Ms Walker says: "Until all human beings -- including those in the womb -- are recognized as persons under law, any effort for true justice will be undermined. Young women want human personhood and they want it now."

Young women have human personhood, we DO NOT want to be held hostage to an embryo. And if you succeed in doing that, the next step is to stop contraceptives because it also stops conception.

Right Ms. Walker. You want an end to selfishness, in order to find freedom.

The freedom to dictate to other women just how they shall live THEIR lives.

in the end, only proCHOICE gives women any options at all, other than abstinence for life or pregnancy without options. And even then, Rape will remove the former choice.

Face it, all the pretty words won't cover up that antichoice is just that, the opposition to CHOICE.

I do make sure I put my hours in. I think I prefer staying in the building I work in rather than the one I pay rent to sleep in.

Hey C Marsh - do the folks over at DTI know you spend your days on the company dime ranting about abortion on the internet? Just asking...

Katie, your friends in Cincinnati could not be more proud of you and the strength you have to stand up for something so sacred. We will keep the un-educated in our prayers that someday their hearts will turn towards Jesus Christ, and what is right in the world. Everyone seems to want world peace...well as long as we keep killing our own babies for our own selfish reasons and using our bodies as instruments of pleasure, then there will be no peace.
"...we will stand up every time that human life is threatened. When the sacredness of life before birth is attacked, we will stand up and proclaim that no one ever has the authority to destroy unborn life. When a child is described as a burden or is looked upon only as a means to satisfy an emotional need, we will stand up and insist that every child is a unique and unrepeatable gift of God, with the right to a loving and united family..."

~ Pope John Paul II

Remember: you can exit the situation if the heat gets too hot. Reference Joseph and Potiphar's wife in Genesis.

1. If you really love her make sure she doesn't wind up in a problem, either by not doing it (best) or by methods (second best), or if worse comes to worse, standing by your woman

2. If you don't love her, get a toy, don't treat her like one

I also repeat that single men keeping their legs crossed is a damned good idea. It keeps single women from having to make tough choices. They have no good choices left after a problem pregnancy just trade offs.

The only winning move is not to play.

You would think an unwanted pregnancy is the end of the world. It is temporary. It could be worse, couldn't it? Sexual abuse or rape survivors living with trauma for life?

We (men and never-pregnant women) do not understand what exactly justifies removing an infant-toddler-child-teenager-adult from the (near) future.

It is concerned about birth control that, in its words, "leads to a state of mind that treats sexual activity as if it has nothing to do with babies; babies are treated as "accidents," as a burden to be eliminated."
**************************************************************************************
Sex has different purposes for different people. For some of us, it's not about making babies, it's about people giving ech other mutual pleasure.
Surely you don't think that people who never marry should be celibate their entire lives.
Or that committed couples should only engage in sexual congress if they are ready to be parents. For some couples, readiness to be parents doesn't come until after several years of finishing educations, establishing careers, and setting aside money to ensure that the expenses of bringing up a child can be met. I would not recommend that two people who marry while still in college immediately begin reproducing, nor would I expect them to refrain from conjugal bliss until after graduation.

Katie Walker did not mention the Bible or God. The Tebows are faithful, and Ms. Walker may be, too, but Ms. Walker's natural law stance on a blastocyst, zygote, embryo, or fetus' right to life is actually of philosophical and not purely Scriptural roots (the Bible is aligned with the natural law belief that every life is sacred and worth the living; the opposing belief is utilitarianism in which lives can be sacrificed as long as the greatest good for the most people is gained).

Selfishness is not only a Christian concern, but should be everyone's concern since it is always worth the finishing last if you take the time to think about it and do it and look back on it.

Best of all, compassion doesn't always call for us to finish last, but also to be our individual best. Here, the way one describes goodness will determine if, in this case, being one's best means continuing to live without birthing or raising a child or taking the sacrifices upon oneself to prepare well for motherhood.

Arguing whether a two-cell baby or even as far back as a fertilized egg, is a human life is simple--yes it is because it cannot be anything else: is not, never has been, and never will be. This baby is alive, and no one thinks that killing a human is good.

Arguing whether a woman is entitled to choose life or death for her baby is simple if you accept that killing a human is bad--if so, then her choice should be not to abort, always. This is why pro-life people want this choice to be made law--because it is the one choice that is good.

Arguing whether there may be exceptions to the good of life is also simple, if you think, talk, listen, and intuit about it.

aepst14,

Ms. Walker's focus appears to have been, from childhood, her concept of pro-life politics (www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jan/10012105.html): "Having been involved in the pro-life movement for most of her life, one of Katie’s earliest memories is of participating in side-walk prayer vigils outside an abortion facility. “I was one of those kids who very easily could have been aborted,” she said. As a single unwed mother, her mother “was definitely a candidate for abortion.”

“One of my first memories is of protesting in front of a Planned Parenthood, standing next to my cousin in a stroller, and they told me that they kill babies at Planned Parenthood. So we’re next to my cousin, and someone comes up to us – in retrospect it was probably a pro-lifer – but I threw myself over the stroller: ‘Don’t hurt my cousin!’"

On LinkedIn, her professional profile shows her active, in college, in Northern Right to Life, Students for Life of Kentucky. Nothing about womens' rights, feminism, etc.

So far, there's nothing connecting her with concerns about poverty, child health (other than protesting "Obamacare"), capital punishment, war and peace, homelessness, or disaster relief.

Ms Walker,
Where have you seen this "pain and suffering" you speak of? Perhaps you were in the Peace Corps or another volunteer organization where you lived and worked among the poor and suffering of the world? Have you volunteered in a hospital or homeless shelter where you regularly witnessed suffering?
If you want human rights for all, then, to me, the issue of poverty is front and center. One of the major factors perpetuating the cycle of poverty is the inability of women, whether through lack of money, power, or education, to control their reproduction. Reversing this problem means access to birth control and to safe, legal abortions because unwanted pregnancies will occur. It is not a baby. It is a fertilized egg with the potential for life. Much like those that sit in fertility clinics and are destroyed or those that are spontaneously aborted via miscarriage. It is nonsense to advocate the removal of the option of abortion for a woman with an unwanted pregnancy and couch your views in a vision of attaining "rights" for all.
Also, you should have given more thought to your comments on feminists. Did you vote in the last election? Do you appreciate the fact that wife beating is a crime? Do you like having a wide range of employment options? You should thank your feminist forebearers for the freedom you take for granted instead of insulting them. If you intend to envision and articulate a new kind of feminism, then you should polish your scholarship.

I wonder if men want less children than women on average.

Ms. Indira, what about dangers to countries and the world from peak oil and being unable to feed (with petroleum agriculture) the billions being born whilist we have petroleum agriculture? It is going to be cruel, like kicking the chair out from under someone.

Fighting over food and oil is going to get very ugly. Without oil to run machines, famine. Hungry people are more susceptible to disease. War over oil and food. Death any way you slice it. Which horseman of the apocalypse do you prefer?

Given that nine countries* have nuclear weapons, someone will push the button, to be sure.

I will grant you that there is one thing more important than life, salvation. In Christianity, you would be expected/required to give up your life before you give up your faith/salvation.

If a pre-baby is aborted, it goes to Heaven by default (it never had a chance to decide for Jesus, it has no capacity for choice).

* USA, Russia, China, France, Britain, Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea.

P.S. @ CMARSHDTIHQCOM...You, my dear are not using logical, well-reasoned economic arguments. Neither are you using valid Biblical or philosophical arguments. All you are using is an emotional appeal to the consciences of people who are teetering on the brink of being morally opposed to abortion.

Do you know what that is? An opinion. You're entitled to it, but you should probably realize that there are MILLIONS who don't care and don't share it!

Good luck with that ;)

Ms. Walker,

The beauty of the country in which we live is that there is a separation of church and state such that moral choices of our leaders cannot be imposed upon us against our wills.

The beauty of the God that some of us choose to serve is that he gives us freedom of choice to choose whether to obey or disobey, whether to serve or not to serve, and whatever we choose, he is okay with that.

If you read your Bible more closely you would realize that although life is precious, more important even than life is choice and free will. God could have kept Eve from taking the fruit. Jesus could have called 10,000 angels to destroy the world and set him free when he was hanging on the cross...God wants us to choose who we will serve.

You've made your choice, but neither God nor this country allow you the right to make that choice for others.

Thank you for your concern for our well being, and butt out.

Have a great life!

Only one person here even bothered to research ALL. This group is beyond merely promoting Taliban-types of policies regarding any access to birth control or abortion. They have long rejected moderates and embraced extremists including anti-choice terrorists. Naturally, a theocratic cleric like Dobson, with his scandals of child sexual abuse at his Christian 'youth camps,'is good company for ALL.

Sincerely, thanks, cmarshdtihqcom. I find we are now at a place that while we are disagreeing, I have a sense we are both listening. We will probably agree to disagree, although I'm also getting the sense we may well agree on a few things. We probably won't agree on some medical matters, although it's hard to articulate positions in this medium. For example, and it's probably outside the discussion, I'm simply not sure of your position about Terri Schiavo. My impression, which could be wrong, is that you are especially concerned with late-term as opposed to early-term abortions, while neither bother me given a stand based on humanity beginning at birth. End-of-life decisions on the "post-born" is a different and even more complex discussion.

A good friend of mine has been a Baptist missionary. Before we were friends, he would lecture me at length with Biblical references. Our personal breakthrough came when we realized that we agreed on some...dare I say "non-selfish" social goods?...we didn't have to have walked the same path as long as we reached the same place. Some of our goals were public health and also equipping prisoners with skills and attitudes that broke them out of a cycle of crime. I left it with him that any time Jesus wanted to do lunch, I was available, but I wasn't going to start praying. In like manner, I've been honored to become an honorary member of an African immigrant clan, who are a mixture of Muslims and Christian fundamentalists.

Now, why did I bring up the "too far" about birth control, and, incidentally, thoroughly agree with you about the positive bonding effects of pleasure in relationships? Neither one of us has been given a Washington Post "Guest Voices" opportunity to feature our views. If Katie accepts that advantaged position, in my mind, it comes with some responsibilities. Among those responsibilities is having people look at one's motivations, to the extent that they can be inferred through one's choice of employer.

As Catherine3 put it, Katie Walker presumes to speak for all young women. As Harry Truman put it, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Of course, Katie Walker, as opposed to some other Post Guests, hasn't bothered to interact with posters. These things don't exactly make her a credible authority.

"The typical U.S. woman (man?) wants only 2 children. To achieve this goal, she (he?) must use contraceptives for roughly 3 decades."

According to our Katie, though, that is all caused by feminists and their "me-first" ideas. Don't women realize that their only purpose is to have children and everything (and I mean *everything*) else comes second.

Those evil feminists and their evil agenda - giving wimmin ideas!

/snark

"Facts on Contraceptive Use

www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html
January 2008

WHO NEEDS CONTRACEPTIVES?

• 62 million U.S. women (and men?) are in their childbearing years (15–44).[1]

• 43 million women (and men?) of reproductive age, or 7 in 10, are sexually active and do not want to become pregnant, but could become pregnant if they or their partners fail to use a contraceptive method.[2]

• The typical U.S. woman (man?) wants only 2 children. To achieve this goal, she (he?) must use contraceptives for roughly 3 decades.[3]

WHO USES CONTRACEPTIVES?

• Virtually all women (98%) aged 15–44 who have ever had intercourse have used at least one contraceptive method.[2](and men?)

• Overall, 62% of the 62 million women aged 15–44 are currently using one.[2] (and men?)

• 31% of the 62 million women (and men?) do not need a method because they are infertile; are pregnant, postpartum or trying to become pregnant; have never had intercourse; or are not sexually active.[2]

• Thus, only 7% of women aged 15–44 are at risk of unwanted pregnancy but are not using contraceptives.[2] (and men?)

• Among the 42 million fertile, sexually active women who do not want to become pregnant, 89% are practicing contraception.[2] (and men?)

WHICH METHODS DO WOMEN (men?) USE?

• 64% of reproductive-age women who practice contraception use reversible methods, such as oral contraceptives or condoms. The remaining women rely on female or male sterilization.[2]

FIRST-YEAR CONTRACEPTIVE FAILURE RATES

Percentage of women (men?) experiencing an unintended pregnancy (a few examples)

Method
Typical
Pill (combined) 8.7
Tubal sterilization 0.7
Male condom 17.4
Vasectomy 0.2

Periodic abstinence 25.3
Calendar 9.0 –
Ovulation Method 3.0 –
Sympto-thermal 2.0 –
Post-ovulation 1.0 –

No method 85.0 "

(Abstinence) 0

(Masturbation) 0

only in america.check out the world for this non issue. this country is sinking fast and u people,for whatever reasons continue to make this the quest for ur own agenda pro or con. give it up fools

Elective abortion isn't nice. A nice person would show mercy.

Elective abortion is generally selfish.

We don't need a law. A social movement will do.

Has abortion caused hatred against babies and maybe kids? I don't like babies for their noise, drooling, and smell. Older kids aren't so bad but they are inexperienced, haven't learned to quiet down, and might learn to be mean.....

It is concerned about birth control that, in its words, "leads to a state of mind that treats sexual activity as if it has nothing to do with babies; babies are treated as "accidents," as a burden to be eliminated."
__________________________

This is not pertinent to the conversation but you are correct.

They are going too far. So what? Protestants have given up condemning sex for pleasure/ relationship building between husband and wife. I am carefully considering a Baptist couple's experience with the snip because I think I might want it too. They have ruled out children before having any- a pre-emptive surgical strike, shall we say.

Among the benefits they have enjoyed is the ability to travel and be missionaries in places like California. With his experience in home improvement he would be right at home after a natural disaster.

I am dating a Catholic. This is an interesting relationship.

What is your problem Submariner?

