after passing an unconstitutional law (thank you very much garcia v. carhart- kiss your right to privacy goodbye people)what now? We shun these people? Don't allow them to work, live? Can they shop at stop and shop or should i throw produce at them?

fucking rediculous. Her adortion history has nothing to do with her modling career.

ill say it,i have a huge issue with pro-lifers. Im sorry. Why? Becuase I am pro-choice, and my decision to be pro-choice doesnt force anyone to do, or not do anything. Pro-lifers, their opinion forces others to believe as they do. No thanks.

I was in the same situation but since I was 25 weeks no doctors were willing to deal with the politics. The cut-off is 24 weeks. I had my baby at 36 weeks. He lived for 36 hours. I was immediately happy that I had those 36 hours to get to know him. Either way he was going to suffer, as a parent you kind of just want to do whatever will minimize suffering. Since he was "comfort care" only that meant that no life-preserving interventions were going to happen. So he uncomfortably suffered with breathing for 36 hours and finally just gave up. Hopefully the warmth generated by being held by so many people who loved him was worth the pain.

I'm glad that they let this woman talk about her experience. It's not that uncommon and it is one of the most difficult decisions someone would ever have to make. I don't think that most parents in this situation are basing their decision on convenience.

Style makeover? Ok, that right there proves they are idiots

Oh my gosh, the shades of grey. While I am pro-choice, I am also whole heartedly against partial birth abortion. Yes, we can fight about the logistics of it, why a few weeks makes a difference, but to me, it does make a difference. I think it is rather horrific the way it is done. I can't imagine the effects it must have on the woman.

However, I also don't think this woman, or Vogue for that matter, should be harassed for this feature. Would I prefer it wasn't highlighted as a glamourous procedure? Yes. But it is merely portraying one woman's decision. I think that people should make thier own persoanl decisions based on knowing all their options and not just what they read in a magazine.

Savvy, I'm not sure how the article claims this is a "glamorous" procedure. I think everyone knows how terrible it is for all involved.

I'm with April on this one - shouldn't everyone be allowed to move on with their lives after living through something like that? Doesn't she have the right to be treated like a "normal" person?

I had AFP screening done when I was pregnant. It detects things such as the brain and spinal cord developing on the outside of the body. The baby has no chance of surviving this. (If it comes back showing elevated levels of alpha-fetoprotein, they do more extensive test to see if and what the problem may be.) A nurse at my OB/GYN actually told me not to worry if all the test came back positive, I would not have to have an abortion and many women chose to carry full term and deliver in hopes everything "would sort itself out." Now as all you fellow hags know, I realise when I am being preached to. She meant they thought Jesus would reach inside the womb and miraculously heal the fetus. So I asked the obvious question, "Have you ever seen or heard of a situation where it "sorted itself out"?" Rather stunned and baffled she sheepishly replied, "No." I informed her if it came to that, I would choose the abortion option. She of course was dejected at not being able to gain a convert. Screw the baby that will die a painful death within minutes of being born. That is if it even survives gestation. Just don't have that abortion!

People know the procedure of PBA by now and how it is done to minimize suffering and pain, but there is still likely some pain to the fetus. Keep in mind that the trauma of labor and delivery alone is much more painful and taxing to an infant and it is enough to kill the baby that say, has a defective heart or lungs. In my case, my baby had a malformed brain, cleft palate (so he couldn't swallow food), an incomplete digestive tract, etc. The pain of attempting life under these conditions was much more painful for him than an injection to the neck while he was in utero.

Still, I am eternally grateful that I got to hold him and that he is known by my family as an actual person, not just a procedure I went in for. Again, when a woman is faced with this decision it is usually based on minimizing pain and discomfort to an innocent life that they have already been protecting and loving for several months.

Something makes me think that the psychos didn't like Vogue too much in the first place, what with all the gays that probably put make-up on the models and the gay designers who make the dresses the models wear. And the models that surely aren't virgins. Sinners. No surprise they are appalled at the “murder”. Pft, then these “Christians” are the first running to see men executed.

Angela, I simply meant 'glamourous' in the sense that this is a high fashion magazine portraying this beautiful, well dressed, well to do happy woman and thus the procedure, by association is 'glamourous.' I did not intend to be offensive with my word choice.

