Religious extremists attacking a PP in my state

[AFPheonix]

What is really often overlooked by rational pro-lifers and pro-choice people alike is that in the middle, you are far more alike than you're willing to admit.

No one particularly likes abortion, and frankly if it's referred to as a form of birth control, it's a piss poor form, far more invasive than any chemical or barrier form.

What rational pro-choice people want is to lessen the number of abortions that need to take place by increasing education, affordability and availability of birth control measures, and better health care for expectant mothers. They just want to leave the option of an abortion available in the event one is needed, either for physical reasons or because frankly the mother isn't going to be a fit enough parent.
I realize that sometimes, being dead is better than being alive at all costs, and in many cases, like, oh say, this one, where it would have been far preferable for the girl to have just had an abortion instead of putting her kid through this.

If you don't like abortions, then by all means, don't have one. But for those of us who may choose to get one, well, let us be.

[Boozy]

Aside from the obvious fact that both sides would like to see less abortions, I don't see any compromise being made on this issue.

When one side believes that the other is killing babies, they aren't likely to accept a compromise, are they?

The moment at which human life begins may be ambiguous to some, but once someone has decided where that point is, the issue itself becomes very black and white. Murder is either wrong or it isn't.

I've made it pretty clear that I'm pro-choice, but I can completely appreciate where the other side is coming from.

[Sylvia727]

No, there isn't a lot of compromise happening on the legality of abortion, nor are we likely to see any. Murder of a baby vs. lost control of a woman's body; neither are desirable, and so neither side wants to let that happen.

I think the best way to end the debate is to sidestep the issue entirely. If there are no unwanted pregnancies, or they're very rare, than the practice of abortion will fall into disuse. I'm sure that the number of people relying on this as their primary birth control mechanism are both very small and very bad for the gene pool anyway. It's why we need better education about birth control, and better environments for the baby to be born into. A growing number of high schools are passing out condoms for free, to encourage safer sex. Slowly but surely, education officials are waking up to the realities of "abstinance only" programs. With drug companies always looking for a better way to make a bigger buck, more and more effective methods will be found.

And as I mentioned earlier, I don't like what Planned Parenthood is doing with abortions, but I have to respect what they're doing with birth control overall. Ideally, effective birth control will be used universally by those who need it, and women and their hypothetical children will be protected from unwanted pregnancies.

[Amethyst Hunter]

Cut for length; post 1

This is going to be very long, but there are some points I want to address:

Also, if one is not yet born, but if left to nature's course will be born in the future, isn't this individual in a state of prebirth? I don't see how "preborn" doesn't exist.

I don't see how it can. (we already have 'blastocyst', 'embryo', 'fetus', and 'infant' as terms to describe the different phases of development) Anyone care to elaborate on it?

I like your bread analogy though. One could extend it further--at which point is the dough granted the status of bread? When it is removed from the oven?

Bingo. Technically, births aren't recorded until someone is actually *born*. (Stillbirths and other situations aside) There's even a passage in the Bible (which I'm paraphrasing to the best of my memory; I'll be the first to admit I'm no scholar on that subject) that says a form did not first become living until that first breath, upon exiting a womb, is drawn.

Granted, someone might believe otherwise, and in such a case where there's something like a miscarriage or a stillbirth, I would say that those dealing with someone who has had such should respect that person's beliefs and treat that loss accordingly (i.e., offer the proper condolences and support for someone grieving the loss of a wanted pregnancy).

Looking at another Bible passage, a favorite thrown out is the "I knew you when I formed you in the womb" one. But it's too easy to overlook the second half of that passage which clearly states that God was speaking *specifically* to one person, a prophet He intended to appoint for a particular purpose. I don't remember that ever applying to anybody else in the book.

This is not to say that from gestation to live birth, that at any time an embryo/fetus is *not* human DNA. It is. But as with most any other hot-button topic, religion and the question of just when souls - if you believe in a soul at all - enter a body is completely up in the air pending concrete proof either way (which I don't think any science or religion can ever answer, at least not in our lifetimes, and probably not ever), and people will never agree completely on that because it's one of those things that has to be decided individually on. Diehard Christians will immediately say that "the soul begins at X point" while atheists will say "there is no soul period." And still others - agnostics, for example - will say "well, we don't know for sure one way or the other, so let's just keep our options open and wait and see how the jury stacks up."