What nerve did Katie strike anyway?

Is my thesis correct that women who have had abortions need to keep believing what they believe, are deeply threatened by counterarguments, and may lash out violently at them?

Think about it.

"it's not murder, it's not murder, it's not murder....."

Katie says, it is murder

she just called me a murderer,
(realization) I AM a murderer

&*&**(&(*&*&*(!!!!!!!!!!

DISMISS KATIE!
I AM NOT A MURDERER!!!!

Back to emotional status quo.

It's been interesting to do a bit of research on the American Life League, for which Katie Walker is communications director. No, it isn't a branch of Focus on the Family, but is a Catholic organization that broke away from the National Right to Life Committee in 1979, apparently because the latter was too moderate. Its definition of life, according to its website (www.all.org), extends from the single cell to euthanasia; it includes withdrawal of hydration and nutrition from "brain dead" patients as euthanasia. "Brain dead" are its words, not "persistent vegetative state" as with Terri Schiavo. It is concerned about birth control that, in its words, "leads to a state of mind that treats sexual activity as if it has nothing to do with babies; babies are treated as "accidents," as a burden to be eliminated."

Charity Navigator gives it the lowest one-star rating based on its report on the FY ending 12/2007, although its founder, Judie Brown, did receive $127,707 while the organization operated at a slight deficit. Brown, incidentally, has stated that abortion is never medically necessary to save the life of a mother.

While it's a Catholic organization, Michael Hichborn of ALL said that the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD), an arm of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, supports "homosexualism and abortion activism".

Yes, Brown has worked with Dobson, Gary Bauer. William Bennett and Ralph Reed were rejected as apparently too moderate in 1996.

Yep, sounds like just the place for a 23 year old to learn.

If anyone can make an educated argument to argue that a fetus is alive to the poiint where it deserves legal protection without using the words "god" "heaven" "sin" or "hell" I would like to hear it. Until then keep the bible out of Washington. Thanks.
____________________________

I think Roe made a point of "viability" outside the womb, with mechanical facilitation.

It does not totally rule out abortion but it does rule out late term abortion for example.

If a baby can be kept alive (perhaps with 50% or better odds) with a machine outside the womb then it is a person. Kind of like keeping a polio victim alive with an iron lung.

Exactly what is the point of putting a sharp object in a fetal skull instead of making a dying baby comfortable? If the point is to humanely end the suffering of a brainless baby for example, something like humane euthanasia comes to mind, not a pair of scissors.

I'll tell you why.

Hundreds of years ago before safe C-section, a difficult delivery could kill the mother. The largest part of the baby had to go, the head. The head was punctured and the brains were drained or removed. The head then collapsed. The rest of the baby exited. The mother lived to reproduce again without needing to risk an open incision without suction, blood banking, antibiotics, antiseptic operating conditions, anti-clotting factors, etc.

So now we have those things. Caesarian section is frequently an elective procedure. What excuse do we have to put scissors in a baby's (viable enough to live outside the womb) brain now? Even if you support abortion during the first 26 weeks?

None.

Make up your mind already. It is a slippery slope. Roe said 26 weeks. Now we have 40 weeks. Now we have Terri Schiavo. Who is next?

you are a despicable person. Your anti-privacy, anit-women, anti-freedom thoughts are degenerative. You should be locked away and the WaPo shouldn’t be giving you space to spread your propaganda garbage. Especially to young impressionable women.

cmarshdtihqcom,

Are you saying, then, that U.S. law and policy should be defined by Jesus and Satan, as expressed in your particular Bible translation? You do assume it's an inerrant translation, eh?

Of course, those of us who are not Christians might, here and there, continue in our inability to find any authority given to the above by the Constitution of the United States.

If you want to bring in the Declaration, go ahead, make my day.
_________________________________

Where did that come from?

I believe in a free country all right, with constitutional protections, but Satan owns and mismanages the world (even "Christian" places) and anyone born into it unless they run to Jesus.

God has a better idea on how to run the world but you'll have to be a Christian to see it.

Jesus will take back the world. I lose no sleep over a New World Order in Jesus Christ because He can do it all by Himself.

No, there won't be any constitution or democracy when He comes back. It will be a monarchy.

I'm a young woman, and this is NOT what I want. Nor is it what most of the young women I know want.

You argue against what you call the "me-first" lesson of feminists, yet you have the ego to claim the omniscience to speak for all of us. If you were truly striving for selflessness, you would not set yourself up as the mouthpiece of a generation, no matter what your aim.

You speak for me without my permission, without my agreement, without allowing me to choose how I am represented to the world. Your actions seek to erase me and my will. In that way, I suppose you are truly a fitting spokeswoman for your movement.

Please do not number me among your supporters against my consent.

Good gravy, people.

I'm pro-choice. I'm alarmed at the many mischaracterizations of feminism in this excuse for an article.

But I think the "You're 23 and therefore an idiot" prattling really needs to stop. Those of you who say this, were you all pro-life at 23? Did you all change your minds when you'd "grown up" (because somehow, she's not an adult simply because she's being willfully silly here)?

I'm willing to bet many of you were raised pro-choice. I was. And at the time, I disagreed with my parents and my community, very strongly. And my community called me an idiot and refused to listen to why I felt as I did.

(Why? Because arguments that a fetus is not a person, yet any born human is, are awful and blatantly false. I was born prematurely. Does this mean I became a person earlier than others because I came out of a uterus sooner? Oh joy, woohoo for me!)

I changed my mind. (Why? Because I realized that although taking human life is tragic, putting a serious and personal moral dilemma in the hands of the government is nonsensical and solves nothing.) I did it long before 23, and I don't think my age had anything to do with it.

Ms Walker

I was 23 once and had strong, informed opinions about nearly everything. I was college educated and considered bright and insightful. Then life happened and I realized that not everything is in Black and White. Over the past 33 years I have learned that not every decision is as cut and dried as it first appears.

When we deny choice then we deny that women are independent moral agents capable of managing their own lives, and we return to treating them as morally incompetent, requiring a guardian to decide for them, in this case the state. I won't stand for it and I suspect that many of your peers, once they understand the implications of allowing the state to govern a personal matter, won't stand for it either.

Write again in about 30 years and let us know if your views have changed at all.

I notice that Katie Walker has a job with a national organization. Does she realize that not that many years ago, certain jobs were open only to men, and that if a woman were to get married or pregnant, she would have to resign her position in many cases? Does she realize that feminists are responsible for her being able to have a credit card in her own name? When she does have children and wants to take maternity leave (after all, she might want to work or need to work), does she realize that in most cases her job will be protected because of what feminists have fought for? Can we now talk about making work and public life better for women and mothers instead of constantly bashing feminists and those who disagree with pro-lifers?

I don't have any patience for a twentysomething who has all of rights that feminists worked and fought for, and she wants to whine about them.

cmarshdtihqcom,

Are you saying, then, that U.S. law and policy should be defined by Jesus and Satan, as expressed in your particular Bible translation? You do assume it's an inerrant translation, eh?

Of course, those of us who are not Christians might, here and there, continue in our inability to find any authority given to the above by the Constitution of the United States.

If you want to bring in the Declaration, go ahead, make my day.

"Mission Of the Mothers' Home

As a residential shelter, Mothers' Home provides a safe haven for vulnerable, pregnant women in a crisis who choose life as a sacred gift.

We encourage our mothers to celebrate the joy of new life and help them prepare for their future and the future of their child.

We focus on physical, emotional and developmental needs including positive life skills, parenting, and job preparation.

We strive to assist our mothers to reach their goals of independence and self sufficiency.

About Mothers' Home

Located in Darby, Pennsylvania, Mothers' Home is a safe-haven for pregnant women and their children.

Hope through empowerment. Mothers' Home provides hope for up to 22 young adult women struggling to give birth in spite of rejection and abandonment. Mothers' Home is an opportunity for empowerment as the expectant mothers receive counseling, childbirth and parenting classes, job preparation programs, assistance in finding independent housing, and much more. Each year, approximately 40-50 new mothers come to live at Mothers' Home and most return with their babies after delivery."

Make a donation at http://www.mothershome.org/donate.aspx

And then there is always adoption!!!

Same age same gender as this columnist. Please stop taking away choice for women. You choose not to get an abortion, it does not mean that you can choose for me or anyone else. Nor should you be able to. Imagine if someone legislated that if you do not make a certain amount of money and are unmarried you will be required to get an abortion. You wouldn't like them making that choice for you, they don't want you making this choice for them.

Also, please keep your religion out of the government. There is separation of church and state for a reason, so that YOUR religion cannot make a choice about ME and MY body. If anyone can make an educated argument to argue that a fetus is alive to the poiint where it deserves legal protection without using the words "god" "heaven" "sin" or "hell" I would like to hear it. Until then keep the bible out of Washington. Thanks.

My mother was pro-choice and she did witness the aftermath of a DIY abortion in the women's dorm bathroom. The woman only lived because mom tattled on her, against the woman's wishes to leave the authorities out of it....

It was some time between 1953 and 1957 and I recorded the conversation.

Mom sent me a copy of If These Walls Could Talk for my birthday, I still have it.

That is why I am pessimistic about the optimistic pro-lifers who think we will stop abortion when we close the clinics and cow all the women into having babies if and when they get pregnant.

The dorm sister was not cowed into submission. Why should anyone be cowed now? The coat hangers will just come off the closet rods again....

But Mom will not be alive any more to call the nurse. She died seven years ago today.

I can't stomach a dead or unconscious woman with a coat hanger inserted inside. Honestly and I don't know why, it is much easier to stomach cutting apart a small lump of cells, even a small lump of cells fully equivalent to a human life. Maybe because we don't have to look at "it". Or because that baby has a free ticket to heaven, and if life is good, life is also painful, and the baby doesn't experience life in all its joy and pain.

The baby suffers least in abortion. It suffers a moment of pain, but an eternity of peace with Jesus. The emotional and spiritual aftermath is for the woman and the doctor. Presumably no Christian would seek or perform an abortion, so after a lifetime of emotional withholding or suffering, there is the danger of being separated from the baby and Jesus forever.

We all know that people are not always completely honest when they answer surveys. And people are more likely to say they are anti-abortion because they've been bullied into believing that anyone who has an abortion is evil and selfish, and any doctor who performs an abortion is a murderer. Put that way, who wouldn't be against it?

And the WaPo has reached a new low publishing this tripe. Because of her self-righteousness, none of her friends who have had abortions have shared that information with her. Yes young lady, you know someone who has had an abortion. For obvious biological reasons, it is women your age who terminate pregnancies. They need understanding and freedom from harassment. Not blame.

And while you're at it, be sure to thank a feminist today. Because there is no way in hell the crap you wrote would have ever been published in a mainstream newspaper if it weren't for all of the female journalists who worked triple time to prove themselves in the male dominated world of news. So instead of stabbing women in the back start acting like we are useful human beings, not breeding cows.

Wow, the post found a woman who is capable of speaking on behalf of all young women. I would have thought that opinions on this issue among young women was as varied as it is for all generations, but clearly this woman is the authority on what all young women think.

"Today's young women are rejecting the selfishness of the feminist "me-first" paradigm and embracing the "other." "

Honey (and I mean this in the most condescending paternalistic way), do you even *know* what it was like for women before the feminist movement? So many things that you take for granted would have been denied you if you had been born 60 years ago. Try and get a credit card? Better have a male co-signer otherwise you're SOL. Try and own property in your name? In many places it would have been difficult if not impossible. Expect to get paid for doing the same work as men? Sweetie, don't you realize that men need to make more because they're the breadwinners? That is, if in fact you can get a job - so many professions were closed to women. Your job at a policy tank would most assuredly been handled by a man (and if it happened to be a woman, it would have to be a particular "type" of woman, if you know what I mean) and if you were lucky enough to get a job with the Washington Post - forget about anything besides the society pages. And pretty much any man on the street could say the most outrageous things to you - and it would be considered "your fault" for encouraging him if he did.

Yes - there was/is a certain amount of "me-ism" in feminism (I wouldn't quite describe it as "me first" - but only because it was needed to overcome the sexist rules that governed society that were considered to be "the natural order of things" but in reality treated women as subserviant second class citizens who couldn't survive without a man.

Being 23 - ooooh - out of college a whole year now! - you really don't seem to know a whole lot for some who comes off as arrogant and condescending herself.

Sorry Tootsie - would love to chat some more, but I have work to get done - "man stuff", ya'know? You probably wouldn't understand - don't worry your pretty liitle head about there little filly. Now get those shoes off and hurry back to the kitchen where you belong - and not a peep out of you, young lady.

Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. 9And he said to him, "All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me." 10Then Jesus said to him, "Be gone,(Q) Satan! For(R) it is written,

(S) "'You shall worship the Lord your God
and(T) him only shall you serve.'"
11Then the devil left him, and behold,(U) angels came and were ministering to him.

Matthew 4, English Standard Version

The kingdoms of the world belonged to Satan and he had the authority to give them to Jesus.

You presume miscarriages are God's will. What if they are Satan's will?

Zapping Satan right away makes God seem like a cosmic meanie to the angels in Heaven. Why not let Satan let a mess of things first? Incidentally it proves to the angels in Heaven he has no wisdom compared to God.

Ms Walker writes: "Until all human beings -- including those in the womb -- are recognized as persons under law, any effort for true justice will be undermined."

Yet most pro-lifers also share the view that gay men and women are subhuman beings not worthy of basic rights such as marriage. Shouldn't justice also demand recognizing the worth of these people, who are already here?