My point was just that there are so many shades of grey. Everyone has a different situation and while I personally have a hard time with the idea of PBA, I understand that it is ultimately a very personal decision that is/should be made in the best interest of both mother and child. I will not condemn it, but nor can I condone it.

Savvy, I go back to my earlier point. When you say: "‘glamourous’ in the sense that this is a high fashion magazine portraying this beautiful, well dressed, well to do happy woman…"

What would you have her in? Should she be living her life in dowdy jeans and frumpy sweaters? Should she mourn the child she lost for her entire life (note: she probably WILL mourn that child her whole life, but she deserves to mourn in a way she chooses is best for herself).

While I appreciate that you don't condone the choice of others, do you agree it's her choice to make? Thanks for the engaging thoughts. This is why I love Mollygood.

Savy, I had no issue with your comment.

I would also like to point out that many support groups for women who are in these situations are comprised of fairly conservative women who are traditionally pro-life but find themselves suddenly on the other side of the coin. In addition, there are a lot of potential complications to performing a late-term abortion including increased risk of hemorrhage to the mother and post-natal preeclampsia. Doctors base the procedures they are willing to perform on risk v benefit. So sometimes it is safer for the mother to just deliver naturally, especially if she is in the third trimester.

I don't understand the huge debate. Especially considering how we can "pull the plug" on a family member who is on a vent, or how an adult who has power of attorney over their elderly parent with terminal illness is allowed to designate them as "Do Not Resuscitate".

becuase those arent cute, adorable little babies, they are annoying burdensom elderly and sick people… duh.

Partial birth abortion is a pro-life buzzword. It was coined by a pro-life whackjob in the 90s to demonize women who had later-term abortions. There is no standard idea, even in the government, exactly what constitutes a 'partial birth abortion.' There are so many different definitions in state and federal statutes it's not even funny. There have been statutes deemed unconstitutional because their definitions of PBA were 'too vague' and left the door open to ban all abortions. Not all abortions performed in the 2nd trimester could be classified in any way as PBAs.

I don't understand how some people can think that a pregnant woman wakes up one day and says 'hmm, I think I'll abort my fetus today.' Like there's no anguish, no heartache, no thought behind choosing abortion. It's just as easy as picking out what color socks you're going to wear today. Give me a break.

April, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Being pro-choice is about that. Choice. It's not forcing a woman to get an abortion, it's not forcing a woman to DO anything (like carry an unwanted fetus to term.) It's about having the right to choose what is right for you.

I fully support Vogue's right to print this story and spin it how they want, but I can see where it might look like they're trying to glamorize abortion, or at least gussy it up and make it look a bit prettier. I'm pro-choice, but I think matters of such gravity should be treated with respect, and I'm not sure the way they've presented things does so. That being said, I don't think they're intentionally presenting the topic of abortion through a soft-focus lens.

I'm assuming that the wasn't actually an attempt at putting a pretty dress on the issue itself, and instead was a misguided effort to make the subject matter less offensive and more relevant to the context of the magazine, or that it was completely ill-conceived and the image of her was meant to exemplify her present life rather than represent the overlaid copy. To me it creates a rather odd odd juxtaposition. It says "Lori had an abortion, but she looks fabulous." Rather than "Lori is a model who had to deal with a horrible thing, but is doing well now." I think the whole thing stems from a fashion magazine trying to tackle an issue that was outside of their scope and getting it horribly wrong.

That should read "I'm assuming that this…"

I agree with most of your points, except one thing you said Randa…

"I don’t understand how some people can think that a pregnant woman wakes up one day and says ‘hmm, I think I’ll abort my fetus today.’ Like there’s no anguish, no heartache, no thought behind choosing abortion. It’s just as easy as picking out what color socks you’re going to wear today."

I went to school with girls that made the choice with exactly that frame of mind. While mature women might consider abortion with a heavy heart - there are a bunch of teenage sluts running around using it as "oops protection".

…and aren't we glad that those teenage sluts are now NOT mothers?

GOOD POINT MARIA!

