Embryo terminology

Penny Pullen, author of the weekly Life Advocacy Briefing, teaches pro-life terminology. From her I learned to say:

  • "pro-abortion," not "pro-choice"

  • "aborting "mother" (and "father"), not aborting "woman" (or "man")

  • "commit abortion," not "perform abortion"

  • "abortionist," not "doctor"
  • As part of her Briefing today, Penny gave a short lesson on proper terminology by which to frame the human embryo experimentation debate:

    IOWA's LEGISLATURE HAS SENT TO THE GOVERNOR a bill endorsing sacrifice of embryonic humans for utilitarian experimentation. The bill, which is likely to be signed by Gov. Chet Culver (D), would replace Iowa's human cloning ban and would authorize experimental cloning by another name.

    We at Life Advocacy have not been privy to the Iowa-specific debate or political changes which precipitated this about-face, but, observing the terminology used by much of the pro-life movement nationally, we regretfully predict that the fight over embryo killing is likely to be lost wherever it emerges.

    We cannot fathom why most advocates for Life speak about this issue in the same terms as are used by the amoral biotech lobby and its fellow travelers in the mainstream media. Calling this issue "embryonic stem cell research" is the equivalent of calling the abortion issue "choice," yet this obfuscatory terminology is used consistently by those same pro-life leaders who wring their hands over the seeming inability of the public to distinguish between "adult stem cells" and "embryonic stem cells."

    Could the confusion result from the fundamental fact that the ethical problem is not the pursuit of research on stem cells but with the killing of embryonic human beings in the process?

    Try consistently using the term "experimentation" instead of "research" and the expression "killing (or sacrificing or vivisecting or dissecting) embryonic humans" instead of "embryonic stem cells," and see the difference in the perception of those hearing the debate. Using precise, morally expressive terminology cuts through the scientific fog, identifies the issue for what it is, and brings the public into a proper understanding of what is at stake. Is this really so hard?


    Comments:

    I find it pathetic that you're teaching people to manipulate language in order to get your point across. Medical terminology is what should be used.

    Can't find enough cold hard facts to support your cause, right? How laughable. What's sad is that I know a lot of anti-choicers who don't resort to distorting language like you have. Although I disagree with them, at least I respect them. You, on the other hand, can't even create an argument by using non-biased language.
    Sad.

    Scientific fog? Are you joking? You're the one tugging at people's heartstrings. I don't even know where to begin with this one...

    Posted by: Megan at March 4, 2007 6:49 PM


    What, are you a coward?

    I'll post it again.

    PRO-ABORTION AND PRO-LIFE ARE BOTH ANTI-CHOICE.

    Therefore, pro-choice CANNOT be pro-abortion.

    For one to accept pro-life "terminology," one must be utterly devoid of common sense. We know you are, Jill Stanek.

    And if you delete this again, I will post it again. Thank you for showing how afraid of the truth you are.

    Posted by: Ilana at March 6, 2007 12:30 PM


    Ilana opined:
    PRO-ABORTION AND PRO-LIFE ARE BOTH ANTI-CHOICE.

    Wow. I never thought about it like that before. However, since you used ALL CAPS, now I see your point!

    Oh, wait ... no. I don't see it. Sorry.

    Choices require life. If we aren't alive, we cannot make any more choices. Therefore, the option that preserves the most life is the most pro-choice.

    Life is pro-choice.

    Ilana further opined:
    We know you are, Jill Stanek.

    Kindergarten taunts make your arguments seem weak. Surely, if you had a good point to make, you'd make your point instead of calling names.

    Posted by: Naaman at March 6, 2007 12:38 PM


    Thank you for a circular argument which did nothing to refute any of my statements.

    Being pro-choice means that you are not pro-abortion. Jill Stanek claims that pro-abortion=pro-choice, which is entirely false. Pro-abortion means that you do not want one to have a choice, that one should always have an abortion. This is not and has never been the pro-choice view, so calling pro-choice "pro-abortion" is akin to calling pro-life "anti-women's rights." Is pro-life anti-women's rights? I do not think so, but if the pro-life movement really is as immature as to call the movement I belong to by such a ridiculous misnomer, maybe they deserve the same treatment? The pro-choice movement doesn't have to make up words to try to get followers, it doesn't have to rely on emotional sensationalist propaganda that leaves no room for logical thought. The pro-choice movement asks its followers to use rationale in making choices, while the pro-life movement doesn't want one to be able to make a choice whatsoever, and do only as the pro-life movement says. Pro-abortion is anti-choice, just like pro-life is anti-choice. Pro-life and pro-abortion are one in the same.