As someone who is pro-choice, I have no problem hearing the choice this woman made. It shouldn't offend someone to hear that they didn't choose to have an abortion. It shouldn't be offensive to hear that their situation turned out great. Having a baby is a choice and it shouldn't be something we place behind a curtain so those who had/will have an abortion don't see it. They have their choice and you have yours. If you can choose to have an abortion and talk about that, you should be able to choose to keep the baby and talk about that as well. We always here about the sad situations of rape, poverty and other hardship situations that show why abortion should be allowed. But not everyone is in those situations and sometimes people need to hear that they can do this. Not everyone's life is "over" by having a child they didn't plan. Abortion isn't the only choice for an unexpected pregnancy. Not sure why that is shocking to hear. Now to address the article directly, could you be more self-absorbed yourself? Address your own decisions and try to remember than even among your peer group, not everyone thinks the feminist movement was a selfish "all-about-me" plight.

Blasmaic wrote: "hohandy1, California charges people with two counts of murder when they kill a fetus and its host."

but that isn't giving "rights" to the fetus is it? All that is doing is saying that for purposes of criminal law the murder of a pregnant woman is treated separately than the murder of a non-pregnant woman.

Let me illustrate the difference. A pregnant woman is murdered. After the criminal trial, the estate of the woman my sue the murderer in a civil case for the infliction of harm. However, just because the Ca Legislature said that the murder of the pregnant woman should be considered the murder of more than one victim, no rights were given to the fetus - there is no "estate" of the fetus who could likewise sue in civil court. The pregnant wife could have owned property that she could leave to others - the unborn fetus has no such rights, etc., etc.

It is something very narrowly drawn to create a very special classification of a crime - much like hate crime legislation does - but confers nothing - no additional rights - that gives legal status of "personhood" as understood in the law to the fetus.

You want to see something that isn't there. Again - don't argue law unless you know what you're talking about. Sound bites does not make a legal discussion.

Bluefish2012 says: "here's individual DNA there from conception; there's brain activity there well before birth; there's a brain for goodness sakes and a beating heart from a very early point---and you say it's not a human being"

It's not a human being. Bluefish, learn some reproductive biology. There's individual DNA in every cell, and variant DNA in each individual spermatozoan and ovum. Are they people? Messes up your first point, eh?

While there may be neural activity, until late in gestation, it wouldn't be close to the minimal level of organized activity, the absence of which has been used to confirm brain death and end of life. Actually, the standard of practice isn't to look for electrical activity alone, but brain perfusion and metabolism. Tell me, what do you consider isolated brainstem activity in anencephaly? What's your standard of verifying that electrical activity, in a brain not perfusing, isn't coming from the spinal cord or peripheral nerves?

"a beating heart from a very early point" Aha! Thank you for letting me know that I must be dead, as my heart has been stopped and restarted during surgery. Just what do you mean by "beating", incidentally, in an adult human being? Is electromechanical dissociation, also called pulseless electrical activity, the definition of life? Don't get me wrong; EMD/PEA is not an immediate justification to stop advanced cardiac life support, but prolonged EMD/PEA is considered justification to stop resuscitation attempts. Ever looked, with the eyes you mention, at a heart in ventricular fibrillation? It's floppin' around like a catfish just landed, but unless it is returned to purposeful rhythm, it is absolutely fatal.

"What makes it a human being by simply passing through a woman's birth canal? One minute the baby is not a human being and the next it magically IS a human being? Come on!"

It's a practical distinction used very deliberately to avoid some slippery-slope post-birth situations.

"You really need to do better than that." Actually, I don't. I'm following established medical standards, not just in utero but in resuscitation and determination of death -- so other lives can be saved through organ transplant. It's you that are describing vast oversimplifications of physiological processes and wanting everyone to conform to your views. You apparently want to change a wide range of medical concepts, which demonstrably save unquestionably human lives.

" I really don't need to "believe" anything. I just have to open the eyes and mind I have." I agree -- if your goal is not understanding biology. Otherwise, I suggest you open your eyes and mind and learn about the processes you incorrectly describe, or for which there are glaring counterexamples that have nothing to do with a fetus.

"Until all human beings -- including those in the womb -- are recognized as persons under law"

Then if a woman's pregnancy spans 2 calendar years, she can declare the fetus as a dependent on her income tax?

The title should be "what this young woman wants". I am against abortion, but I am pro-choice. I do come from a country with total separation of church and state and do not think that I should impose my own religious or philosophical principles on others.
Ms. Walker has not lived long enough, nor seen enough of the world close up , and yet thinks her way is the only true one. I hope life will let her remain in that blissful state of ignorance and non-awareness of others.

Ok this is the add I want to see:
I was going to have an abortion but was talked out of it. My son raped and killed 5 women. Wasn't it a wonderful choice.

"We've seen so much pain and suffering, and we yearn for justice."

At 23 years old, I rather doubt that the author has seen much of anything, let alone experienced for herself the kind of pain and suffering she's evoking so carelessly. I would also note that nowhere does she mention a personal experience with this choice. If I had to guess, I would hazard that someone who's already a communications director at a Washington lobbying outfit at 23 is not also a young parent. In fact, I believe it is safe to say that she has no idea what she's talking about, and is actually simply mouthing platitudes and generalizations that she learned somewhere else, having had no time in her short if successful life to deeply consider the immense ethical questions that underlay this issue. I wonder if she's ever even stopped to examine her own beliefs.

I find the author's treatment of this issue to be insulting in its narrow perspective and lack of considered thought. This post is truly nothing more than a collection of unfounded assertions, blatant prejudices, mealy mouthed platitudes and empty, triumphalist rhetoric. It displays no critical thinking at all, no examination of the issues, and absolutely no deeper understanding. What a waste of space.

There is so much that can be said--as is evidenced by so many comments above.

But I feel that all that needs to be pointed out is that Katie killed her own argument and hung herself by the last sentence of her own article. Which is, as any write knows, supposed to be the strongest. No one else needs to argue against it.

She argues against choice. Yet here is what she said:

"we are drawn to the example of Pam Tebow, who 22 years ago in the Philippines chose selflessness, love and justice."

Please note the word CHOSE. Pam Tebow CHOSE to have her son. She made a CHOICE.

That is the very definition of pro-choice. She happened to have chosen life, the choice with which Katie and most everyone, no matter whether pro-life or pro-choice, agrees.

I would think the other staff of her organization should have caught that before letting it go to print.

"Yes God wants everyone to be born." Uh . . . . nope. Not even close. God spontaneously aborts millions of babies of HIS own free will every year. MILLIONS. We call it miscarraige, but it's the same thing. One has to wonder what HE'S thinking. If he didn't want these babies to be born, why make them in the first place? But whatever. Since he aborts SO MANY BABIES, you have to believe he has some sort of place to put all the unborn. I have no doubt that the aborted by God and the aborted by man go to the same place. I also have no doubt that it must be pretty cool. Way better than this place. I suppose, ironically, it's the Pro-Lifers who have so little faith in the fact that God has a great place for those who are not born into this world. There are worse things than not being born, like being born into a live of misery and suffering. Pro-Lifers would have a whole lot more credibility if they gave nearly as much of a darn about living children. They don't. So it's not really that they want babies to be born, it's that they want to punish women for having sex by forcing them to have babies they can't care for. It's about controlling women. I will go to my grave before I allow anyone to tell me what to do with my body. I have no problem with people advocating that women choose life. But it's a whole other thing to FORCE that on women. Pro-choicers don't force anything on anyone. It's the American way.

As a gay man, this shouldn't matter to me, but I feel that abortion is a very personal decision that should be left to the parents, and ultimately the mother. I don't know if I could ever make the decision about an abortion, but I will fight for the right of a women to have that choice.

While there may be a large number of women that say they are pro-life, they can still support the right of a women to have the opportunity to make that choice.

Ms. Walker, you have a lot of growing up to do. In a few years, you will realize how selfish your philosophy of asking every woman to be a baby factory is. Remember the words of Madeleine Albright: "There is a special place in hell for women who don't help other women." Don't limit choices for women.

Why is the Washington Post publishing what a cult-indoctrinated 23-year-old thinks? Who cares what she thinks? Just trying to stir the pot? These idiots are pro-birth, not pro-life. They couldn't care less what happens to the child after birth, except perhaps if it joins their particular cult.

hohandy1, California charges people with two counts of murder when they kill a fetus and its host. So, contrary to your strong assertion, some laws give personhood to the unborn already.

But we shouldn't be talking about abortion this week. There is nothing in Washington happening in regard to abortion. In Washington, the big topic is "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Somehow that's not what our leaders want us to talk about during the Super Bowl.

"Until all human beings -- including those in the womb -- are recognized as persons under law"
**************************************************************************************
So I guess a pregnant woman who smokes should be prosecuted for contributing to the delinquency of a juvenile.

"Until all human beings -- including those in the womb -- are recognized as persons under law"

Extremely radical and naive. You shouldn't lecture others on the law unless you yourself know what you're talking about. There are goog reasons why our legal system and jurisprudence do not give "personhood" until birth - things that people who view the world through their religious ideology fail to consider.

Something like 30% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. It's part of nature (and if you insist on looking at the world via a religious-dominated viewpoint, "God's plan"). Have you thought through the implications of giving legal "personhood" rights to a being that is incapable of surviving on its own but must depend upon a parasitical relationship with another person's body? What happens to liablity and the denial of that fetus/"person"'s rights in the event of a miscarriage? A miscarriage is a tragedy enough as it is without some legal busybody coming sniffing around making sure that "rights" weren't violated.

lepidopteryx and Athena4 and Tiki79 don't get it. They post that their mothers are Pro-Choice. They post this with pride. They write that their mothers had a choice to either abort them or give birth to them. lepidopteryx and Athena4 and Tiki79 boast that their mothers decided to give birth, to choose life, instead of death for their babies. At that moment of decision, their mothers chose Life. Their mothers chose Life, not death. Their mothers were Pro-Life for them when they decided to choose Life and not death for them. Their mothers were Pro-Life. Behind every Pro-Choice Woman stands a Pro-Choice Mom.
Posted by: motherseton
**************************************************************************************
No, dearest, YOU don't get it.
When I found out I was pregnant with my daughter, I took careful inventory of my financial, emotional, physical, and spiritual resources to see if I had what I would need in order to be provide a child with all she would need. Had I found that I did not, I would not have had her. That's what CHOICE is all about - being able to decide EITHER way, depending on an individual's circumstances.
Yes, Pam Tebow CHOSE to ignore her doctor's advice, and everything turned out groovy for her and little Timmy, and that's great. I'm not saying that she SHOULD have aborted him. I'm saying that if I were in her situation, I would not want the option of aborting taken away from me. I don't want someone else making the decision that my life and the continuation of it is of lesser value than the contents of my uterus.

You don't speak for me, Ms. Walker. And Tim Tebow, whose family's strong evangelism is well-documented, can hardly be counted as part of a sea change in abortion attitudes.

lepidopteryx and Athena4 and Tiki79 don't get it. They post that their mothers are Pro-Choice. They post this with pride. They write that their mothers had a choice to either abort them or give birth to them. lepidopteryx and Athena4 and Tiki79 boast that their mothers decided to give birth, to choose life, instead of death for their babies. At that moment of decision, their mothers chose Life. Their mothers chose Life, not death. Their mothers were Pro-Life for them when they decided to choose Life and not death for them. Their mothers were Pro-Life. Behind every Pro-Choice Woman stands a Pro-Choice Mom.

Posted by: motherseton | February 2, 2010 11:14 PM

==========================

No, you don't get it motherseton. My mother had a CHOICE that SHE could make whereas you want to take away that choice from her. Essentially, YOU wish to make decisions for my mom, my wife, and my female friends with regard to THEIR bodies and THEIR health. Frankly, it is none of your business.

I couldn't agree more with Gary15's post regarding pro-choice is not the same as anti-life. I don't care for the practice of abortion, but as long as groups (such as the author's no doubt) continue to prohibit the teaching of contraception and safer sex (no sex is 100 percent safe), then there will continue to be unwanted pregnancies. If we can educate most of the population on sex, its consequences, and safer practices, then maybe abortions will decrease until the only people seeking them do so in cases of medical necessity (which probably make up the majority of procedures already anyway).

I am against abortion, but I am pro choice. The problem is so many pro life people are against sex education. If people stopped unwanted pregnancies, we could stop we whole debate. Give people the knowledge and the desire to prevent pregnancies. This also should include waiting to have sex until you are ready.

HCBERKOWITZ--pray tell, what exactly is a fetus if it is not a human being. I certainly don't need Jerry Falwell's faith to decide what "it" is. There's individual DNA there from conception; there's brain activity there well before birth; there's a brain for goodness sakes and a beating heart from a very early point---and you say it's not a human being?

What makes it a human being by simply passing through a woman's birth canal? One minute the baby is not a human being and the next it magically IS a human being? Come on!

You really need to do better than that. I really don't need to "believe" anything. I just have to open the eyes and mind I have.

www.gendercide.org/case_infanticide.html

"Case Study:
Female Infanticide
Focus:
(1) India
(2) China

Summary

The phenomenon of female infanticide is as old as many cultures, and has likely accounted for millions of gender-selective deaths throughout history. It remains a critical concern in a number of "Third World" countries today, notably the two most populous countries on earth, China and India. In all cases, specifically female infanticide reflects the low status accorded to women in most parts of the world; it is arguably the most brutal and destructive manifestation of the anti-female bias that pervades "patriarchal" societies.

It is closely linked to the phenomena of sex-selective abortion, which targets female fetuses almost exclusively, and neglect of girl children."

MotherSeton,

If my mother had chosen to abort me, it simply would have been an alternate branch of probability. Alternatively, if there had been an explosion in my hospital delivery room -- much more common given anesthetics of the day -- I would be equally unaware of the decision. I really don't see any logic to your argument, other than spouting slogans, about moms of pro-choice women really being pro-life. If my mother had aborted me, are you saying I'd be regretting it somehow? I'd never have existed as a human being, which I do not believe I was in utero. Exactly what is your point?