I read the article, and it in no way promotes nor demonizes late-term abortions. Lori Campbell's water broke early, and she stayed in the hospital hoping that there would be some way to save her baby. She and her husband went through a hellish experience and made a difficult decision when it became clear that there was virtually no way to save their fetus. Pro-life supporters need to get lives and stop making these experiences even worse. Yes, in my opinion, abortions should not be used as a form of lazy birth control, but the right to have one should not be controlled by the government or insane Pro-life groups.

…"but there is still likely some pain to the fitus" (per Angela). Are you kidding me? "Likely" some pain? From my lay knowledge of fetal development, it seems pretty clear that the nervous system is developed enough at 22 weeks that having a hole punched in the back of one's head would, yes, produce some pain. Admittedly, probably not as much pain as those D&C fetuses who have their limbs cut and pulled off in utero. That might produce "some" pain too.

Outrage at the procedure itself aside, what is startling to me in this situation is the very conscious sanitizing of this horrible experience. While truly horrible to be faced with the near-certainty of losing one's baby, Campbell opts to remove (pardon the pun) the child from her as much as possible, so that the birth is more like miscarriage than a "born child" dying. Why not induce labor and at least let the child be birthed and die in the embrace of the parents who love her? This is far more respectful of the grand concept of "life" in general and of this child's life in particular. It's tragic to have a child die, but aborting is a dehumanizing act that turns the child into a problem to be solved, and fails to respect her as an individual life.

From my lay knowledge, getting a "hole punched in the back of" my head is less painful than getting squeezed through a tiny-ass opening for several hours followed by several hours of pain as my body gives up and dies.

Who is "sanitizing" a horrible experience, Lori? Well good for her - we sanitize and reduce pain for things all the time. People deal with loss how they deal with loss, and it really isn't your place to judge or belittle their ultimate coping method. Besides, I don't think is it that much more "respectful of life" to have a baby (and mother) go through the trauma of birth, to only then have several hours of pain until it dies, in the arms of his/her parents or no. But that is the trend among anti-choicers, isn't it? Care about the baby in the womb more that the baby after birth. Once it is born, fuck 'em. You may be outraged by the procedure and not want it sanitized, and that is your choice. Let other people have theirs.

I read this article too, yesterday at the doctor. It also is not safe for the mother. After your water breaks the longer you do not deliver the more prone you can become to infection. You don't have all the time in the world to leisurely decide what to do.

Lisa#1: Ah, yes, the old "anti-choice" name. Does that make you, by default, "anti-life"? Just asking.

As for the "once you're born, f*** you" accusation, would you believe that I'm actually for universal healthcare, don't have a problem with taxes being increased to support social programs, and I've never once voted Republican, nor do I plan to? The baby outside the womb is actually as important as the unborn.

My argument is essentially that the ends don't justify the means. The end of minimizing suffering doesn't justify the means of performing what is a horrible act (and any pro-choicer who can't admit that partial-birth abortion is a horrible procedure, even if she defends its existence, is in serious need of a reality check). If the mother's life is at stake, and there is no other way to save her, the mother does have more of a claim to life, and PBA may be a necessary evil. The issue in this particular instance, however, seems not to be life of the mother but when her baby is going to die.

And by the way, the "trauma" of being squeezed thru a "tiny-ass opening" isn't typically anything so traumatic that babies don't recover with a good suckle at the breast, at least in my experience. I'm willing to bet that the mother's pain is a whole lot worse.

Necessary evil leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It implies the person has done evil. Someone who is going through such a sad situation just doesn't need to hear crap like that. I feel nothing but sympathy for this poor woman. She has done nothing wrong and she obviously has kept it with her close to her heart.

you forget that's it's really easy to pass judgement on someone when you haven't gone through the same thing juju. will somebody take chezsan's soapbox away please?

I think that this is getting so much attention because it is coming from Vouge. This line of discussion isnt really thier forte. Everyone associates Vogue with glamour, not really hard-hitting issues. This article may have been more appropriate for a woman's magazine (a real woman's magazine, not a fashion mag) or something that is known to have intelligent articles. It would be like US News and World Report doing an article on what sort of shampoo Demi Moore uses; really not the appropriate venue for the given topic.

jujubees: I understand your point about "necessary evil". I actually didn't mean it to reflect on the woman herself. "Best choice in a bad situation"? Can we at least agree that abortion is not in itself a good thing?