    Posted by: Ilana at March 6, 2007 1:39 PM


    Ilana interjected:
    Thank you for a circular argument which did nothing to refute any of my statements.

    I didn't realize you were making an argument. To be honest, your last post looked like a blatant attempt at slandering Jill and scumming up her blog comments. Now that you've made an actual argument, I'll take a shot at refuting it.

    Pro-abortion means that you do not want one to have a choice, that one should always have an abortion.

    Stop right there, because that faulty definition is the fatal flaw in your argument. You propped up a strawman, then cut it to ribbons, and now you think you've defeated the nasty pro-lifers....

    "Pro-abortion" does not mean that every pregnancy should end in abortion. If that were true, being pro-abortion would require a person to desire the extinction of humanity. After all, if every unborn child was aborted, there wouldn't be any more living children to continue the human race.

    As used by pro-lifers, the term "pro-abortion" means that someone has one or more of the following beliefs:
    1. Abortion is a social good.
    2. Abortion is the best choice for individuals in a range of circumstances.
    3. Abortion should be more accepted by society than it currently is.
    4. We should increase access to abortions, thereby inexorably increasing the number of actual abortions.

    I can find half a dozen pro-choice pundits & bloggers who meet the following definition. In fact, I can show you how Planned Parenthood and other prominent pro-choice organizations are actually pro-abortion.

    If you don't like the terminology, perhaps you should ask yourself: What's wrong with abortion?

    Posted by: Naaman at March 7, 2007 10:04 AM


    Excuse me, is the pro-life side devoting money and research to increasing the lexicon of knowledge on birth control, safer sex, and sexually transmitted disease treatment? No. They are not. The pro-choice side is doing so, because they do not condemn sex the way the pro-life side does, and because they understand that banning abortion will not stop abortion, because we have eyes and see exactly what happens in every country where they have banned abortion. Women die to have abortions in these countries. And I thought that pro-life meant that you wanted to do whatever necessary to preserve life? I guess not. I guess it's merely the life of the fetus that you all care about, without ever a thought to the woman involved. I have seen women called sluts, whores, millions of disgusting things, because they had an abortion. Do you all really think that this makes us want to associate with the pro-life movement? No. I've been turned off of the pro-life movement from the moment I heard that they protest outside of Planned Parenthood, which not only does not perform anywhere near even half of all the abortions in this country, but does the most to provide underpriviledged women with health services to better their lives. What organization of the pro-life movement does this? None.

    Pro-abortion, dearest, DOES mean that you want every pregnancy to end in abortion. Just like pro-life means you want every pregnancy to end in birth. Or did you miss that part? Pro-choice means that you recognize that it is not and never will be your place to tell another person what is right and wrong for them to do. I guarantee you would not appreciate it if I told you what to do with your body based on my moral beliefs, so why is it okay for you to do the same to me? It's not. Unless you're willing to call yourself a hypocrite. Pro-abortion does mean that you are pro-abortion, and not pro-choice. I have never met a pro-choice supporter who feels this way. It's interesting that you can't see this.

    I have no problem with the terminology that Jill Stanek posted above. I do have a problem with the fact that pro-lifers have no problem calling women "sluts" and "whores." This does nothing to further your cause, and Jill Stanek does so more times than I can count. She's one of the most disgusting misoginistic women I've ever had the displeasure of experiencing. Also, I have a problem with the fact that the pro-life organization feeds on people's stupidity and vulnerability. It's interesting. Wouldn't you rather have people follow you because they know what they actually believe in and have logically and rationally came to a conclusion? I know I would. I respect people too much to want to force them to believe my way, or kick them to the side because they don't believe what I believe and therefore aren't worth my time. I've encountered very few accepting, respectful, nonjudgmental, and kind members of the pro-life organizations. This is not to say I've met none, but I've met very few. Most are intolerant, rude, and very ignorant.

    And if you want to know what's wrong with abortion, I'll tell you. Nothing.