It amazed me when Jerry Falwell Sr., a man I generally loathed, came up with the best summary I've ever heard of the overall abortion debate. He didn't rail about "unborn babies", but recognized those that are comfortable with abortion do not believe that fetuses are human beings. He said he would pray for his deity to change their beliefs, but he fairly well acknowledged that it was a matter of faith on both sides. I don't consider a fetus to be a human or have any more inherent potential, until born, than a spermatozoan, millions of which die along with the one that makes it to target. That is a considered decision, based on experience including observing not just a shadow on a sonogram, but in a surgical theater. Why aren't you complaining about the tragic loss of tubal pregnancies, or resorbed blastocysts?

The siblings of Adolf Hitler deliberately chose not to have children. Were they celibate, did they have effective birth control, did they abort, or were they lucky? We don't really have that data. While I wouldn't say I am "pro-abortion" any more than I am "pro-appendectomy" or "pro-pancreatoduodenectomy", I rather regret Klara Hitler didn't have one for young Adolf.

"Mission of the Mothers' Home

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a residential shelter, Mothers' Home provides a safe haven for vulnerable, pregnant women in a crisis who choose life as a sacred gift.

We encourage our mothers to celebrate the joy of new life and help them prepare for their future and the future of their child.

We focus on physical, emotional and developmental needs including positive life skills, parenting, and job preparation.

We strive to assist our mothers to reach their goals of independence and self sufficiency."

Make a donation:

http://www.mothershome.org/donate.aspx

Their mothers were Pro-Life. Behind every Pro-Choice Woman stands a Pro-Life Mom.

lepidopteryx and Athena4 and Tiki79 don't get it. They post that their mothers are Pro-Choice. They post this with pride. They write that their mothers had a choice to either abort them or give birth to them. lepidopteryx and Athena4 and Tiki79 boast that their mothers decided to give birth, to choose life, instead of death for their babies. At that moment of decision, their mothers chose Life. Their mothers chose Life, not death. Their mothers were Pro-Life for them when they decided to choose Life and not death for them. Their mothers were Pro-Life. Behind every Pro-Choice Woman stands a Pro-Choice Mom.

When you give someone your heart, make sure it isn't taking a hike.

And it's not all about you when you unzip.
__________________________

Excellent point! What a guy does or doesn't do leads to sex, pregnancy, and abortion. It takes two to tango.

1. If you're going to do it, think of at least one good birth control method and possibly several

plus safe sex for STDs

and make sure you really love her too, while you're at it

2. But if you're the least bit religious, consider waiting till you get married, maybe this ain't 'the one', and you got laid with someone who walked away

Conservatives care strongly about the unborn fetus. Once your born however, you are on your own. Good luck to you mate!

Once a woman has an abortion it might be threatening to hear pro-lifers talk. Hence the lightning aimed at Katie. As long as they can tell themselves it wasn't a baby and put pro-lifers in their non-threatening place (not even in the near future, so what?) they are at ease.

Silly, reductive nonsense. Age is not the problem. Many twenty-three-year-olds think critically and write well.

How fortunate for Ms. Tebow that she had physicians presenting her with options. Had her pregnancy occured a few years prior in this county, her physicians would've been criminalized; had it occured a few decades later (e.g. today), they might fear assassination.

Keep it legal and safe.

Thank you Katie for such a beautiful testimony. It's so wonderful to see young women see abortion for what it is: a lie.
Abortion was legalized because of a lie and it survives on lies: ie that a baby is not a baby.But people are waking up, the number of pro-abortion supporters is dwindling and they are angry; that's why they have to be so vocal and insulting.
Don't worry about the name calling (pig and fascist in some of these polls--charming!). The ugly face of abortion has been exposed by the very science that liberals support. Science is finding that what they call only a "blob" has amazing capabilities. A heartbeat at six weeks of gestation and an instinct for survival as proved by a scan of a fetus moving away from the probing suction of the cruel vacuum that is going to kill it.
To the person who says that it's just surgey and that all surgey is not pretty I say that I don't know of any surgery that leaves behind a little human hand and foot and a little human face ripped apart.
Yes, young women are seeing the light as shown by the sheer number of them showing up at the march for life in DC and California...Continue speaking up for life, Katie. We are winning, one small victory at a time, but we will get there.

Miss Walker,

I'll presume you won't mind the 'is' stuck between the 'Ms'.

Your article is insightful, clean with a lot of white space and your style, graceful.

Never mind these old biddies who suddenly find a young thinking woman's opinion so arrogant. One would think Planned Parenthood kept a list of editorial ghost writers on hand to combat the occasional bright star that approaches one of its long-held Posts.

There is good ground out there still... and the seeds you sew will bloom in the minds and hearts of other young women who in turn will shovel the dung of the comments of your detesters... and spread it for fertilizer.

The old, greasy black banana peel has a value when it is stamped into the soil...

Keep going!

PPS. Perhaps if I had known how close she was. She had 90 days to live. But I'd heard it before, too. You just can't predict how long someone has.

P.S. with regard to parents in rest homes, my mom did go to a rest home, but it was not a first resort, it was a last resort.

After six years with only eight and six (off and on) months away, I was at the end of my rope and ready to go my separate way.

My brother could have intervened but did not. Something about dad's idea of "if you can afford it, get out'. I was sharing the rent the last three years.

A last resort is much different than a first resort, and I was ready to give up, whereas my brother was never ready to give.

Not everyone is selfish.

-----

P.S. I suppose a woman who really wanted to abort her kid could have given birth if she didn't have the money or failed to kill it with a coat hanger.... Just because a kid is born alive does not mean the mother wanted the kid and is pro-life.

---------------------

think I've heard enough about what young women want.
What do your male counterparts have to say about their children?
Not their children, you say?
Yup, when I am sitting here, after a divorce, still paying for children(cour ordered child support), it becomes crystal clear that they're mine.
So let's hear from the men this time.
I've had about as much from feminists that I can take.
It's not all about you. If it was, the people of this world would simply cease to exist.
fact.
Posted by: pgibson1
_______________

And it's not all about you when you unzip.

All those who posted Pro-Choice comments are fortunate that their own mothers are Pro-Life. Behind every Pro-Choice Woman stands a Pro-Life Mom.
Posted by: motherseton

My mother is pro-choice.
I am pro-choice and have a pro-choice daughter.

Best case scenario for Tim Tebow and Mullah Dobson: fewer abortions happen due to restrictive, Taliban-types of laws; more babies are born during the recession; then more children are available for every kind of abuse by priests and Tebow's hero Dobson while they are at the "Christian youth camp."

I would give the Never Born this bit of advice: Life is a mixed blessing.

Sure you have to deal with gravity and atmosphere. There is joy, pain, love, and rejection. You may not get what you want, but we hope in God you get what you need (and usually we do).

If you live long enough to know who Jesus is (several years, maybe five to ten), you will have to make a choice to follow Him or not. It is important to choose to follow Him rather than the Devil who wants to deceive you into hell just to spite God.

Yes God wants everyone to be born. Even if later they wish they never were. Depression is a problem in our country. Maybe we have forgotten what really counts. God, and our neighbors.

JRNOLAN wrote: Thank you for your article and for standing up to the liberal media and all the other selfish "me first" people out there. The majority of Americans are pro-life, this is no longer in dispute. To quote the movie "The Big Lebowski" - The 60's are over! The bums lost!

___________

So you're willing to admit you lost and Roe v Wade stands. I am pro-life, and pro-choice and pro-Roe v Wade. The bums lost and reson won! So give it up.

If we are right about there being a God, how about you take abortion up with Him?

"There are a lot of "born" folks that probably need "aborting", but really not "unborn" innocents that deserve such a fate."

_______________________________________

Same mentality that applauds the "shock and awe" crapolla Bush heaped on us and Iraqi civilians.

There's nothing "good", "innocent", "special", or "divine" about a fetus. I'm sure that posters like yourself regard other animals (yes, you are an animal, too) as presents from God to be eaten, beaten, and otherwise destroyed by humans.

If you respect life so very much, then don't harm other animals, including other people. I've seen your posts and you are the architypal conservative flag waver who believes a bullet or artillery shell will solve all the white mans' problems. Am I right?

"All those who posted Pro-Choice comments are fortunate that their own mothers are Pro-Life. Behind every Pro-Choice Woman stands a Pro-Life Mom."

You clearly haven't met MY mother. She's as Pro-Choice as they come. However, I was 1) born before abortion was legal in Pennsylvania; and 2) wanted. In fact, she had to be on bed rest for several months while she was pregnant after suffering several miscarriages. But, as she told me one time, "I may be Catholic, but I'm a woman FIRST."

My husband is also Pro-Choice, and he has never cheated on me. Nor I on him.

I am pro-choice. Although it is not a choice I would make for me, it is also a choice I would not make FOR someone else.

The fifty five million (that's 55,000,000) babies killed in the United States by abortion thank God for Ms Walker. All those who posted Pro-Choice comments are fortunate that their own mothers are Pro-Life. Behind every Pro-Choice Woman stands a Pro-Life Mom.

Posted by: motherseton | February 2, 2010 3:35 PM
=========================
Nope. My mom is actively pro-choice (as I am I). She just made the CHOICE to have me because she and my father WANTED to have me and were in a position to financially SUPPORT a child.

Also, if the author of this piece is so convinced that young women today do not wish to have abortions, then there is no need to make it illegal as people will stop having them and the process will go away by itself. You only need to make it illegal if you fear that the majority of Americans will continue to support the right to choose.

I think I've heard enough about what young women want.

What do your male counterparts have to say about their children?

Not their children, you say?

Yup, when I am sitting here, after a divorce, still paying for children(cour ordered child support), it becomes crystal clear that they're mine.

So let's hear from the men this time.

I've had about as much from feminists that I can take.

It's not all about you. If it was, the people of this world would simply cease to exist.

fact.

The vitriolic, hyper comments in response to Ms. Walker's article are telling. So often feminists have such a sour, condescending, dismissive view of others and life in general. There's a lot of unhappiness showing through these comments.
The country is still evenly divided on the issue of abortion. But when old-style feminists show their true colors, the pro-life side seems to gain.

The fifty five million (that's 55,000,000) babies killed in the United States by abortion thank God for Ms Walker. All those who posted Pro-Choice comments are fortunate that their own mothers are Pro-Life. Behind every Pro-Choice Woman stands a Pro-Life Mom.

Thou shalt not kill/murder defenseless children, spotted owls or alligator snapping turtles in or out of their eggs!!!

"Katie Walker, 23, is communications director for American Life League." Communications director? Sounds like a career woman to me--one who should thank the feminist activists who preceded her and chipped away at gender inequality in this country.

I also laugh when conservatives--those who brought you the Tea Party movement--try to portray others as being selfish. Get your Republican cronies to pass health insurance reform to cover more Americans first, then we'll talk.

Let's look at the facts - when Pam Tebow got pregnant she lived in the Phillipines, where abortion was illegal. They must not have had time to mention that in the ad.

Your choice is your choice, but you don't speak for me.

". . .It could not convince us that a me-first approach to life was somehow going to safeguard us from another Holocaust, from more racism, more lynchings, more genocide."

Notice that all of these atrocities occured BEFORE Roe v. Wade. This is cheap rhetorical chicanery.

Ms Walker, keep doing what you are doing. Your arrogance and condescension is making your target audience more and more pro-choice. Only the already strongly pro-life folks might not get your contempt for those you claim to speak for.
Posted by: cyberfool | February 2, 2010 1:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Too arrogant and stupind they have blinders on to figure it out but that is a good thing as they say give em enough rope and......

Kate: You don't speak for me.

To: cmwillingham1

RE: "How sad, Katie, that you are so dismissive of the hard work given by thousands of women..."

The author is not dismissive of the "feminist movement," only dismissive of a "feminist movement" not rightly understood. The movement should be a fight for dignity, not selfishness.

You suggest that the author learn her history, but you fail to recognize that the original sufferagists (Susan B. Anothony et al) were staunchly against abortion.

SHAMROCKY: I am 100% pro-choice now and I will be for all my days. Pregnancy is a mind-bogglingly overwhelming, all-encompassing life experience and I cannot imagine having had to go through it against my will. You would never be able to feel safe in your own body again.

That's it in a nutshell.
I have a daughter that I adore, and whose birth almost resulted in both our deaths. I decided then and there that I would never have another child, and asked the doctor to do a tubal ligation while she had my belly open for the C-section. She refused because "you're only 25, you're single, this is your first baby, and you might change your mind later."
When my daughter was a toddler, I got pregnant again, despite the fact that I was on the pill - my doctor didn't warn me that I needed a backup while taking antibiotics. I was not about to risk another potentially dangerous pregnancy in order to have another child, especially when I was barely able to keep my daughter fed and clothed. I aborted the second pregnancy, and have no regrets.
Posted by: lepidopteryx | February 2, 2010 9:14 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Good for you and I know things turn out right for and thankfully you had the choice ulike the cave dwellers who want choice removed as the wicked witch said what a world what a world

Katie, take off the blinkers. What women want is the choice, even if 99.9% won't abort as a rule. I suspect even Pam Tebow wanted it. If a poll asked women of childbearing years "Would YOU give up YOUR right to make this decision about YOUR body", most women wouldn't. Take away a right and people are up in arms. Forget the so-called personhood of fetuses; women and girls, who have been part of this life on earth for at least 11 or 12 years, have a right to a life too!

Second, abortion can be a life SAVER. I might be reluctant to decide to abort (other than for the three big exceptions), but I believe it's often justified. My mom had one (legally) in the 1960s to avoid the nervous breakdown her own mother had after having a child late in life with too many other children at home to care for. While my grandmother was institutionalized, at 12 my mom had to sacrifice her own happiness and well-being to raise her siblings. In many ways it ruined her life, and when push came to shove, she could not chance putting that burden on her own daughters.