And deimos: Just because I think that right and wrong do exist in this world, I'm on a soapbox?

chezsan, what a wonderful use of false logic. Thinking your opinion should apply to everyone and that they should live their lives how you would have them do so does suggest you are anti-choice, while being pro-choice does not suggest you are anti-life. You can be both pro-choice and pro-life. The word "choice" rather sugggests it's your decision….you know, to make for yourself…not everyone else. Get it?

chezsan,
Right and wrong may exist in the world. But who are you to dictate to everyone else what you think they should believe is right or wrong?

Lily pretty much covered what I have to say about the whole pro-life/anti-choice deal.

Your argument is that the ends don’t justify the means. That the end of minimizing the baby's suffering doesn’t justify the means of performing what is a horrible act. And that is fine, for you. My argument is that if isn’t your place to judge how this woman is coping with an incredible loss. No matter what she is going to have a dead baby. And, I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure that standard medical practice is for the babies are euthanized prior to extraction. So if she wants minimize her suffering, and isn’t causing the baby extra pain, in fact is lessening the pain that the child will have to go through, then she can do it. You may not want to if you were in her situation, and that is fine too. I find your basic sentiment of “toughen up” pretty appalling. Why shouldn’t she save herself pain if she isn’t causing any extra to the baby? I may not, you may not, but to basically say she is disrespecting life is offensive to me. As if it is some sort of selfish, flippant decision. I take issue with that. I think it is an inaccurate reading of this situation and is insulting.

Re: being squeezed though a tiny-ass opening – I see you left out the rest of the sentence. Context, please. It was, to remind you, “…followed by several hours of pain as my body gives up and dies.” If a suckle at a teat was all it took for recovery from all life’s ills, this conversation wouldn’t be happening. You see the baby won’t be euthanized once born. The baby, who is unable to tell the doctors to give him or her more meds (and even with meds, pain isn’t necessarily irradiated), will feel the pain of death and their illness.

Re: once you’re born accusation. I wasn’t talking about the larger political context. I was talking about the pain for the baby (see above), as was pretty clear from the sentence. Honestly, I am unsure how your political leanings apply to this particular debate.

Correction "minimizing the mother's suffering doesn't…"

"I’m actually for universal healthcare, don’t have a problem with taxes being increased to support social programs, and I’ve never once voted Republican, nor do I plan to?"

I get so frustrated (chezsan) when I hear people correlate thier personal beliefs with thier political background. People like you automatically assume that all Democrats are good and enlightened, and all Republicans are bad and ignorant. Believe it or not, there are replicans (such as myself) that are pro-choice, pro gay marriage, for the legalization of marijuana, and for the teaching of evolution in schools. We are not all ignorant fundamental Christians (nor are all of us Christians in the first place). Dont play the "but I'm a Democrat, so you can't yell at me" card.

1. 32 posts on topic may be a new record
2. The fetus is on Venus now; Xenu will take care of him/her.
3. Rumple McForskin M(a?)cghee said pro-choice is right, so no more rants from Pro-lifers, or you shall suffer the consequences.

Julia is well-read in Mollygood 101.

blah and Lisa: I never said I'm a Democrat, either (you can now also be mad at me for throwing my vote away). I was responding to Lisa#1's comment about the "trend" among all us "anti-choicers". That sentiment, coupled with the "pro-life zealot" remark in the headline, generally assumes that we "zealots" are little more than skirt-wearing, home-schooling, creationists who are single-issue, single-party voters. And I think that it's just as easy to caricature the Dems as under-educated, poor, blue-collar workers and Repubs as over-educated, factory-owning WASPs, as it is to buy into your stereotype as articulated above. (In all seriousness, what attracts a social liberal like you, blah, to the GOP? Conservative economics? This question has always baffled me.)

Lily: Give me a break about the whole "choice" thing. We as a society try to take away people's choice all the time: the choice to murder, the choice to abuse, the choice to use marijuana. Every position is its own imposition of values. Just because I believe that the choice to abort is actually a choice to end a human life and should only be allowed in the most dire of situation doesn't mean that I'm "anti-choice".