    Dear Jill Stanek:
    I have come to the conclusion that your blog is no more than a liberal satire site. Thank you very much for furthering my side's cause. I know that you are actually pro-choice, and that you have a lot of fun writing these articles, exposing the stupidity and idiocy of the pro-life movement. Congratulations!
    -Ilana

    Posted by: Ilana at March 7, 2007 11:34 AM


    Ilana, your earlier posts I deleted were nothing comparable to your March 6, 12:30p post. Don't forget you are a guest on my site. I'll allow immature behavior to a point, but only to a point.

    And what's your problem with being called pro-abortion? If abortion is such a great constitutional right, why run from being known as an avid supporter? Enthusiasts run from no other constitutional right.

    Your aversion to being called pro-abortion is akin to being embarrassed about supporting civil rights or women's voting rights, if indeed abortion is such a laudable constitutional right.

    Have you ever heard someone say they support civil rights but don't want to be labeled as a supporter of civil rights? "Hey, just call me pro-choice on black equality."

    Where's your abortion pride?

    Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 7, 2007 11:59 AM


    Ilana, re: your comment on Planned Parenthood: "I've been turned off of the pro-life movement from the moment I heard that they protest outside of Planned Parenthood, which not only does not perform anywhere near even half of all the abortions in this country, but does the most to provide underpriviledged women with health services to better their lives."

    In actuality, Planned Parenthood operates the nation's largest chain of abortion clinics.

    You're right that it focuses on "underprivilege women."

    Almost 80 percent of PP facilities are located in minority neighborhoods.

    The result of this is, according to Planned Parenthood's research arm, the Alan Guttmacher Institute, "Black women are almost four times as likely as white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are 2.5 times as likely." (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html).

    Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 7, 2007 12:14 PM


    Yes, Jill Stanek, I am aware of all of those facts. Now. What does that mean? Nothing.

    I thank you for being respectful enough to use an unbiased source as Guttmacher.

    Posted by: Ilana at March 7, 2007 1:10 PM


    jill stanek is a hoe.

    Posted by: Jessica at March 7, 2007 1:15 PM


    "Stop right there, because that faulty definition is the fatal flaw in your argument. You propped up a strawman, then cut it to ribbons, and now you think you've defeated the nasty pro-lifers...."

    Was this even necessary? Pro-choice has already won, and will continue to win, until someone decides that RAPE is okay.

    Posted by: Jessica at March 7, 2007 1:23 PM


    I don't think people who are pro-choice take pride in abortion. They take pride in civil liberties. The right to bodily autonomy would fall into this category. By defending civil liberties, you end up defending the right to have an abortion. That does not mean abortion is a great thing. Personally, I find it terribly sad. I would still defend a woman's right to make this choice for herself, though. She is neither hurting me nor society by doing so. But society would hurt if constitutional rights are curtailed.

    Posted by: Joe at March 7, 2007 1:24 PM


    I don't think threatening and insulting people on their own weblog is good behavior.

    Posted by: Joe at March 7, 2007 1:25 PM


    Jessica, your 1:15p comment is obviously out of line. I only give one strike. Next time you pull something like that, or if you continue to waste space with senseless arguments, I'll ban you from the site.

    Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 7, 2007 1:36 PM


    Pro-choice is Pro-abortion? No it isn't. We don't go around telling every pregnant woman we see that they should have an abortion. We let woman decide what they think is the best choice for them. Hence pro-choice.

    These terms that you made up make you look extremely uneducated.

    Posted by: Danielle at March 7, 2007 1:38 PM


    Joe, why do you say abortion is "sad"? Why do you say your side doesn't take pride in abortion? Why do you say your side doesn't find abortion a "great thing"?

    Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 7, 2007 1:38 PM


    Pro-choice is Pro-abortion? No it isn't. We don't go around telling every pregnant woman we see that they should have an abortion. We let woman decide what they think is the best choice for them. Hence pro-choice.

    These terms that you made up make you look extremely uneducated.

    Posted by: Danielle at March 7, 2007 1:38 PM


    Jill,

    Do you really, truely believe that people who are pro-choice love the idea of abortion? Of course not! I love children. I'm looking forward to having childrenin my future and it would be horrible if I had to choose an abortion.

    I don't like abortions. I want the numbers to go down, but I don't think that making it illegal is the way to do it. Teach people what they need to know about how to not get pregnant (no just abstience only), make BC more readily available and cheaper. Don't just make it illegal and then think the problems solved because it won't be.

    Even if abortion becomes illegal it isn't going to disappear. Woman are still going to have them and it will be under much more dangerous conditions.

    Keep it legal, but educate so that it's not nessecary.