Katie,
you have avoided the big question: should abortions of nonviable human fetuses be illegal or not? If illegal, should a long prison term applied? You coward, you avoided the real question.

"To my liberal, anti-life friends,"
This is exactly the kind of rhetoric that people hate. No one is anti-life, but many people...yes even those who consider themselves pro-life want women to have the ability to make their own choices.
Posted by: jjj141 | February 2, 2010 1:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment
They are too arrogant self righteous and quite honestly not smart enought to think for themselves lil puppets doing g-d's work LOL LOL

JRNolan,

Thank you for bringing the underlying message to this discussion: it's not really about life. It's about evangelizing that meaning can only be found in your religious framework. "They love their families, work hard, love God and treat others as they would wish to be treated." Would you mind if I translated "God" there as in "Allah", and understand what you are saying in broader terms of "submission to God", which means you are a Muslim? Are the Buddhists ruled out because they don't quite have a concept, in their spirituality, of a conscious deity to love? What about the animists that find meaning and deity in the earth? Taoists?

Y'know, I can think of quite a number of people, present and historic, that found immense meaning outside themselves, but not necessarily defined in terms of family, children, etc. By all means, have a devoted family if you wish. There are others, however, that have deliberately chosen not to have that distraction -- perhaps for scientific research, for art, for practicing healing arts, for putting their bodies at the point of the spear for protecting families. Indeed, what about celibate priests and nuns?

As it seems, it's your way or the highway. I certainly don't presume the existence or nonexistence of a Creator -- who may have chosen to create a singularity that went Big Bang -- but I share, with selfish people like Thomas Jefferson, some very substantial skepticism about an obscure deity that wants one-way obedience based on faith. Or is that relationship more properly enhanced through appropriate priestly intermediaries?

DNara,

I suppose you're right. "try to find the right way to pleasantly describe an abortion." Ummm...got a pleasant way to describe any surgical procedure? Pelvic exenteration, perhaps? Field amputation? While eye protection is now standard personal protective gear, it wasn't always in emergency rooms -- trust me, spraying blood stings in my eyes, but one brushes it aside and makes sure the patient keeps pumping it. "They never have found the right way" Why should there be one? Why should the lack of one rule out this procedure? I have a family member undergoing palliative radiation and chemotherapy, which, while it is giving him a decent and extended quality of life when the immediate effects wear off, isn't pretty right after a treatment.

I can't say I'd describe a C-section as pretty, but the success was nice. On the other hand, removing an ectopic pregnancy looks very similar in the OR. In the case of the latter, the "pretty" part was salvaging the reproductive organs and allowing a subsequent term pregnancy -- by choice.

Hey Katie, maybe you will opt not to vote, own property, or have a job of your choice anymore because after all, those rights were fought for by those crazy "me first" feminists.
Posted by: lizae | February 2, 2010 1:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment
we should be so lucky lol

To Katie Walker and the commentor named jrnolan:
Children have many amazing qualities, perception and understanding among them. Older folks can learn much from the younger. However, often, the life experience that older folks have brings about an understanding that a worldview based on broad generalizations about people and strident attachment to a single perspective are myopic and in the end destructive. A little more attention to the details and subtleties of people's motivations, spiritual views and their work to support each other in small ways on a day to day basis can inform you and serve your end of saving lives better than attacks on those you don't understand.

Any intent to base actions on the teachings of Jesus will succeed better when pursued from "Love God with all heart and mind and love they neighbor as thyself." The God part is open to a lot of interpretation, but I don't think the "neighbor" part is.

GasMonkey, I do not understand the paradigm shift of God from Israelite tribal war deity to Jesus the savior of humanity.

I guess as a Gentile (British, Scandinavian, unless you believe the Worldwide Church of God British Israelitism) I should have been destroyed too.

A lot of things changed between Matthew 1 and Acts 15. Jesus became a God for the nations, not just Israel, to bring salvation, not destruction.

What's in store for America -
"Nurse, prepare the coat hanger".
Medical care, republican style.
Posted by: seattle_wa | February
So true and so sad they don't care anything about how the baby is born as long as born and what about after born where are these self righteos phonies when it comes to caring and raising yea family values republicon style is a protest and a televangical huckster telling you what to do

Katie,
Thank you for your article and for standing up to the liberal media and all the other selfish "me first" people out there. The majority of Americans are pro-life, this is no longer in dispute. To quote the movie "The Big Lebowski" - The 60's are over! The bums lost!
Real women (and men) aren't selfish. They love their families, work hard, love God and treat others as they would wish to be treated. The baby boomer theory of "abort unwanted children and send mom and dad to rest homes when they become inconvenient to care for" is, at its heart, inherently SELFISH! "Me, me, me" is all we have heard for the past 50 or so years and look where it has gotten us...an empty culture where anything goes and "every man, woman, child for himself" is the only rule that is respected.
To my liberal, anti-life friends, my advice is this: Don't waste any more time! Find out why your pro-life, pro-family friends are so happy and love life so much! Find out why we don't need psychiatrists and medication to make it through the day and fall asleep at night. Just scratch the surface and you'll want to dig deeper and you will find a real meaning to life outside of the selfish confines of yourself. I promise!
Posted by: jrnolan | February 2, 2010 12:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment
You are a sick wacko please take your views your religion and beliefs and put them where the sun don'tr shine in your arse How arrogant and demaening is it of you to tell others what to do and believe you realize this is eaxctly what the taliban does and the nazi's did you are in with impressive company

JRNolan:
To my liberal, anti-life friends, my advice is this: Don't waste any more time! Find out why your pro-life, pro-family friends are so happy and love life so much! Find out why we don't need psychiatrists and medication to make it through the day and fall asleep at night. Just scratch the surface and you'll want to dig deeper and you will find a real meaning to life outside of the selfish confines of yourself. I promise!

I'm a moderate on most issues, most definitely pro-choice, practice a spiritual path that combines Paganism and Unitarianism, and I assure you that my life is a happy one filled with loving family and friends, activities I enjoy, and all-around grooviness. I require no medications to get me through the day or night. I work hard, play hard, love deeply, am loved deeply, and that is all I need.

Ms Walker, keep doing what you are doing. Your arrogance and condescension is making your target audience more and more pro-choice. Only the already strongly pro-life folks might not get your contempt for those you claim to speak for.

Hey Katie, maybe you will opt not to vote, own property, or have a job of your choice anymore because after all, those rights were fought for by those crazy "me first" feminists.

What's in store for America -

"Nurse, prepare the coat hanger".

Medical care, republican style.

"To my liberal, anti-life friends,"

This is exactly the kind of rhetoric that people hate. No one is anti-life, but many people...yes even those who consider themselves pro-life want women to have the ability to make their own choices.

As a male, I do not understand why everyone does not allow the individual woman to make her own decision without the threats from those who believe they know better than anyone else about what is "Right" for women in general? If one opposes abortion, do not have one! Otherwise, it seems to me one should mind their own business, including CBS and Tebow! Also, as to religion, let us remember the misogyny of the desert religions of death, Judaism, Christianity and Islam and take a moment to remember those thousands upon thousands of women torture and executed for Witchcraft by the Church! In some respects, the present controversy is but a continuance of this attitude of misogyny! Just a thought from a guy!
Posted by: kemcb | February 2, 2010 12:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Well Said !!!!!!

Katie,

Thank you for your article and for standing up to the liberal media and all the other selfish "me first" people out there. The majority of Americans are pro-life, this is no longer in dispute. To quote the movie "The Big Lebowski" - The 60's are over! The bums lost!

Real women (and men) aren't selfish. They love their families, work hard, love God and treat others as they would wish to be treated. The baby boomer theory of "abort unwanted children and send mom and dad to rest homes when they become inconvenient to care for" is, at its heart, inherently SELFISH! "Me, me, me" is all we have heard for the past 50 or so years and look where it has gotten us...an empty culture where anything goes and "every man, woman, child for himself" is the only rule that is respected.

To my liberal, anti-life friends, my advice is this: Don't waste any more time! Find out why your pro-life, pro-family friends are so happy and love life so much! Find out why we don't need psychiatrists and medication to make it through the day and fall asleep at night. Just scratch the surface and you'll want to dig deeper and you will find a real meaning to life outside of the selfish confines of yourself. I promise!

You know what, I just decided: no watching the Super Bowl in this house this year. It used to seem "harmless" macho fun. Not anymore.

As a male, I do not understand why everyone does not allow the individual woman to make her own decision without the threats from those who believe they know better than anyone else about what is "Right" for women in general? If one opposes abortion, do not have one! Otherwise, it seems to me one should mind their own business, including CBS and Tebow! Also, as to religion, let us remember the misogyny of the desert religions of death, Judaism, Christianity and Islam and take a moment to remember those thousands upon thousands of women torture and executed for Witchcraft by the Church! In some respects, the present controversy is but a continuance of this attitude of misogyny! Just a thought from a guy!

How sad, Katie, that you are so dismissive of the hard work given by thousands of women so that you would have the right to vote your conscious in our political process. It took those horrible, selfish, feminsts 72 years to gain women's right to vote in this country.

It took more years and more work to make it illegal for employers to fire women simply because they were pregnant. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act was passed in 1978.

Prior to the 1960's it was legal for a man to rape his wife. Feminists also gained rights to alimony and child support so women could support their families whether the marriage stayed intact or not.

Perhaps you might want to spend some time learning about the feminist movement before you so single-mindedly condemn us all to nothing but self-centered she-devils. And perhaps you might thank those feminists for the rights you enjoy now.

So do you have data to back it up I thinks not you self righteous phony pig.
It is not about abortion but choice and it is yours NOT to make for someone else

Thou shalt not kill/murder defenseless children or spotted owls in or out of their eggs!!!

It's nice to be lectured on life by a female, 23 year-old fascist.
"Women my age have seen too many woman make that 'courageous' abortion decision and suffer the emotional, physical and spiritual anguish."
By putting the word "courageous" in scare quotes, Katie Walker does an effective job of implying that women who have abortions are, in fact, behaving like cowards. Nicely done smear, Ms. Walker.
But what I really like is how she helpfully offers a link to a web page about the anguish allegedly suffered by women who have had abortions -- without a word about what must be an unbelievably painful experience, the giving up of one's newborn child. This experience no doubt causes considerable anguish, yet Ms. Walker seems to have little concern for such women. How telling.

Living free means having the government and religion stay out of a persons private life. I will never let the Sky Fairy drones tell me how to control my body. This scum should finally mind their own feeble business and waddle off to Walmart being thankful people invented Food Stamps.

If you really cared about young women having sex, Ms. Walker, you would be more concerned about the other hyper-sexualized, misogynistic Super Bowl ads rather than the one "pro-life" one. Why aren't you out there protesting GoDaddy or the Lingerie Bowl? After all, this is presenting only one image of women, the hyper-sexualized "s1ut".

Oh, I get it. In your world, women can have sex. Just don't come crying to you when they get pregnant.

Abortion is not just about young women. My wife and I recently aborted a four month pregnancy when we learned the baby had multiple medical problems including major heart defects. This was not a sustainable life. We could have carried to term, gone through huge medical thrash and pain, and would still have had a dead baby. Fortunately abortion was a choice. It was a horrible choice but the best one for us. As insult to injury, our medical insurance (through government employment) does not cover abortions. $14k.

Posted by: bobmoses: "Nice to see the "tolerant" liberals demonstrate what hateful bigots they are."

Who said liberals were tolerant? You? They are intolerant of bigotry, deliberate ignorance, and extremism. They never claimed to be tolerant; that's your personal strawman.

Posted by: bobmoses: "Nonsense. "Pro-choice" is a deliberately vague and deceptive phrase. You are not deciding whether to have coke or pepsi. You are deciding to have an abortion."

No, I am not. In fact, I can't have one, since I can't get pregnant.

Posted by: bobmoses: "For now on, I am going to call gun rights supporters "pro-choice" because they support the right of people to choose whether or not to have a gun."

Good for you. But you'd still be wrong. Gun rights advocates are advocating FOR gun ownership - their own, usually. Nobody is advocating for someone to have an abortion. How about this as a suggestion? When every unwanted child on earth is adopted, then I'll be anti-choice.

These young women did not live in a time when there was no Roe v. Wade.

I wonder just how many of these young women would opt to give birth to a child if raped by a drug using, AIDS positive, mentally defective person. How many? How many young women ages 14-17 would put their lives on hold for 18 years to care for a child conceived by rape or an incestual act? How many families would support the young woman not only before birth but for those 18 years?

And how many of the pro-life young women have helped a single parent by baby-sitting, by giving transportation, by giving food or money or paying for needed medications? How many of these career-oriented young women have adopted an unwanted child, a crack baby, a physically or mentally challenged child, a teen-ager who has been shuffled from one foster home to another?

Until these young women put their money where their mouths are, I put no stock in their opinions.

Posted by: rrbill1: "Am I the only reader who is sick of reading "nobody is for abortion." Well, where is the demand coming from?"

Yep, looks like you're the only one.

BTW, if my appendix bursts, does that make me "pro surgery?" No. Just because I personally wouldn't have an abortion, and I personally would hope nobody ever would have the need for one, doesn't mean I think the Government should have the deciding vote in that personal decision. How about if the Government simply mandated vasectomies (or outlawed them). The point, pal, is the Government should have zero role in that personal decision.

"You know you're reading biased and dishonest commentary when someone refers to "pro-choice" as "pro-abortion." Nobody is pro-abortion!"

Nonsense. "Pro-choice" is a deliberately vague and deceptive phrase. You are not deciding whether to have coke or pepsi. You are deciding to have an abortion.

For now on, I am going to call gun rights supporters "pro-choice" because they support the right of people to choose whether or not to have a gun.