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely do disagree with using abortion as a primary method of birth control (which it is not, and should not be lumped in with the rest of BC). In fact, there is no such thing as any pro-choicer who honestly believes abortion is a *good* thing. But I don't entirely see it as a *bad* thing either - it would be arguably worse to let an unwanted pregnancy progress to the point of viability (that is, the fetus can survive outside the womb) and then have an unwanted child be born into a bad situation that isn't likely to improve, given that the odds on that pretty much suck. (Even adoption - which I wholeheartedly support in any case even when abortion isn't involved - is no guarantee, given that the entire adoption system in the US is bass-ackwards due to bureaucratic nonsense and unnecessary expense, and people mostly want perfect babies, not older kids who may have physical or emotional problems. Kids DO know when they're wanted and when they're not, and I firmly believe they have more emotional intelligence than they're often given credit for in regards to such things.)

Getting into the carrier's side of it, as you said, put yourself in that person's shoes for a moment. Think of how you (generic you) might feel if you were basically told "Here is something that draws its nourishment directly from the host, many times at great physical and mental cost (gestational diabetes, post-partum depression) to said host, and you must support it in your body for almost a year, then support it for at least the next 20 years. You have no choice in the matter, even if you *were* being responsible about sex (as in married sex, or using proper protection correctly)." I, personally, would resent the hell out of anybody who tried to make me do that (which is just one of many reasons I'm thankfully celibate), and I would resent what I would see as a parasite that I never asked for and did not want.

I don't claim to speak for *all* women. I know that quite a few pro-choice people would likely agree, and I wouldn't presume to treat *any* female poorly for having had or wanting an abortion (or, conversely, for not wanting to have one), especially if I wasn't aware of the specific circumstances that led to that female's choosing that particular decision.

The entire point of "pro-choice" is to allow women to choose as they see fit regarding their particular individual situations - whether that choice is to terminate a pregnancy, carry it to term and give it up for adoption, or even keep it entirely. Because women are the ones most affected by pregnancy, financial ups and downs (like divorce), and the ones (still) doing the bulk of childcare, it should be their right to choose. That's why *all* options should be available, because the more choice one has, the more likely one is to make a more sound decision about an important event (and with safe, legal access to abortion services and financial support, women are actually less likely to choose abortion as the way to handle an unwanted pregnancy).

Rape is a tragedy. But it's not a significant factor, no matter how painful it is. Rape pregnancies are the exception to the rule--maybe they should be the exception to the laws on fetus rights. I don't know, and frankly it's irrelevant to the greater issue.

I don't think so. For one thing, there is a concerted effort by anti-choice pharmacists to deny BC prescriptions to all women, and they certainly don't have any sympathy for rape victims. Second, the overwhelming majority of all violent crimes, especially rape, are committed by men, and given that a woman in the US is raped about every 6 minutes, and with something like close to 300 million US citizens, that's a helluva lot of Russian roulette in regards to unwanted pregnancy. It's estimated that one in about every eight females can expect some type of sexual assault on her person in the US today. Those are not good odds.

I don't see... why it's illegal for someone else to forcibly terminate a pregnancy, but perfectly legal for the mother to do so.

It's illegal to forcibly terminate a pregnancy because that termination is being done *against the woman's will*. Laci Petersen, for instance, was nearly due to give birth when she was murdered by her husband to cover up his adultery, and her pregnancy was definitely wanted (by her, that is). In a more recent case, a pregnant Marine (whose such is said to be the result of rape by a fellow Marine (and please note, this does not nor should it reflect badly on *all* servicepeople in this branch, the majority of whom are decent folk) was killed by that same peer and she too was well advanced in her pregnancy. It's also worth noting that the most dangerous time in a relationship - particularly an unstable one - for a woman is when she is pregnant.

When a woman *chooses* to have an abortion, it's because she has thought it over from all angles and decided that it is the right action for *her* individual situation, not necessarily out of a frivolous mindset - far more often than not, it is *poor* women who have abortions, and it is *married* women who have abortions, and women who *cannot* carry to term because pregnancy would literally threaten their lives if allowed to continue to full term.