Lisa: Last time I checked, babies are not euthanized prior to extraction; I could be wrong (I hope I'm wrong), but this is my most recent knowledge. Also, while your description of suffering is particular to this situation, the opening part of your sentence (being squeezed thru that tiny opening) is universal to all vaginal births, and you thereby imply that this "trauma" is a part of a horrible birth experience as well. I'm not such an idiot as to think that a 22-week fetus needs only to suckle to make her problems go away; my reference followed only the first part of your sentence. Finally, I don't think that the ends justify the means in any situation, regardless of how horrible. I'm not calling her decision flippant; I'm not trying to say "toughen up, you wimp", but I also don't think that the path of least resistance is always the right one. Sometimes people have to make hard decisions and go thru terrible things in order to retain moral integrity. Which, admittedly, seems to matter little in our amoral, if not at times immoral, world.

chezsan, again, poor logic. You're comparing apples and oranges. Murder and abuse directly violate the rights of people others. Marijuana (arguably) harms others through crime, etc. You may think a fetus is a "someone," but whether or not that's true is largely a matter of opinion.

Of course, I don't know why I'm bothering to explain these things to you. Your use of the term "moral integrity" makes it obvious your scope of consideration when formulating your opinions is quite narrow, and basically consists of "What I feel." The standards for morality and thus integrity are set by a person's culture and societal values, and our society has not agreed that abortion is morally wrong.

Oh my good Lord. A long time ago, a wise older person told me htat this world would be a better place if everyone just took care of their own business. And not get into other people's business.

I guess we haven't all agreed yet on what is our own business.

I am going to just say this, because it is on my heart. I try to live this in my daily life. No one will see this probably because there is no "recent comments" feature. But on the off chance that it get's someone in their heart, I have to put it out there.

I have never came across a person in my long life on this earth who needed me to give them my judgement. Lots of souls needed my compassion. Lots of souls needed some fun times. Lots of souls needed some peace. Some souls needed some spare change. Some souls needed a person to simply listen.

No soul that I have ever encountered needed the judgement of another.

I choose not to judge others.

I guess that makes me pro-choice.

I actually think that chezsan had some well thought out and well-reasoned arguments, put forth in a respectful manner without reducing to name-calling and trash-talking. That is a rarity here on Mollygood for people who aren't the usual commenters.

I hate that people with differing opinions from the majority of commenters here are often attacked for their views. I didn't think that chezsan was preaching; I felt that he/she was offering his/her own viewpoint, and isn't that the point of commenting here?

I have thankfully never been put in the situation of having to choose an abortion (of any kind) and hopefully I never will. While I am pro-choice, I am anti-abortion, and while that may not make any sense it's one of many differing viewpoints that help to define us all as individuals. I won't judge someone for choosing an abortion- that is their RIGHT to make that decision and I am thankful that I live in a country (Canada) where that choice isn't threatened. It is just a choice I hope I would never have to make myself.

I actually read the article. It makes NOTHING glamorous. The only glamorous thing is the photo of her and her daughter. She talks about her experience and the back and forth of trying to decide what is best for her unborn child and herself. It doesn't talk about $1,000 shoes, or hair and make-up.

Chezan: I am not responsible for the headline. I was speaking to a particular issue, and I said "your political leanings," not specifying that it was being a Democrat or Republican or whatever. So please don't put words in my mouth. I never said you were a zealot or any other part of your opening. You brought politics into this - I was talking solely about abortion, which I took care to explain in a second post to you.

Re: choice. When you call yourself pro-life, you are framing the debate as life vs. death. I don't accept those terms - I frame it as choice. Pro-life implies the opposing side is anti-life, which is simply not true. I don't want mandatory abortions, I am not all about killing babies. To me it is about choice, and that is how I will frame the debate. Anti-choice is appropriate, I feel, because the opposing side is about restricting choice. When the pro-life movement choice the tag "pro-life" they were aware of the implications and chose to frame the debate in terms of life vs. death. They knew what they were doing.

Re: last paragraph. It seems we have differing information, which makes me uncomfortable. To my knowledge the pain killer given to the mother kills the baby. The sad thing is, it is hard to find hard evidence or science because it is such a charged issue. Which sucks for everyone.