Posted by: cmarshdtihqcom: "You can rationalize killing anybody. The Nazis did."

So too did God. He killed all the innocent firstborn in Egypt, and he designed a divine plan that required men to kill his son in order to gain salvation.

Suppose all those on Mt. Golgotha were "pro life." We'd all be unable to gain salvation, right? For all you know, abortion is part of God's plan.

Nice to see the "tolerant" liberals demonstrate what hateful bigots they are.

Abortion or adoption is tough. My cousin gave away a baby and she wasn't able to have another. It is tough.

AMEN, Katie! Thank you for stating the truth so beautifully and confidently!

A little almost-40-year-old wisdom?

Katie has become a lightning rod.

Maybe the presumed way she lives her life convicts a few people (women?) of their own shortcomings, so they lash out at Katie to try to feel better?

There is nothing wrong with Katie, unless believing in a fairy tale and having a good-natured cause is a crime. She believes she is saving babies.

I don't want to be harsh on the women, but if everyone were like Katie, there probably would be no elective abortions.

NOBODY tunes into the Super Bowl to get preached at by some religious hypocrite.

The ad is deceptive, dishonest, and typical of what we see from the right wing extremists these days.

Consider, wingnuts:

Doctors are right to worry about continuing pregnancies like hers. Placental abruption has killed thousands of women and fetuses. No doubt some of these women trusted in God and said no to abortion, as she did. But they didn't end up with Heisman-winning sons. They ended up dead. Being dead is just the first problem with dying in pregnancy.

Another problem is that the fetus you were trying to save dies with you.

A third problem is that your existing kids lose their mother.

A fourth problem is that if you had aborted the pregnancy, you might have gotten pregnant again and brought a new baby into the world, but now you can't.

And now the Tebows have exposed a fifth problem: You can't make a TV ad.

On Sunday, we won't see all the women who chose life and found death.

We'll just see the Tebows, because they're alive and happy to talk about it.

In the business world, this is known as survivor bias: Failed mutual funds disappear, leaving behind the successful ones, which creates the illusion that mutual funds tend to beat market averages.

In the Tebows' case, the survivor bias is literal. If you're diagnosed with placental abruption, you have the right to choose life.

But don't be so sure that life is what you'll get.

http://www.slate.com/id/2243218/

There are a lot of "born" folks that probably need "aborting", but really not "unborn" innocents that deserve such a fate.

"Pro choice" has become "pro abortion" and is losing the argument, because many on that side back abortion under just about every conceivable circumstance:

- partial birth abortions
- underage children getting abortions with parental consent
- where the justification is maternal health, they want regulations so loose that no one can question whether there is a serious health issue

Apparently, abortion is about the only thing related to medical care that pro abortion people think should be subject to absolutely no regulation.

Back away from these more radical positions and the numbers will swing back more toward choice.

If the Pro-Life advocates want to "put their money where their mouth is", they should push for an immediate end to our interventionist foreign policy in the Middle East and the deaths of so many "already born" persons that have been its consequence.

Personally I don't care who is doing what in private. With the regret that I am 39 and not married yet.

I'd recommend they listen to Jesus maybe for just a minute and maybe do what He says.

= = = = = =

Any idiot knows nine months to a year of one's life is small compared to the seventy to eighty years we usually live. Of course it is the greater good.... but who cares? THAT BABY IS TREPASSING RIGHT? TREPASSERS WILL BE ABORTED. Its body is in her body right?

Put that on a T-shirt.

Anything up to 26 weeks (viable outside the uterus, at least in an incubator) is fair game as a definition of when life begins, unless you invoke the name of God. It is difficult to invoke the name of God in legal language, so don't expect a law to protect zygotes and embryos anytime soon.

----

The opponents would cite religious oppression, which is real.

1. It is not the first time Christianity is used to oppress women. Churches in less culturally advanced places often use religion to justify domestic violence, keeping women from working, and so on.

I try to provide a balanced view of Scripture by reminding people that Jesus was never abusive to the church, sacrificed to serve and protect the church, and provides the model for a husband to his wife.

2. It is well known in practice about churches and homophobia. I try to cite I John 3:15 as a balanced view of Scripture

"Anyone who hates his neighbor is a murderer and no murderer has eternal life."

To Whom It May Concern:
Women are citizens. Citizens have the right to privacy; that right extends to medical decisions. If one's religious or ethical scruples determine choices, then that is as it should be: choice. If one's medical, private, or economic situation determines choices, then that is how it should be: choice. Women are rational beings who have the right and the responsibility to determine the course their reproductive lives, of their public, political lives. To interfere with individual choice is to abrogate the rights of a free citizen.
If the public polity had the interests of women and children at its core, then access to birth control, reproductive health care, parent leave for birth & early development, daycare, and early education would be part of our social fabric, as it is in the rest of the industrialized world. Recourse to religion is not an adequate response to the failure of public policies to create an infrastructure that puts the well-being of women and children at the forefront of our national agenda.

The title of the Gallup poll is misleading--53% of Americans want abortion legal in some cases, plus the 22% who want it legal in all cases. That's 75% of Americans who want abortion legal in at least some cases, and since the poll doesn't specify what "some" is, we can't actually say whether we are actually more pro-life or pro-choice in America. "Some" for some people may mean "in the case of rape or incest," and it may mean "in the first trimester" for others, and it may mean "through the second trimester but not the third" for others. As readers, we have no clue.

In the Rasmussen poll, it's pointed out that about 29% of pro-choice individuals think abortion is morally wrong. That's the opinion voiced by VP Biden, for instance. There are many people who call themselves "pro life personally, pro choice politically." It's a nuanced view that doesn't get much airtime in the media. And the rest of the report discusses ease of getting abortions, parental consent for minors, etc., not a straight up and down vote on abortion legality.

The Pew report is meaningless, because 47-45 is within the margin of error. It may be that 50% are pro-choice, or it may be that 47% are pro-life.

Against abortion? Don't have one.

can you help me understand the reasoning behind making exceptions in the case of rape, incest, etc.?

if you believe that life begins at conception, why does it matter how that life is created?

Beautiful article Katie. Thanks for saying it. God bless.

I'm 23 and a young woman. You do not know what I want. Please quit presuming that you do.

Beyond that: WHY ARE WE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION DURING FOOTBALL. CAN WE WAIT UNTIL FEBRUARY 8 TO DISCUSS SERIOUS ISSUES?!

This, above all else, irks me about the Tebow ad.

SHAMROCKY: I am 100% pro-choice now and I will be for all my days. Pregnancy is a mind-bogglingly overwhelming, all-encompassing life experience and I cannot imagine having had to go through it against my will. You would never be able to feel safe in your own body again.

That's it in a nutshell.
I have a daughter that I adore, and whose birth almost resulted in both our deaths. I decided then and there that I would never have another child, and asked the doctor to do a tubal ligation while she had my belly open for the C-section. She refused because "you're only 25, you're single, this is your first baby, and you might change your mind later."
When my daughter was a toddler, I got pregnant again, despite the fact that I was on the pill - my doctor didn't warn me that I needed a backup while taking antibiotics. I was not about to risk another potentially dangerous pregnancy in order to have another child, especially when I was barely able to keep my daughter fed and clothed. I aborted the second pregnancy, and have no regrets.

All of this assuming Tebow is a VIRGIN. If he is not a virgin, all he said is meaningless, and he is a hypocrite.

I am an orphan adult. Let me settle the argument. No Pro-lifer has ever helped me or anyone like me. The pro-lifers claim some higher ground buth they never climb it, the higher ground that is.

I am 56 no parents, no siblings, or any other form of family. I am the result of pro-choice polcies. You can argue until the cows come home. I have no family home to return to ever! I ahve to make my own way, as no one will help me. if I can not pay my bills, I have no one to ask, no parents, no one.

Do you all understand NOW?
thank-you

Virtually all the original reasons for abortion have vanished.. extreme poverty, unwanted child (adoption etc.), lack of societal support (thanks to liberal policies and compassionate conservatives both secular and Christian), even lack of family support (banishment, disgrace etc.)
The remaining justifications for abortion ? convenience and selfishness.
This young woman is empowered today to say .. yes to Life.
Posted by: pvilso24

What planet do you live on where there is no poverty, every child is wanted, and there is unlimited community and family support for struggling parents?

Here on Earth, there is still poverty, not only in Third World countries, but also right here in the US.

As for adoption, those much-vaunted long waiting lists of people wanting to adopt are mostly people who want to adopt healthy white infants. Babies born with adictions or disabilities, multi-racial babies, and older kids - no one is fighting over them.

Family support for unplanned planned pregnancies is as iffy as it ever was - it depends entirely on the family. Some families will welcome new additions, no matter the circumstances of their conception, some will boot teenage mothers out of the house in a heartbeat.
Some churches will mouth supportive words for single moms, but at the same time, never fail to make clear that they should never have gotten pregnant in the first place. Some will even apply pressure during the pregnancy or after the birth to give the baby to a married couple so it can have a "real" home.

"the love story of a mother risking her own life against doctors' recommendations so that her son might live"

Well said.

I don't think we will desexualize unmarried people without saving them, and that requires their consent.
Posted by: cmarshdtihqcom

First of all, why would you want to "desexualize" unmarried people? Do you honestly believe that unmarried people have no right to satisfy their sex drives?

Second, married women have abortions too.

Furthermore, if abortion is outlawed, how will the penalty be applied? Would all who pontificate against abortion impose imprisonment upon women who seek abortion? No one ever utters these words because it is politically untenable.
Posted by: indep
-----------------
I agree that treating an illegal abortion as murder is not a tenable way to go. But there could be fines. For instance in Germany, abortions are illegal, but there are no penalties for a first trimester abortion.

The US too could have a system of mild penalties, increasing as the pregnancy progresses, and with all emergency abortions automatically excused from the penalty. Such a procedure would give strong incentive to be more careful in sex.

Consider other similar situations. We ban smoking in restaurants in many states, and we ban speeding in most. But we discourage smoking and speeding by reasonable sanctions and not by treating them as murder.

I keep reading on and on about "forcing woman to raise children as the result of rape and incest" HELLO.... this is what ? less than .01 of 1 percent of all abortions !!! Lets get real. the real issue is having to live with the consequences of your actions.

This author provides a misleading summary of what the polls show. Gallup simply asked people of they are pro choice or pro life with no further indication of what this means. Anybody who knows much about this kind of polling realizes that this kind of vague question doesn't mean much. The much better Pew survey shows an increase of 4% to a MINORITY of 45 percent who favor making abortion illegal in all/most cases. The 4% change since 2008 is pretty much within the normal margin of error for these polls. Pew's conclusion is probably the most important point: "In spite of the small shift toward opposition to legal abortion, the basic contours of the debate are still intact, with most major groups lining up on the same side of the issue as they have in the past."
Posted by: twm1 | February 2, 2010 1:29 AM
Report Offensive Comment
----------------
I agree that we need more detailed information. But a vaguely worded question can be interpreted two ways. One is that people are less prolife than they actually say in response to a vague question. The other is that people are MORE prolife than they actually say in response to a vague question. You are assuming that it is the first, but then you too are going further than the evidence suggests.

I think prolifers should give up the effort to ban all abortions and concentrate on banning all abortions in the second and third trimesters which are not necessitated by a medical emergency.

They would have enormous support if they did that and it would be very hard for the Supreme Court to resist a bill supported by two thirds of Americans.

TerrenceMcKeegan, you provided a link to a NYTimes article in support of your wildly exaggerated claim that the Novel committee agreed with the anti-choice position that "life begins at conception", a phrase you intend to mean that a fertilized cell is the same as a human being. You even provided a link, which you apparently didn't think anyone would follow.

The article you linked is a 20-year-old story about two German scientists who discovered a basic cell function. The line you quoted, when read in context, shows that the scientists were saying that when the ion channels in the cell activate at fertilization, the cell is no longer inert. There is absolutely no way that an honest, reasonable person could read that article and come away with the idea that it was attempting to support a position in the abortion debate.

This is precisely the kind of behavior that will forever earn you our contempt, when those of us who side with the mother -- the functioning, sentient, independently operating human being in this equation -- and want to protect her autonomy, see what kind of fact-twisting and outright deception you and those on the anti-choice side will do to try to support your position.

Your lies are obvious.

Yea, you and your idiot movement want to force teenage women to have a child that's a product of incest rape. I don't respect you, or your bad ideas.

There were 13 million abortions in China last year alone, and every business of any size their government gets a revenue earning stake in. So how many of your Wal*Mart dollars went to fund abortion last year?

I have a great suggestion, stay out of other people's bedrooms, and keep your hands in your own pants. You're too stupid to lead anyone anyplace but in a lemming-like direction over a cliff with no facts supporting it.

By moving to grant the fetus, a potential human and not yet a human, rights, you deny the rights of the mother. As the mother must be forced to take actions to protect the fetus were it granted rights, you have denied her the rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. You deny her the 13th amendment and enslave her to this potential life, the fetus. It is a foolish position and not one women would willingly choose. Don't give us this trite 'rejection of selfishness.' Women who want their children benefit society as do women who don't have children when they don't want them. It is a HUGE cost to society to force the unwilling to have children, how is that selfless?

This author provides a misleading summary of what the polls show. Gallup simply asked people of they are pro choice or pro life with no further indication of what this means. Anybody who knows much about this kind of polling realizes that this kind of vague question doesn't mean much. The much better Pew survey shows an increase of 4% to a MINORITY of 45 percent who favor making abortion illegal in all/most cases. The 4% change since 2008 is pretty much within the normal margin of error for these polls. Pew's conclusion is probably the most important point: "In spite of the small shift toward opposition to legal abortion, the basic contours of the debate are still intact, with most major groups lining up on the same side of the issue as they have in the past."