Yes, there are a few women out there that see abortion as an easy out. I don't necessarily agree with treating it as such, but neither do I agree with bringing people into the world who are very likely to end up sorely abused, one way or another, because they weren't wanted. (Which will, in turn, produce either adults who are unable to function in a relatively stable and healthy way in society, or worse, complete sociopaths who continue a bad cycle; I was told by a friend of mine that there is a report on crime statistics showing that in certain areas, crime actually went *down* because of the availability of abortion - the theory went that the crime rate was down because less criminals were being produced - I'll have to see if I can locate that report)

The key issue is autonomy. A fetus can't exercise autonomy. Children, depending on their age and maturity, can only exercise a very limited range of autonomy (choosing which toys to play with, or rejecting particular foods, for instance). Adults have autonomy because of their developed experience and ability to use reason and logic (for the most part, anyway), and can therefore make informed decisions regarding personal choices.

But rational pro-lifers aren't trying to control women.

Not consciously, but too often some heavy wackjob from the minority extreme proposes a particular law or restriction or protest, purposely worded in an inflammatory or misleading way, and people automatically hear certain things and think "oh, this must be good/bad" and will react accordingly, which enables the minority nuts to take control and run the show to the detriment of all. Take the controversy regarding "partial-birth" abortion, for instance. This is a classic red herring used. Again, as with "preborn", there's no such thing as "partial-birth." When a pregnancy is terminated that far along, it's ALWAYS because something has gone horribly wrong that needs to be dealt with asap or worse consequences will arise - necrotic tissue from a fetus that has died in utero (for whatever reason) will sicken and even kill the woman. Ectopic pregnancies WILL kill, no question, which is why when sterilizations like Essure or tubals are given the women are warned to monitor their sexual activities (i.e., limit them, and use a backup birth control method) for a specific period of time until the permanent sterilization takes completely, to avoid the risk of acquiring an ectopic pregnancy. And then there are horrors like anecephaly (in which the fetus is born without a brain) or genetic problems so severe that the fetus won't live very long either way. I seriously doubt there are any legitimate doctors out there who would be willing to end a perfectly healthy pregnancy that advanced, even if the woman demanded it (and such women, I daresay, are far and few between if they even exist at all).

Then there's the 'ol chestnut "abortion causes breast cancer" - it just kills me (no pun intended) to hear people spout that out-and-out lie. To date, there is *no* conclusive evidence that having an abortion will give you cancer of any kind, nor will it affect one's ability to bear children in the future (assuming said abortion is performed properly under sanitary conditions, of course).

Many self-proclaimed pro-lifers (not saying that this applies to all, but a good many of them) are also big fans of 'abstinence-only' and/or for whatever reasons are embarrassed or disgusted to talk to their kids about sex and pregnancy/disease prevention, which leaves the kids to figure things out on their own, often with disastrous results. (it's also been proven that 'abstinence-only' so-called 'education' doesn't work worth a damn)

Obviously yes, abstinence IS the only 100% protection against unwanted pregnancy and disease (rape aside, that is), and is definitely ideal for teenagers - but applied realistically, how many people - like said teenagers - are going to heed that, especially if they're only given limited tools to work with (if they're given such tools at all)? Should they be punished with consequences they aren't physically or emotionally prepared to handle, all for making a bad mistake? (We're all human, we all fuck up one way or another) There was a survey in one of the local papers here focusing on teens and what they felt about sex in general, what with the Planned Parenthood opening - and the majority of them said their parents basically had their heads in the sand about teens and sex, and that they worried about not getting the support they needed from their parents to even broach subjects like birth control.

(TBC)

[Amethyst Hunter]

Part deux

I absolutely do support and encourage parents to talk to their kids about these things well in advance (teen years is way too late), and to tell them "As your parent, I would prefer it if you didn't have sex until X point because Y and Z are a few reasons why you can get badly hurt. If you do have sex, this is what you should do to protect yourself as best you can against this and that." The ones doing all the protesting and sign-waving and such don't encourage that - they're of the "don't do this because I/God said so, period" school of thought. And all that does is foster distrust between parents and kids (and religion, if that's involved), which isn't likely to lead to favorable results.