    Posted by: Danielle at March 7, 2007 1:49 PM


    What do you have to be excessively rude to get a reply around here?

    Posted by: Danielle at March 7, 2007 1:58 PM


    Guess I just wrote too much truth for you to handle.

    Posted by: Danielle at March 7, 2007 2:04 PM


    Danielle, lol, I've been a tad busy swatting at flies. (That said, sometimes I don't get to comments immediately anyway.)

    To answer you, yes, some people really do love the idea of abortion. Those people make incredible amounts of money off it.

    Those such as you who consider thesmselves "pro-choice" are apparently uncomfortable with the concept of flat-out supporting abortion.

    So I ask you, why don't you like abortions? Why do you want the numbers to go down?

    Is your rationale really that if we don't keep it legal it will happen anyway?

    Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 7, 2007 2:09 PM


    For any of you on this board that are pro choice let me also tell you that you are also pro murder. Jessica,you ought to be ashamed of yourself.Perhaps by you calling Jill names this is how you really feel about yourself!Baby killing is baby killing.There are lots of ways to prevent abortion in the first place.Do some research.REAL women HAVE their children.They don't go running to some creep to undo their "mistakes".Even abortionists have contempt for women that have abortions.They hate you ladies.Abortionists say that women who have abortions are air heads that can't figure out what the heck they want in life.They have also been noted to refer to their patients as whores,tramps and dogs.Any woman that would defend these scums of society need their heads examined.

    Posted by: Heather at March 7, 2007 2:14 PM


    What a great journalist, she can't even reply to the truth of posts and makes dodge her best ally.

    The long post I wrote to you was in no way derogatory. You chose to delete it because you had no idea how to respond.

    Are you pro-rape as well?

    Posted by: Jessica at March 7, 2007 2:14 PM


    "For any of you on this board that are pro choice let me also tell you that you are also pro murder. Jessica,you ought to be ashamed of yourself.Perhaps by you calling Jill names this is how you really feel about yourself!Baby killing is baby killing.There are lots of ways to prevent abortion in the first place.Do some research.REAL women HAVE their children.They don't go running to some creep to undo their "mistakes".Even abortionists have contempt for women that have abortions.They hate you ladies.Abortionists say that women who have abortions are air heads that can't figure out what the heck they want in life.They have also been noted to refer to their patients as whores,tramps and dogs.Any woman that would defend these scums of society need their heads examined."

    Awwwwww, someone has read some pro-life propaganda.

    Would you like me to link you to the site that tells stories of pro-lifers who picket outside PP one day and go in to get an abortion the next? The hypocrisy is juicy.

    Posted by: Jessica at March 7, 2007 2:16 PM


    Jill,

    I don't know of anyone who's in love with the idea of abortion. They are definitely in the minority and cannot even be considered pro-choice, since they are obviously more likely to push abortion. Pro-choice pushes neither and leaves it up to each woman to decide what is best for her.

    I do not support abortion. I hope that I never have to have an abortion or consider it. But I know that I cannot speak for every woman out there. I don't know their situation. I don't know how pregnancy would affect their life. Who am I, just because of my own resolve not to have an abortion, tell another woman that she should not be able to?

    I want every child to be a wanted and love child. Who wouldn't want the numbers of abortion to go down? That is just crazy talk and trying to make the pro-choice side look bad.

    Abortion has been around long before it was even legal here in America. It is not going to disappear just because it's illegal here. People will go to Canada or Mexico if it becomes illegal here, or they'll have illegal abortions by untrainned people. Look at Europe counties where the same thing happens.

    Abortion will not disappear and it's a sad thing. But we can lower the numbers by educating people and making BC more available.

    Posted by: Danielle at March 7, 2007 2:16 PM


    Jill,

    I find abortion sad because it is an intrusive procedure into a woman's body that results in the ending of a potential life. I cannot understand why you insist that there should be something prideful about this? That is not the point for me. I just don't believe ending potential life is always the worst thing you can do in this world. Weighed against the results of not ending a pregnancy it could be a smaller evil for some women. Which is why I leave the choice to the individual woman in question.

    As I said. I take pride in civil liberties. Sometimes that means indirectly defending options you personally do not agree with. I find making women's bodies officially government property rendering them second class citizens generally worse than ending a potential life.

    Posted by: Joe at March 7, 2007 2:19 PM


    Heather,

    What about married woman who already have children and have an abortion because they know that they can't afford to raise another child?