Am I the only reader who is sick of reading "nobody is for abortion." Well, where is the demand coming from? This, after all is where abortionists make their money. How about the manufacturers of curettes and suction devices. It is as fatuous as saying "Nobody is for tobacco or alcohol." Plenty of people are consumers of these products and will continue to do so all the way to the undertaker. So let the abortion fans keep their cute rhetoric to themselves.

It is worth pointing out that women forced to have children against their will are probably not going to do a particularly good job of taking care of them. Consequently, such children often become a detriment to society as they grow up to become sociopaths or worse. Ultimately, the best choice is to do what we do now: allow women to make their own decisions.

Those who are so concerned with the loss of life should focus on the 30,000 children under the age of five who die around the world each day due to the poverty in which they live. Funny how none of the religious zealots ever talk about that! Personally, I attribute their silence to the fact that efforts to help those children would involve actually helping people, rather than trying to control them!

The house of cards this column-post is built on is exemplified by the falsehood that the ad itself is built on. Abortion was illegal in the Philippines then, so it is highly unlikely that Mrs. Tebow had doctors advising her to have one.

Like most of the Christian mythology, it is built on fabrications that are reinforced by repetition. They won't blink an eyelash at running this ad, even knowing this. It's the same mentality that gets them through every Sunday morning, after all.

As a young woman in my 20s, I was deeply conflicted about my position on abortion. I finally came to the conclusion that, as I shared with a friend at the time, "I am pro-life, but I live in a society that has chosen otherwise. Until we have universal, comprehensive sex education and free unfettered access to contraception, I don't see any reasonable way we can outlaw abortion on demand." I hated that truth. I wanted to live in a society that respected and valued the lives of women and children and would put its resources (money, compassion, you name it)toward making abortion something that could truly be "safe, legal and rare", as President Clinton used to say.

Then, in my mid 30s, I actually conceived my beautiful son. It was under the best possible circumstances, in partnership with a husband I love dearly, and the culmination of years of hope and yearning. The overall experience of pregnancy shifted my perspective forever, but not in the way that stereotype might suggest: I am 100% pro-choice now and I will be for all my days. Pregnancy is a mind-bogglingly overwhelming, all-encompassing life experience and I cannot imagine having had to go through it against my will. You would never be able to feel safe in your own body again. I didn't understand that before. I understand it now. And while I still hate the consequences of killing a human soul -- which is indeed what I still believe that abortion represents -- I now think of it more as killing in self-defense than as murder.

Wow, I've accomplished a first in this conversation: grounds for both sides to rail at me...

An aspect of the abortion debate which has always baffled and mystified me is the distinction many pro-lifers and pro-life politicians make between abortion in cases of rape and incest, which they will accept, and other abortions, which they will not. If pro-lifers object to abortion on the grounds that it is the murder of an innocent baby, then why should an innocent baby that results from rape or incest be thus murdered?

Furthermore, if abortion is outlawed, how will the penalty be applied? Would all who pontificate against abortion impose imprisonment upon women who seek abortion? No one ever utters these words because it is politically untenable.

Obviously, the days of back alley abortions are long gone, which perhaps explains the statistics cited that seem to suggest a majority anti-abortion rights sentiment. It is very easy for young women today to pontificate against abortion, all the while knowing that just in case, that option is available. Pro-choice organizations should remind the public of the days when countless women were at the mercy of dubious abortionists because they were desparate or had no choice for a variety of reasons.

There is a bit of difference, Terrence McKeegan, in "life" and "human life". May I then assume that you believe any organism that is created by sexual reproduction has a right to life? Guppies? Rats? Bats?

"Virtually every medical school textbook in the country"? I just checked Guyton's Textbook of Physiology, Green's Gynecology, Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, and Osler's Principles and Practices of Medicine. The only one to have "life" in the index is Harrison, and that in the context of life-prolonging measures. I gave you a bonus, by first searching clinical texts. After all, Goodman & Gilman's The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics is a standard text. How about pathology, radiology, or opthalmology for $100? Double jeopardy round: Adams & Victor Neurology or Hurst's The Heart?

Now, let's take your alleged international law example. First, the specific case is not from the International Military Tribunal, but from the U.S.-convened Nuremberg Military Tribunal, specifically the RuSHA (Race and Settlement Main Office). The indictment deals with forced abortion of "racially inferior" matings -- not exactly "choice". Neither the IMT or NMT set "international law". Now, if you want to talk about the Declaration of Helsinki, you are getting closer to international agreement -- but still not a treaty, much less a treaty ratified by the U.S. Senate. Or are you of the position that any international body's finding is automatically binding on the United States?

So, according to the pro-life readers, does a woman younger than menopause, actually own her own body? Or is she always subject to having her entire life commandeered by a single sperm?

And if abortion were to be "outlawed," exactly how? Overturning Roe v Wade just makes it state by state. So maybe a federal no-abortion amendment? Well, what is to keep a woman from going abroad for an abortion? Mandatory pregnancy tests at the border? If pregnant, you can't leave? Or should the US wage war on any country allowing abortion? We could start with Canada, I suppose....
The only logical end game to this is that women be guarded by the state, at the point of a gun, to be available to be pregnant or else. A Christian version of Saudia Arabia, only worse, with mullahs replaced by fundamentalist ministers.

If you don't like abortions, don't have one!

Oh, and speaking of "life," it is not at all clear to me that embryos are "people." One of the points in Roe v Wade was basically that "personhood" developed gradually during the pregnancy, and that relative weight of the interests of the mother vs embryo-fetus-baby changed as the pregnancy progressed from trimester to trimester. A very enlightened view, I think.

Since many who have commented here have tried to claim that science is against the pro-life position or agnostic on this issue, consider the following.

The conclusion that the unborn child is a human being from the moment of fertilization has been definitively confirmed by the Nobel Prize Committee for Physiology and Medicine in 1991 ("The Nobel Committee noted that life begins with the activation of ion channels as the sperm merges with the egg in fertilization." as quoted in the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/08/science/cell-channel-finding-earns-nobel-prize.html?pagewanted=1) and by virtually every medical school textbook used in every country.

The medical community has long held that abortion is a grave evil, dating back at least to the Hippocratic Oath (written by a pagan Greek physician before the Christian era), which had been nearly universally taken by medical school graduates until abortion was legalized a few decades ago.

Finally, in the modern age, it should be noted that one of the Tribunals at Nuremberg dealt extensively with the crimes of abortion committed by the Nazis, which the Tribunal determined to constitute "crimes against humanity" and "war crimes".
See http://www.trdd.org/NUREMB2E.PDF

Let's face the facts - science, medicine, and international law are all in agreement with the pro-life position.

"Until all human beings -- including those in the womb -- are recognized as persons under law, any effort for true justice will be undermined." - Katie Walker
_____________________________________

The above comment says it all. It is not enough just to feel warm and fuzzy about stories like that of the Tebows.

Abortion destroys a life, and it is wrong to allow such a practice under our law. If you claim to be pro-life, then you cannot in any way be supportive of a right of abortion.

If you okay with allowing abortion, you are not pro-life. You are pro-choice.

I am totally pro-life. I agree with what Rev. Billy Graham said on Larry King Live: I'm against abortion except in cases of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother.
Children are reaching puberty in early elementary school. The can become pregnant and some are. A news report in Chicago told of a ten year old girl who was on her second pregnancy. What kind of control freak would tell her that she had to carry the pregnancy to term? If she became very ill and would die if the pregnancy continues, what kind of a twisted mind person would say that her only option is death? Who would require a pregnant and dying female of any age to die? Jesus came that we might have abundant life. Does that include pregnant females who will die if the pregnancy continues?
Intelligent Christians can look beyond the hollow platitude "No Abortions" to understand that there will be exceptions. And, news reports say that about as many abortions happen whether they are outlawed or not. So, does your church have a coat hanger on the door to show that it approves of back-alley abortions? Does your church represent death for the unchosen?
I don't know anyone who is in favor of abortions. To say that pro choice is pro abortion is a serious lie.
I call upon everyone who reads this to pray about it. The Holy Spirit can guide all of us. I have never been involved in an abortion and have never recommended one. But, I have been chosen to stand up for life for the raped, abused and dying.

You are not speaking for anyone but yourself. The polls cited have been exposed for being skewed. Many who responded to questions calling themselves "pro-life" after loaded questions, turned out to actually hold positions similar to most pro-choice people. The Tebows are supporting Mullah Dobson, even though his Christian youth camp was the crime scene of child sexual abuse. Supporting this dangerous theocrat is unforgivable.

Great article, Katie! Thanks for articulating so beautifully what so many of us young women really feel - frustration with the anti-life ideology that has pervaded the mass media and has been shoved at us from all angles, but does not represent the truth of life, love and respect for all humanity - from the very beginning. The tide is indeed turning - Truth will win out.

The worst thing about the pro-life movement is that it has been hijacked by the extreme feminists and turned into a woman's rights issue. Instead of discussing the real issue - when a person's right to life begins - they have taken the "you're with us or against us route," throwing all the pro-life women under the bus. Some have never even had children, never experiencing for themselves when a life truly begins, yet there are so many women looking to attacked the author as inexperienced and naive. Sophistry. Let her have an opinion - it's shared by many of all ages and genders, and I appreciate her insights as someone who was force fed a "pro-choice" agenda. All you have to do is watch the "pro choicers" still reach and try to find the right way to pleasantly describe an abortion. They never have found the right way, and as an expectant father, I hope the anti-life moniker sticks a bit.

All young women are pro-life. Until they or one of their school friends discover they're pregnant while still in school. This ad is just one of many many many reasons not to waste time watching the stupid super bowl.

"I am Christopher Marsh and I am a Baptist. We have to err on the side of preserving life, and I am not sure when to give up on life, but I will err on the side of living as long as Jesus wants me to." Now, I'll preface my next remarks by saying that I have more respect for you than for Ms. Walker, since you are at least explicit about basing your argument on religion.

That's absolutely fine, Christopher. You do as you believe Jesus wants, but do not require others, who do not believe in Jesus, the Baptist Church, or indeed Christianity to follow its rules. Hmmm...erring on the side of life, you say?

My living will is very explicit about, under a number of conditions, not taking any life-prolonging actions and providing comfort care only. For example, should I have a diagnosis of irreversible dementia and contract a bacterial pneumonia, no antibiotics. Even though the appropriate use of high-dose opioids is often overstated as speeding death, assume it does -- and the choice is between intractable pain and respiratory depression. Do consider Thomas Aquinas' Principle of Double Effect before you tell me I don't have that right.

Ms. Walker, on the other hand, does not have Mr. Butler's honesty, prattling about "rejecting the selfishness of the feminist "me-first" paradigm and embracing the "other." Never a medical reason for abortion, Ms. Walker?

Now, the very young. There have been a handful of cases of full-term delivery of ectopic pregnancies. Most, of course, will kill the mother if not terminated. Given the existence of those survivors -- probably in the tens -- do you reject removal of an ectopic pregnancy?

Incidentally, how do you feel about capital punishment?

How about anencephaly detected in utero? No higher brain structures. Might go to term, but absolutely will die within days. Incidentally, if an anencephalic baby is delivered -- I use the word "baby" to refer to the product of birth and do not know what an "unborn child" may be -- what care do you want given? Remember, no sensation or perception in that brain. Abort the anecephalic fetus? I would, and feel absolutely comfortable that I was not taking life, any more than removing a tumor.

You disagree? You want the state to enforce your position of faith?

Back to you, Ms. Walker. "Until all human beings -- including those in the womb -- are recognized as persons under law, any effort for true justice will be undermined."

Exactly why should I believe that a fetus is a human being? Is that group of cells less human in a Fallopian tube than in a uterus? Why? What if that group of cells, through amniocentesis, is demonstrated to have a lethal mutation incompatible with life outside the uterus, and indeed likely to cease metabolism in utero? Got any non-religious reasons not to give that mother a new chance?

So sad . . . . that we are likely to move back to the coat hanger/back alley days for young girls.

Al because some dark age dogma ditto heads know so little about BIOLOGY that they believe a fertilized human egg or embryo without brain, heart, and other major organs is a human "baby" with a "soul". In a word - - - STUPID!

Great article, Ms. Walker. Thanks so much.

Where do I start? I felt like I was reading an opinion from some young woman who probably says, like OMG, being pro-life is so like, amazing.

Ms. Walker doesn't get it, unlike real fighters for womens' rights, Frances Kissling and Kate Michelman. This is where being 23 does not put anything into any historical perspective for this girl.

I don't know which young women she knows but around the DC area, they're all me, me, me. The schools they attend, the clothes they wear, the cars they drive, illustrates that many of them do not need to worry if abortion is legal or illegal. They're focused on their careers, and rightfully so, and a baby would derail this.

Wake up, omg, pro-lifer, Katie.

Where to begin, where to begin...

Let start with GasMonkey: Actually, you can tell somebody is biased and dishonest when somebody uses the term "pro-choice". Nobody is anti-choice! Everything that is already illegal is a choice. Certain choices, however, are made illegal because they infringe upon the rights of others - especially the defenseless. Abortion must be included in this category as it inherently infringes upon the rights of the child dependent on the mother to survive. How does that dependent relationship become less true after birth? It does not - the child still cannot survive without the parents. Yet ditching your baby in a dumpster is considered a heinous crime, even if the child is born deformed or regardless of the circumstances surrounding conception or the parents' economic standing.

Ravensfan20008: "We should therefore let women choose - if you don't want to have an abortion, then by all means don't, but if you decide to, then you should be able to." Of all the arguments I hear on a regular basis regarding abortion, this might be the most ignorant. Consider something I consider as terrible as abortion: slavery. Would we stand for the argument, "We should let people choose - if you don't want to have a slave, then by all means don't, but if you decide to, then you should be able to." Of course not. It would be ridiculous to anybody with half a brain. But both acts infringe upon the rights of another and each tramples on human dignity.