I was one of the lucky ones. My mother sat me down well before I hit my teen years and went over in (age-appropriate) detail what happened during puberty and how babies were made. She stressed to me the importance of information and putting that information to practical use - and as a result, I never had the problems that many of my peers did in regards to sex, disease and unwanted pregnancy. How many kids, especially in today's sex-disrespectful culture, can rely on that?

Other people get to have opinions also, even if you don't agree with them. By denying that their point of view exists, or that it is somehow less valid than yours, you signal that you are not interested in meeting them halfway.

Other people can have opinions, as many as they want and apply them to their own lives however they want. That part doesn't bother me one whit. I have a very big problem when they try to enforce those opinions on me, through enshrined law that is supposed to protect the majority *and* the minority. And that's exactly what extremists are trying to do. They want this country ruled by their strict personal interpretation of morality -which most Americans *do not* agree with, whether they are supportive or not of things like abortion - and believe me, they are doing everything in their power, legal and not, to make that happen.

And when extremists go around spreading lies like the abortion-breast cancer one, I find it very hard to take them seriously on *anything* - because if they'll lie about that as a scare tactic, what else *won't* they lie about? (This excludes those people who are not extremist but who parrot the lie because it's what they were taught by the liars)

I'm quite willing to work with people who call themselves pro-life and who can back that up with solid actions - supporting birth control, or children's charities (without preconditions like proselytising), for instance, to reduce the abortion rate. I WILL NOT, however, compromise with extremists who are hellbent on reducing women's status to that of chattel and who have proven through repeated lies, intimidation and violence that they CANNOT be trusted *at all.* You NEVER hear about pro-choice people bombing pro-life centers or shooting pro-life activists, for example. The types of people protesting places like Planned Parenthood fall largely into this category (though the majority of their 'entourage' is comprised of people who have been fooled by these minorities' rhetoric and who are not likely to take much action beyond that of sign-waving); there is a reason why such buildings are constructed of bomb- and bulletproof materials and why security at them is so intensely high. (There is evidence that some particularly dangerous anti-choice groups - like Operation Rescue/Save America - are affiliated with or have access to *openly hostile* anti-government militias that are actually registered with the federal government as under the status of hate groups/terrorists.)

To share a related story, I have a relative who is very pro-life (and yes, religion does factor heavily into it for her) and I love her dearly. We're both well aware of the other's views regarding this issue, but we make a concerted effort to 1) either avoid the subject completely or, 2) to talk about it in terms of what we can do to lower the abortion rate, and to respect a) the fact that neither's views are ever going to change completely, if at all, and b) there are indeed valid reasons for why we each think the way we do about it. I can, despite however it may seem, see why a religious person would be reluctant to have an abortion herself, even though I'm not religious (though I do believe in a higher power; I just question how much 'stereotype' about that higher power is valid, which is why I consider myself agnostic). And there's nothing wrong with that. Where I only consider it wrong is when someone else tries to forcibly apply that view (either through violence, restriction or pointless laws that don't solve the problem) to another person who may not believe that way. That's what gets me (and any other pro-choice person) riled.

So they can pry my birth control out of my cold dead fingers--right after I exercise my 2nd Amendment rights to own a shotgun

Now that, I heartily salute you on.

Many pro-lifers do, at least the ones I hang out with.

I seriously would like to know more of that type. Really. I think one of the reasons those supportive of abortion rights (even if they disagree with it on a personal level) and those who disagree with abortion can't get along is because the pro-choice sees the other element allying with some of the extremists, and are understandably unwilling to trust them. The people claiming to be pro-life who are supporting the major anti-choice group protesting the Planned Parenthood that I originally posted about are probably fooled by this group's disguise, that of "saving babies", and aren't aware of this group's real history (the leader has openly stated in print media that he wanted to get city permits to picket - read: harass and intimidate, which they have a long history of doing to the point of physical violence - the *homes* of PP employees. That is nothing more than stalking, and stalking is *very* illegal.