Re: vaginal birth. Your really can't take half a sentence like that, which was my point. Sure, a regular birth's trauma may be cured with a suckle, but what does that have to do with my entire sentence? I didn't think you were being an idiot - I thought you were being calculated, actually. Fine, take out the part about vaginal birth, I was just tying to be thorough. My point is still the same. It is just a bit annoying when part of a perhaps poorly worded point is countered to discredit the point itself because the counter doesn't actually address the point. Addressing half the sentence is addressing a point I never really made.

Lastly, you don't think the ends justify the means. I get that. I have no problem with you believing that. I haven't said that I did. The way it reads to me (saying she is trying to sanitize, she should just give birth, lack of respect for life) reads as disrespectful, and reads, again to me, as if you think she should toughen up. And you sort of do, when you talk of the path of least resistance not always being the right one. You do imply that she lost her "moral integrity." You may be talking about "people," but we are supposed to apply it to her. THAT is what I have a problem with. Not your beliefs, not your political leaning - but your attitude. I mean, come on, even your last sentence. It is condescending and I think trivializes Lori's experience.

EsquaredMom, it seems you missed the part where she attacked Lisa. Just because it was a little more subtle than calling Lisa names doesn't mean it wasn't nasty. As for well thought out, there was no logic to her reasoning. It was emotion based Pro-Life propagandist rhetoric. You can get that same opinion from any pro-Life brochure. She was being condescending, preachy and judgmental. I'm not sure how that equates to respectful…

qc- I really loved that, you rock.

Lily, and I often find that is how some of the responses to chezsan were, as well. People are being judgmental because he/she is pro-life, but that is just his/her feelings about the subject. Everyone has a right to be pro-life/pro-choice, and as long as the debate is done respectfully (as it was here, for the most part, on both sides) then I think everyone is entitled to their opinion. You may disagree, of course, but the posts didn't come across to me as preachy. Maybe because I'm from a huge Catholic family; I am often emailed various anti-abortion stories by some family members. I read them, acknowledge that I received it, and then push the delete button because I don't support it. I just don't like seeing anyone with a dissenting opinion from the majority of commenters on here basically being shut down all the time. I enjoy a good, healthy debate and I love reading all the different viewpoints. It's what makes this site so unique- celebrity gossip with intelligence.

EsquaredMom, I don't have any problem with her being pro-life. On a personal level, I don't think I could make the decision to have an abortion, although unless I was faced with making that decision, I can't really know that for sure, but that's my choice. What others choose is none of my business. What I had a problem with was her using poor logic to argue her point. :) She was trying to support emotion through logic and used logical fallacies to do it. I'm pedantic enough that when someone does that I have to call bullshit. In other words, it wasn't what she was arguing I had a real problem with so much as it was how she was arguing it. :)

Lily: You may think that I'm arguing from a stand of pure emotion, though I disagree. Because of the path of my life, I have thought (I daresay) logically and more about the issues of reproduction, reproductive technology, abortion, etc., than your average person. What this basically comes down to is that I believe that a fetus is a baby and does have some claim to life, which is why I can logically equate abortion with murder or abuse and say that it should not be a "choice". An unborn child's right to that life, however, is generally trumped by the mother's, so that abortion is permissible, though not desirable, in those rare cases in which a mother's life or health is in danger. In such cases where the mother's life or health is not an issue, abortion should not be an option. In the Campbell case, though maybe abortion was ultimately the "best" choice, a partial-birth seems excessive. The reason why pro-lifers hate PBA so much is that the baby is still alive and certainly undergoing some sort of pain.

While pro-choicers here say that I am imposing my values on others by seeking to limit abortion or by expressing my disgust at the general and particular exercise of PBA espeically, please realize that pro-choicers are imposing your values on me by asking me to basically condone the taking of life. You are asking me to stand by while those who are defenseless are dying of unnatural causes (and here I speak of abortion in general, not the Campbell case). So you act as if you are innocent of any value judgements, but you deny me the right to judge the act of abortion as wrong.