And finally, Maggots: think before you speak. Katie is a highly educated, independent woman. What on earth would she have to gain by promoting a society in which women are consigned to the kitchen and nursery? Her intellegence, grace, articulation, and poise in a media world that is ever hostile to her cause are unmatched. Why not take a leaf out of her book and argue your position with class and without ignorant, derogatory comment about a group (religious people) that comprises the majority of Americans?

Did your dad get you this job after you got your worthless degree?

Katie,

Your remarks are trite and specious.

At 23 years old, the world-view you possess is likely more influenced by your conservative upbringing and childish dependency on a "heavenly father" to look after you. There are real adult 23 tear old women out there who are able to make their own decisions regarding all their bodily functions, including unwanted pregnancies.

If there were fewer self-assured "god's women" trying to pollute logic with mysticism and divine BS, then maybe some of those women who get a late term abortion would decrease, as there would be no pressure not to have it done, and much earlier.

Of course, a fetus is a pre-born is a human to you crackpot coalition members, so go back to reading your bible and learn to mind your own business. Go have some fun and get knocked-up.

Certain ideals are unrealistic.

Looking like a Barbie doll is unrealistic.

There are finite limits on time, energy, and money. Sooner or later you have to make choices as to which roles to have and which roles to discard.

1. professional employee
2. parent (to how many?)
3. spouse/partner

It also must be considered is your spouse/partner helping?

Super Woman/Super Man my butt. We're all mere mortals here.

This is the ultimate agenda behind the pro-life movement - to convince women that they can't achieve the same goals as men because the Bible says so. In their view, young women should just stay home and just have babies.
_____________________________________

Some married Christian women opt out of having kids.

It is easy if the husband has a snip.

You can be a missionary couple, or sleep late..... raise dogs and cats.... ponder whether or not to raise foster kids and have the county send them to college....

Though I guess sometimes I suppose they wish they had kids.....

This is refreshing and so true.
Virtually all the original reasons for abortion have vanished.. extreme poverty, unwanted child (adoption etc.), lack of societal support (thanks to liberal policies and compassionate conservatives both secular and Christian), even lack of family support (banishment, disgrace etc.)
The remaining justifications for abortion ? convenience and selfishness.
This young woman is empowered today to say .. yes to Life.
Posted by: pvilso24
____________

I presume you are speaking of the employed and wealthy. All ther rest still exists right here in America, poster, whether you are aware of it or not.

Most young women think having a child is the ultimate expression of love and womanhood...until they become pregnant because of failed birth control, the father abandons them, they are raped, the fetus is deformed, they have no home, no job, no future. And if anti-choicers have their way, after they discover they are nothing but breeders, incubators for children that will be ignored and castaway by society.

It's funny how reality replaces idealism. I hate for these young women to find out the hard way, as their mothers and grandmothers did, how important the right to choose what to do with their own bodies is. I also hope their idealism translates into celibacy.

This is refreshing and so true.

Virtually all the original reasons for abortion have vanished.. extreme poverty, unwanted child (adoption etc.), lack of societal support (thanks to liberal policies and compassionate conservatives both secular and Christian), even lack of family support (banishment, disgrace etc.)

The remaining justifications for abortion ? convenience and selfishness.

This young woman is empowered today to say .. yes to Life.

Posted by: pvilso24

#######################################

No, what has really happened is the proliferation of morning after pills and medications that cause chemical abortions. The use of these drugs is on a steady rise.

Walker wrote:
"You not only can, but should do everything men can do and more," we were told growing up. But the result is a generation of exhausted Super Women struggling to do it all and losing themselves in the process.

******************************************

This is the ultimate agenda behind the pro-life movement - to convince women that they can't achieve the same goals as men because the Bible says so. In their view, young women should just stay home and just have babies.

This is refreshing and so true.

Virtually all the original reasons for abortion have vanished.. extreme poverty, unwanted child (adoption etc.), lack of societal support (thanks to liberal policies and compassionate conservatives both secular and Christian), even lack of family support (banishment, disgrace etc.)

The remaining justifications for abortion ? convenience and selfishness.

This young woman is empowered today to say .. yes to Life.

This issue is not about whether fetuses have human rights. This issue is not about whether it is right to terminate a fetus. This issue is about what kind of authority you want the state to have over your own body. I do not feel comfortable living in a country where the state can say "YOU, woman, MUST carry this fetus to term."

Sometimes the act of having a baby (for self-gratification and companionship) is JUST AS selfish a decision as having an abortion. The ME generation was created by corporate interests and marketing, not abortion activists.

I think China has similar issues as maybe the United States, but worse. China not only needs oil, but food. China is now asking itself how much meat protein can it afford to produce for its people, knowing that cows and pigs also consume grain.

Can We Feed China? The Worldwatch Institute.

China needs population reduction too. Surely its experts are noting with concern the post-petroleum era consequences. Modern agriculture creates one food calorie from ten calories of petroleum energy, as well as requiring a lot of water.*

China and America could convert coal into oil but transition could take decades. The Nazis did it with legions of slave labor.

India and America need to learn the first basic rule of anthropology: don't have more population than you can feed.

Since the beginning of time, human societies have regulated reproduction. "Governments" have regulated sex and abortion to keep population within the carrying capacity of the environment.

The alternative is to watch masses die of starvation, illness, and public disorder (or war).

Now what have we done? With our arrogance and modern technology we have blissfully fed and reproduced billions of people with petroleum-based technology. But petroleum is going fast. In a few decades the flow rate of world petroleum will drastically diminish like U.S. production has already diminished.

Then there will be even more billions of people with no fuel to run machines to grow the food to feed them (unless we think of something).

Revelations depicts a future of four horsemen: famine, illness, war, and death. Maybe we don't think of something or are caught unaware. We can't grow enough food without machinery and we have a famine. Hungry people get sick. Hungry people are desperate enough to go to war, even with nuclear weapons. Death rules.

China is only doing what every "primitive" society in tune with nature has done since the beginning of time: keeping population in check with the environment's capacity to feed them. We, the technological societies have arrogantly tossed aside the wisdom to stay in tune with nature.

Christopher Marsh
Master of Arts
Sociology/Anthropology
Marshall University

Americans are the worst oil and resource consumers on the planet, with the Chinese a close second (or is it the other way around?)

Oh for crying out loud. The issue is whether the government should be making the decision for women. Just like the govenment should not force women to have abortions (like in China), it should not force women to have babies if they don't want to. There is no such thing as pro-abortion. If abortion is made illegal then it becomes a crime. What would be the punishment? Throw the women in jail? For how long? I have yet to see or hear a pro-lifer who can explain the legal and practical consequences of making abortion illegal.

What if Pam Tebow had died?

Why does Ms. Walker hold a job, then? Shouldn't she be at home, barefoot and pregnant? Of course not. She's a hypocrite.

This is from www.dieoff.org and you need to read this. This explains why we need depopulation...

Our economy is predicated upon cheap energy (oil).

Guess what? The world oil production curve is following the U.S. oil production curve of 40 years ago.

U.S. = oil peaked in 1970 and declined

U.S. economy declined in the 1970s

1980 Carter Doctrine - we will go to war over Middle Eastern oil

1987 - Operation Preying Mantis - U.S. Navy intervention against Iranian gunboats, reflagged Kuwaiti tankers

1990-1991 Operation Desert Shield/Storm

2001- Operation Enduring Freedom (pipelines in Afghanistan)

2003- Operation Iraqi Freedom

2005-2010 world oil production peaks, and is expected to decline forthwith
DEMAND for OIL INCREASES: India, China, other emerging economies, etc.

Oil is very important for food production, chemicals, etc.

There are only THREE THINGS we can do to get the oil we need for economic growth, agricultural output, etc.

1. STEAL THE OIL. Some suggest the wars we have had are that strategy.
2. DEPOPULATE, so we have same oil per capita (kick out illegal immigrants, reduce births, and/or increase deaths)
3. RESTRUCTURE ECONOMY IN LIGHT OF NEW REALITY

See #2 DEPOPULATE

Strategies include

fertility

1. abortion
2. sterilization
3. birth control
4. homosexuality encouraged

mortality

1. euthanasia
2. capital punishment

migration

1. kick out immigrants
2. refuse to admit immigrants

While I assume the conclusion reached by Ms. Walker is absurd on its face and it is preposterous to assume any polling regarding so-called Pro-Life issues which can be skewed by 40 points or more in just the way the question is presented has any useful validity; still it is sad, disheartening, and dangerous to have such superstitious based beliefs have any prominence in an age when our species population numbers threaten to destroy the very basis for life and the species would benefit dramatically by a significant reduction in procreation. The twisted belief that the completion of every potential birth is God's will but any death's by any means or purpose is in opposition to God's will is at best perverse! You would think that any action which brought the completion of their religious quest would be accepted and promoted; but instead these folks fight for every breath to avoid this long sought reward...go figure!

Your typical pro-abortion type man is best represented by former Senator John Edwards.

He gets his shackup honey pregnant and his first demand is that she abort the baby. Then, she she doesn't indicate she's going to do that, he tries to get another guy to take responsibility for her.

Hmm.

And there are women who go along with this stuff?

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

I really don't know why I should have to adjust my moral standards ("don't kill the innocent") to accommodate pigs like Edwards.

You can rationalize killing anybody. The Nazis did.

Maybe the pro-lifers are concerned about the slippery slope we are on.

First we said in Roe v. Wade something about 26 weeks was acceptable because you could save a preemie in an incubator.

Now there is late term abortion. Forget 26 weeks. Let's have 40.

Slip!

Who's next?

1. The very young?
2. The very old?
3. Somebody without a living will? Terri Schiavo? Shall we presume somebody who doesn't have a living will wants to die?

sliiippppp

I am Christopher Marsh and I am a Baptist. We have to err on the side of preserving life, and I am not sure when to give up on life, but I will err on the side of living as long as Jesus wants me to.

CRM February 1 2010

What do young women want? Well, when it comes to abortion, some want to have the choice and some will never even think about it. One way or another, there's a definite split - not all young women want the same thing.

We should therefore let women choose - if you don't want to have an abortion, then by all means don't, but if you decide to, then you should be able to.

It amazes me how these people claim to be for civil rights, but want to take away peoples' right to choose for themselves. Surely women want personhood - there are probably plenty out there who want their decisions respected by others, including the author, who are trying to make a choice for everyone.

Ms. Walker - exactly what bubble are you living in?

We will never stop abortion. Closing clinics is easy, but how do we ban coat hangers?

My point is, America proves that whatever the authorities try to keep people from getting, people still get it.
1. guns in the hands of criminals
2. drugs
3. alcohol nationwide from 1920 to 1933
4. cigarettes and alcohol away from kids
5. illegal abortion before 1973 in many places. The people performing it typically cared more about the money than the women they served, and were often ill educated, unlicensed, and the procedure was performed in unsanitary conditions without anesthesia. This is what scares many pro-life people who would otherwise be happy to close clinics. As Bill Clinton said, [the best we can hope for is that abortion is] "safe, legal, and rare"

As long as women try to use abortion as birth control (which is stupid, because birth control is infinitely safer than surgical abortion, which can cause scar tissue, possibility of later ectopic pregnancy, infertility, infections, hemorrhaging), this will be an especially difficult problem.

We might be effective in preventing pregnancy during sex if we invest heavily in birth control, or at least introducing some consideration of mercy after pregnancy with public awareness. I don't think we will desexualize unmarried people without saving them, and that requires their consent.

My friends who believe in closing clinics are optimists. They believe women can be frightened into bearing children if safe abortion is cut off.

As a sociologist I am a pessimist.

I absolutely agree with the first poster. Your assertions about "today's young women this" and "today's young women that" are breathtakingly presumptuous and actually repellent to those of us young women who happen to be on the other side of the fence. If you're trying to bring people to see your point of view, the tone you took is most certainly the wrong way to go about it. You have strong opinions, and you're welcome to them. Just don't try to impose them on *me*.

True enough, GasMonkey. If anyone is pro abortion it would be Satan, but even then, every last one of those kids are going to Heaven, so it is only a partial victory for the Devil.

My mom miscarried four times. I know I have siblings in Heaven. I will meet them because I am saved too. I think Mom was saved too, though she downplayed the role of religion her whole life (her brother helped her play it up on her deathbed).

I'm more concerned about the living who aren't saved. My brother doesn't know the Lord (though he did admit to being more compliant the older he gets). Shame if five of her kids made it to Heaven and one didn't....

Who, cruising down the highway of life, is going to plow over some little baby at 55, 60, 65 MPH without so much as lifting the foot off the gas?

"I had right of way...."

Female Voiceover: "Yeah right."

Female Voiceover: "The human response is to slam on the brakes when you see a baby in the road."

"Compassion? It's my life and the baby is in my way.... I might have to slow down, make an unexpected turn, detour, have a passenger in my life....."

It's not a baby

The radio says, in her voice, "you know it will be, soon enough... that's just what you tell yourself so you won't go crazy afterwards"

"Running the kid over is sooooo much easier, isn't it?"

(The kind of pro-life commercial we ought to see, that doesn't mention God, but addresses selfishness, "my life", and compassion for "someone or something else" in the near future)

You know you're reading biased and dishonest commentary when someone refers to "pro-choice" as "pro-abortion." Nobody is pro-abortion! I've never met a single person on earth that cheers on abortions. The issue is should the Government make that choice for you, or should you be free to make your own reproductive choice. I think that is not the Government's decision, but the mother's. If she wants to go full term, great. If she doesn't, too bad, sorry, but don't let the Government make that choice for you.

Ms. Walker, you come across as very arrogant. You should not presume to speak for all young women. Unless you have data to back you up, it would be far more honest to just state it's what YOU think.