There are certain key points that both sides are going to have to agree on in order to get anywhere (which is doubtful IMO given the level of personal belief involved):

1) Abortion will NEVER be eliminated entirely; it has been going on since the beginning of time and will continue as such - the best that can be done is to reduce the rate,

2) the ONLY way abortion rates will ever be successfully reduced is through availability of resources and accurate, comprehensive education that *does not* include religious agenda of any kind - much like the so-called "intelligent design" snowballing, there's a place and time for that kind of thing and it's called Sunday School,

3) personal morality is going to have to take a back seat to prevention of far worse things - you can think somebody is a slut for having premarital sex all you like, and it may or may not be true, but which would you rather have: someone who is having premarital sex and *not* getting pregnant/contracting STDs, or someone who is having premarital sex recklessly/in ignorance? Naturally, restraint and/or moderation should be encouraged, but not everybody is going to live by that tenet, and that's another bag o' worms that's best saved for another day.

4) those women who do want and who have chosen abortions a) *will not* be dissuaded in any way shape or form from going through with it no matter how much of a guilt trip or roadblock is loaded onto them, b) should not be denied on the basis of someone else's beliefs, and c) should not be treated as though they've done something 'wrong' (that is best left to them and their Creator, if they believe in one, to sort out). In other words, you're (again, generic) within your rights to think that someone may be going to hell for choosing to have an abortion, but you don't have the right to actually tell them that to their face (because then you would be treating them in a hostile manner, and doesn't Christ say to treat other people how you yourself would want to be treated?).

So - phew, that was long. But I do thank you for engaging in this fratchathon with me.

[BookstoreEscapee]

I was told by a friend of mine that there is a report on crime statistics showing that in certain areas, crime actually went *down* because of the availability of abortion - the theory went that the crime rate was down because less criminals were being produced - I'll have to see if I can locate that report)

This was discussed in the book Freakonomics by Stephen D Levitt.

[Boozy]

This was discussed in the book Freakonomics by Stephen D Levitt.

Great book, too; I highly recommend it.

[BookstoreEscapee]

Great book, too; I highly recommend it.

I have the daily calendar on my desk at work. I keep watching for it to come out in paperback but that doesn't seem like it's gonna happen anytime soon. I might just have to spring for the hardcover.

[Seshat]

And the term "pro-choice" doesn't gloss over the possible implications of murder?

Here's a problem: to me, abortion isn't murder. It's simply removing human tissue, no more significant than a tonsillectomy or appendectomy. I accept that to some people, it is murder. But I don't see it that way.

I understand how pills and IUDs work, but abortion is commonly referred to as birth control.

By whom? I've never heard it referred to as birth control except by pro-life people in abortion debates. Never.

I was trying to distinguish between methods that prevent pregnancy and methods that terminate pregnancy.

'Contraception' = 'against conception'. Works perfectly well for me.

If pregnancies were prevented with greater efficiency, than there would be less need to terminate them.

Yup. And that's why pro-choice people usually advocate extensive sex education, and the availability of affordable, effective contraception.

Many pro-choice people also advocate relationship education (to help reduce the number of people in abusive relationships, and help improve the emotional wellbeing of pretty much everyone), and the use of condoms, dental dams, and other 'safer sex' tools.

Most moderate pro-lifers also advocate at least basic sex education.

Some pro-lifers are Catholic, and can't advocate most contraception, but advocate teaching the more effective versions of the rhythm method. I can respect that, though I disagree with the reasons behind the Papal decision about contraception.

I especially respect the many pro-lifers who advocate almost exactly the same sex and relationship education I advocate, and who also agree with me regarding contraception availability and condoms, dental dams and such.

I like your bread analogy though. One could extend it further--at which point is the dough granted the status of bread? When it is removed from the oven? When it is edible, even if undercooked? Or is it always bread, is the breadiness kneaded into its very core?

It's bread dough until it's cooked, then it's bread.

Rape is a tragedy. But it's not a significant factor, no matter how painful it is. Rape pregnancies are the exception to the rule--maybe they should be the exception to the laws on fetus rights. I don't know, and frankly it's irrelevant to the greater issue.

See Amethyst Hunter's rebuttal. I agree with her.

And this is the main reason I think fetus rights would be difficult to allow or enforce. Someone trying to protect the life of a fetus would end up encasing the mother in a plastic rat ball, with nutrionally-balanced and tasteless food poked in through the air holes.

That's part of the reason our side is called 'pro-choice'. And it's not an impossible nightmare - see Ceacescu's Romania. I linked to a summary of that earlier in this thread.

But rational pro-lifers aren't trying to control women.