What is completely inconceivable to me is the fact that most pro-choicers seem incapable of admitting that PBA is a horrible procedure, even if they want to keep it legal. Few pro-choicers even admit that abortion in itself is not desirable. This is at least part of the reason that the debate is so polarized.

Finally, my posts have in no way meant to trivialize Campbell's experience. I do not think that she made such a decision flippantly, that it was easy, that it wasn't horrible. I have not tried to be condescending to her in her situation, (though admittedly the tone of some of my comments to other comments on here has been sarcastic). However, I can have sympathy for this woman in an unimaginable situation while ultimately coming to the conclusion that what she did was, if not dead wrong, at the very last morally objectionable.

Lily the Pink, fair enough. I personally don't have a problem with using emotions to define ones arguments because many decisions and choices are emotionally based, rather than logical. As Voltaire said, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend with my life your RIGHT to say it."

Chezsan: you can judge however you want. I am not denying you the right to judge anyone - but I absolutely am critisizing you for the way you did it in this case. You come in with a sarcastic, jerky comment aimed at Angela and espoused something I disagree with in a disrespectful way. Often, it isn't what you have said, but how you have said it.

Re: imposing values. There is a huge difference between imposing values that affect how other people act, and imposing values that do not. Your values restrict legal abortion for women. Pro-choice values restrict you from what exactly? Making other women have babies? (I am not saying that is what you are saying) It just isn't the same. No one here is asking you to support abortion, no one here is forcing that value on you. So your argument there, to me, doesn't really hold water.

Re: innocent of value judgements. Everyone makes value judgments, for their own lives. Heck, everyone here judges everything. From Britney's crazy ass behaviour to, well, her crazy ass outfits. This isn't about not making value judgements, it is about autonomy. The point is to let women make their OWN value judgments.

What gets my goat is that you consistantly put words in people's mouth. "Most pro choicers seem incapable.." Really? Because most that I have talked to, and most comments addressing the procedure here, think it is pretty gross. That it is a last resort and an awful decision to have to make. Please don't tell me what I am incapable of doing. And few pro-choicers admit abortion isn't desirable? I am just curious as to who you know. I mean, that is why most pro-choicers I know also believe in comprehensive sex-ed (I am not saying that you don't). Unless you consider the day-after pill abortion, because that is desirable. Your blanket statements are just, well, annoying. You complained earlier of being labeled a skirt-wearing zelot (although no one did) - maybe practice what you preach a little bit. I am not in denial, and even if I were, you wouldn't know. Why? Becasue I never discussed it. Granted you qualified your statement with "most" and "few", but it is clear you lumped everyone here in that category - even the people who said they wouldn't have one.

Chezan, I'm not denying you the right to believe anything. You are free to believe that abortion is wrong. You are free to choose to never have an abortion because you believe it is wrong, and you are free to try to convince people to make a similar choice, but the moment you eliminate all choice you are inflicting your beliefs on others and infringing upon their right to believe as they do. Whether you consider it unfortunate or not, the reality is not everyone "believes" as you do.

The morality of abortion is grounded in the precise belief of the nature of the fetus, and in our society no consensus exists over the point between conception and birth at which personhood begins. Many Christians believe personhood begins at conception, while Halacha (Jewish Law)defines it as beginning when the head emerges from the womb, and until then the fetus is seen as part and parcel of the female body.

This is why I can't choose what is morally right or wrong for others. Their value systems may not be the same as mine.

i think this is one of those subjects we should all just agree to disagree on. abortion is an ugly thing no matter how you look it and some find it more offensive than others. the problem with this topic is that it's hard to state your opinion without coming off as preachy. i personally don't care for abortion but i can see how in certain circumstances it may be needed.

Is it really fair to refer to Britney's clothing choices as "outfits"? (Per Lisa#1.) I mean, fair to the rest of us, those of us who actually try to put effort into what they wear out of the house. I think that "get-up", "costumes", even "garage-sale rejects" would be much more accurate.

I stand corrected. I should have said "Britney's crazy ass garage-sale rejects." That comes with the caveat that, of course, "crazy ass costumes" is an acceptable alternative, depending on what, exactly, she does or does not have on her body.

Oh lord (lower case). Is "chezsan" our new morality policewoman/man?