    People who use abortion as birth control are in the minority of those who recieve abortions. There are many married woman who have abortions so it isn't just "sluts" and "whores" who have them.

    Posted by: Danielle at March 7, 2007 2:19 PM


    Please run the names of former abortionist Brian L. Finkle and Edward Allred.

    Posted by: Heather at March 7, 2007 2:57 PM


    Heather,
    Actually, yes, baby killing IS baby killing. But abortion is terminating a FETUS. See the difference? Baby - fetus. Not the same thing. Also, one of the objectives of the pro-choice movement is to make abortion safe and legal everywhere so that everyone woman has access to one if they choose. That way, women wouldn't need to go see "some creep". I think you need to become more educated because right now you just sound like a pissed off teenager that just heard about abortion for the first time. When you've done your research, come on back and have a chat.

    Posted by: Megan at March 7, 2007 3:13 PM


    Heather,

    Way to answer my question. Do you people get lessons in how to dodge giving answers or something?

    Posted by: Danielle at March 7, 2007 4:14 PM


    Swatting flies, eh?

    Where's the love, man?

    Posted by: Lando the Great at March 7, 2007 4:24 PM


    Megan,

    you sure do like putting your mouth-in-it, eh"? I assume you, like me, are a Canuck. I read some of those links that you pronounced as truly objective. I've read 'objective' biology and stats papers for more than 30 years and my scientific view is that these should precede the toilet paper when flushing the toilet.

    Many years ago someone warned me to be cautious about finger-pointing "because there are three more pointing right back at you". Most of your pronouncements on others inadequacies fit you to a 'T'.

    Posted by: John McDonell at March 7, 2007 4:32 PM


    In my experience saying you are "pro life" means you are for all types of life not just those that are politically advantageous. To be truly "pro life" you need to actually practice the values of holding all life sacred. If you want people to refer to you as "pro life" then you must be anti abortion, anti war, anti hunting, a strict vegetarian(no fish, fish have lives too); if you swat a fly you have just committed murder, if you eat a hamburger you are participating in the genocide of innocent cattle everywhere, if you support the ignorant agenda of george bush you have just sent thousands of your fellow Americans to death.

    Posted by: JK at March 7, 2007 4:42 PM


    "I've read 'objective' biology and stats papers for more than 30 years and my scientific view is that these should precede the toilet paper when flushing the toilet."

    John, I'm curious as to why you have such contempt for science. The scientific method seems to me to be a solid epistemic practice, one that has gained us a great deal of knowledge about the world around us. What makes you feel as though it ought to be disregarded?

    Posted by: Diana at March 7, 2007 4:52 PM


    John,
    The post at 3:13pm on March 7 was from me and the posts before by a girl named Megan were not me. I should have clarified with an initial but today's post was my first. I don't have anything to do with the links the other Megan posted. Thanks.

    Posted by: Megan R at March 7, 2007 5:05 PM


    Thanks for the clear-up ... Megan R

    Diana,

    I have a very bad genetic disability. Before it got too bad I had some training in all sorts of classical sciences. I used such to find solutions to my own (and other folks with similar genetic problems). So I study and learn ... after a number of years I begin to wonder as to why one road only was taken in research ... then another, and another ... until I finally understand that the vast majority of orthodox medicine is bs, mainly because it uses a bogus-biochemstry as a rationale for its activity.

    so Diana, I find very little wrong with science, but much of modern-biology rightly belongs on the trash heap ::: a small factoid. All bio-reactions are catalyzed by three things: 1) enzymes; 2) co-factors and, 3) energy . We have studied 1) and 2) to very fine detail .... but 3) is consigned to heat (eg. joules). In human experience, there are close to 15 different energy forms: electricity, magnetism, gravity, colours, sounds ... are but a few of these. Also exposure to energy patterns vary on a seasonal and geographic basis. I have yet to read one biological paper that includes seasonal variation being accommodated in any results.

    RESULT the experimental mode (especially concerning drugs) is BOGUS .... and often "scientific proof" is very fragile .... eg. why are flu and heart attacks (cholesterol levels) fluctuate upwards in winter and downwards in summer(northern hemisphere)? Is there a seasonal variation for fertility? ... for abortion? ... you can't answer, because it has never been studied ... no money or drug to make a buck, or two, or more!

