistic judgment about the person who has an
abortion. In fact, Sanger argues that a person who chooses an abortion can
actually be doing the moral thing for herself, her family, and society. The
anti-abortion movement has been wonderfully successful in framing the issue
in religious and moralistic terms just as they have turned same-sex marriage
into a religious argument instead of a civil rights or legal argument.

I wouldn't call them wonderfully successful. They're just playing their favorite
card, which they try to use in EVERY situation, since they think THEIR religion
should control every situation.

It is a medical procedure. like all medical procedures it carries some risk. for
girls younger than 18 having an abortion carries much less risk than carrying a fetus
to term. that is on average. of course, carrying a fetus to term is always a
medical risk for a woman and an early abortion done at proper facility probably
carries less risk than going to full term as well. abortion as "birth control" is
not ideal as there are always some medical risks. now the morning after pills or
taking a higher dose of birth control pills seems like a better methodology when
normal birth control measure fail.
In that sense, I dont think it is rational to be "pro abortion" any more than it
would be to advocate other kinds of medical procedures unnecessarily.
Of course I believe women making a choice to not carry to term can be absolutely the
best ethical/moral choice for herself and family.
I dont see how Sanger advocating choice is being "pro abortion".
Ingrid

"Vox Humana" wrote:
I have heard some pro-abortion advocates lately. Alexander Sanger, the
grandson of Margaret Sanger, wrote a book on the subject called "Beyond
Choice." I heard an interview with him on the Signorile show on Sirius
Radio. He made some good points and didn't appear to be a lunatic. Unless
you think that abortion is a moral issue instead of a medical issue, there
is no reason to make moralistic judgment about the person who has an
abortion. In fact, Sanger argues that a person who chooses an abortion can
actually be doing the moral thing for herself, her family, and society. The
anti-abortion movement has been wonderfully successful in framing the issue
in religious and moralistic terms just as they have turned same-sex marriage
into a religious argument instead of a civil rights or legal argument.
http://www.alexandersanger.com/book.html




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

wrote in message
...
It is a medical procedure. like all medical procedures it carries some
risk. for
girls younger than 18 having an abortion carries much less risk than
carrying a fetus
to term. that is on average. of course, carrying a fetus to term is
always a
medical risk for a woman and an early abortion done at proper facility
probably
carries less risk than going to full term as well. abortion as "birth
control" is
not ideal as there are always some medical risks. now the morning after
pills or
taking a higher dose of birth control pills seems like a better
methodology when
normal birth control measure fail.
In that sense, I dont think it is rational to be "pro abortion" any more
than it
would be to advocate other kinds of medical procedures unnecessarily.
Of course I believe women making a choice to not carry to term can be
absolutely the
best ethical/moral choice for herself and family.
I dont see how Sanger advocating choice is being "pro abortion".
Ingrid


We don't disagree on this. I said the same thing about the medical aspect
of abortion. But, you can be pro-abortion, and not a lunatic, especial if
the alternative is to be anti-abortion. The religious-right tries to assert
that abortions are used as form of birth control. I'm sure that is true for
a few people as in any large sample you will find people at the extremes. I
don't think that the average person would see abortion as a rational form of
birth control. As for Sanger, he claimed to be pro-abortion in the
interview that I heard. I believe his point is that if you look at abortion
as a medical procedure, then there is no reason to avoid the term
"pro-abortion" assuming that you approach it in a rational manner just as
you would any other invasive procedure.

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:46:29 GMT, wrote:

It is a medical procedure. like all medical procedures it carries some risk. for
girls younger than 18 having an abortion carries much less risk than carrying a fetus
to term. that is on average. of course, carrying a fetus to term is always a
medical risk for a woman and an early abortion done at proper facility probably
carries less risk than going to full term as well. abortion as "birth control" is
not ideal as there are always some medical risks. now the morning after pills or
taking a higher dose of birth control pills seems like a better methodology when
normal birth control measure fail.
In that sense, I dont think it is rational to be "pro abortion" any more than it
would be to advocate other kinds of medical procedures unnecessarily.
Of course I believe women making a choice to not carry to term can be absolutely the
best ethical/moral choice for herself and family.
I dont see how Sanger advocating choice is being "pro abortion".

I don't think anybody advocating choice is any more "pro abortion" than the
people advocating controlling women's lives are "pro life".