    Posted by: John McDonell at March 7, 2007 7:28 PM


    Abortionists are the ones calling you guys "sluts" and "whores" You may want to take it up with them. I know an abortionist personally,and let's just say that he doesn't like what he does. He feels that for the most part,women are a bit sloppy when it comes to taking care of their reproductive systems. Hey, that's the truth.

    Posted by: Anon at March 8, 2007 12:32 PM


    Anon, that's interesting. Can you shed more light on what abortionists think about things?

    Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 8, 2007 12:36 PM


    Anon, if your friend doesn't like what he does, if he thinks that the women he is caring for are "sluts" and "whores", then maybe he should enter a different field of medical practice. Especially since disliking what you do will usually lead to being poor at it. As so many people have tried to argue on this blog, we don't need doctors who are corrupt or bad at what they do.

    I don't know what you could mean by saying that "women are a bit sloppy when it comes to taking care of their reproductive systems" so I'll leave that alone.

    But I'm wondering if you have stats other than your "friend" and his comments to back up your general claim. One individual is not a sufficient base for making a generalizing inference to a whole group.

    Posted by: Diana at March 8, 2007 12:39 PM


    What really angers me is Jill Stanek and the anti-abortion crowd equating embyronic stem cell research with the abortion issue. Microscopic undifferentiated cells in a blastocyst are not people or a person. But that is the fiction they promote and disseminate lies about the supposed superiority of adult stem cell research. What could possibly be the reason for such duplicity and cruelty? Could it be that if a cell can be given a SS number and "rights", Roe v. Wade would be easier to overturn?

    Posted by: Rayilyn Brown at March 9, 2007 10:54 PM


    Ms. Stanek, how can you expect to be taken seriously if you refuse to use proper scientific terms?
    Doctors perform abortions. Pregnancy does not equal motherhood, therefore a woman having an abortion is an aborting woman, not an aborting mother.
    And as others have already stated, pro-choice is NOT the same as pro-abortion. We're supporting the freedom of decision of pregnant women, no matter what their decision is.

    Posted by: Ingrid at March 10, 2007 1:15 PM


    Ingrid, why do you not want to be called pro-abortion? If it is such a great constitutional right, why not wear the moniker proudly?

    Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 11, 2007 3:04 PM


    Jill,

    "why do you not want to be called pro-abortion?"

    Because we're not. We're pro-choice. Meaning that every woman has the right to decide for herself if it's right for her to have an abortion or not.

    I would probably not have an abortion. Why? Because as a very emotional person it would be hard for me to do that. But I am not in the position to decide what it best for thousands of other women (which is what the pro-life side tries to do).

    Also pro-abortion suggests that we want to see abortion kept around because we think it's such a great thing which is very wrong. While I don't like speaking on behalf of the entire group, I think that it's safe to say that pro-choicers want the numbers of abortions to go down, but through different methods than your group.

    We want people to be educated about sex and taught how to protect against pregnancy. Teaching EVERYTHING through abstinence and the different forms of birth control. The pro-choice side isn't pushing kids to have sex by teaching them about BC, nor do they want to see abstinence taken completely out of sex ed, but some teenagers are going to have sex no matter what you say, so isn't it better that they know how to protect themselves?

    Also, I have met quite a few pregnant woman who are pro-choice. They obviously are not pro-abortion or else they would have had one.

    I will keep repeating all of these things until you realize the utter stupidity of your term.

    Posted by: Danielle at March 11, 2007 3:52 PM


    Danielle, why would it be hard for you to have an abortion? Why do you want the number of abortions to go down?

    If abortion is such a precious constitutional right, why not trumpet it from the rooftops, like we do civil rights or women's right to vote?

    It seems to me this is the first constitutional right people appear to be ashamed of. Why?

    Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 11, 2007 5:34 PM


    Jill,

    I want every child to be a wanted and loved child. My dream in life is to have a family (not right now since I'm in college pursuing my librarianship), but in the future I am very much looking forward to having children.

    Abortion is a HUGE decision. It's not something that woman make on a spur of the moment decision. It's not fun. People don't throw parties for it. I don't pretend to think that it's easy to end a potential life that's growing inside of you and I would not be able to.

    It's a right that needs to be kept legal and safe (for those who need abortions), but there's no reason that the numbers can't go down. The need for abortion is a tragic thing, but in this day and age there is still a need for it. I hope that someday, with enough education and better financial aide for pregnant woman, that abortion will no longer be necessary.

    Posted by: Danielle at March 11, 2007 7:40 PM