In my opinion, yes they are.

They may not think they are, but pregnancy is one of my worst nightmares. I am responsible about contraception, I am careful about sex, but if I got pregnant and couldn't abort, it would be an incredibly traumatic thing for me. And my family would put me on suicide watch, and would be right to.

To me, saying 'we want you not to abort, never ever under any circumstances' IS an attempt to control me. To dictate a critical part of my life. Nothing you can say will change my mind about that.

Through their eyes, your denial of the damage caused to babies looks as alien as their denial of the damage done to women looks to you.

Damage caused to a bit of human tissue about the size of my little fingernail? I do more damage to human tissue just walking down the street!

Other people get to have opinions also, even if you don't agree with them. By denying that their point of view exists, or that it is somehow less valid than yours, you signal that you are not interested in meeting them halfway.

Pro-choice people don't deny that other people have a point of view that's valid. One of our major 'sound bites' is 'Against abortion? Don't have one.'

We advocate for choice.

Our only point of major disagreement with moderate pro-lifers is that the pro-lifers believe that they have the right to dictate what we do with our bodies and our potential babies. At which point I ask you to read your own words again.

This attitude makes people more hostile and less cooperative, reinforcing the stereotype that pro-lifers are selfish and unreasonable.

Pro-choicers want to live in harmony with pro-lifers. You do what you believe to be best for your lives, bodies, and potential babies. We do what we believe to be best for ours.

Unfortunately, pro-lifers believe themselves to have both the right and the duty to invade every woman's womb and dictate what happens there. And that's the sticking point. We can't accept that.

I don't like those right-wing nutjobs either. As Seshat said in another thread, I won't judge you by your crazies if you don't judge me by mine.

Sounds fair to me. But then, it's a quote from me, so I guess it would.

I have PCOS, which is why I take birth control medication. If/When I go off my meds, my cramps leave me curled up whimpering. So they can pry my birth control out of my cold dead fingers--right after I exercise my 2nd Amendment rights to own a shotgun

I have PCOS too. I haven't been able to find a hormone dosage which actually works for me, so I use an IUD as birth control and deal with bleeding 3 weeks out of 4.

The whole abortion debate is probably a moot point for me personally - I probably don't actually produce any viable eggs. But if I had the bad luck to do so, and the bad luck for my probably-not-fertile husband to actually have viable sperm at the same time, and the incredible bad luck for my IUD to happen to fail at that same time - well, the poor potential baby would almost certainly suffer (from genetic diseases) its entire life if we let it happen.

As I've said before, preventing unwanted pregnancies is probably the best solution. Most birth control is perfectly harmless, and most rational folk will grant you the right to put whatever medicines--or poisons--you want into your own body.

You'd be hard pressed to find any pro-choicers who disagree.

Well, except with the 'most birth control is perfectly harmless' - some people (like me!) have hideous reactions to the Pill. But with a sane and sensible doctor guiding you, most people can find a birth control which is harmless for them.

I can't speak for anyone but myself, and I hope that you will not judge an entire movement based on a certain group of supporters.

Most pro-choicers know that the majority of pro-lifers are moderates, and not insane nutjobs like that 'certain group of supporters'.

We simply disagree with a fundamental premise of the pro-life movement: that anyone has the right to decide for anyone else whether or not to have an abortion.

I do support education reforms, raising the poverty line, reforming the welfare/medicaid system, and yes, greater education about and access to birth control methods. Many pro-lifers do, at least the ones I hang out with.

Good. Many pro-choicers agree with you. (Not all - some doubtless have different economic priorities. But I think you get my gist here.)

And here's something for you to think about: what's so wrong about walking a mile in the other person's shoes? Both sides need to grow up and try to work out a better solution that leaves everyone happy.

Unfortunately, we have one fundamental disagreement which I think means we can't come to a solution that leaves everyone completely satisfied.

All our moderates can agree about most of it:
* abortion is undesirable, and we should work for a minimal need for it. No need for it would be ideal.
* we want some sort of adequately comprehensive sex education that leaves our teenagers able to make sensible decisions about sex.
* we want contraception to be readily available, as affordable as possible, as safe as possible. Effective 'rhythm' type methods to be available for Catholics and others whose religion forbids other types of contraception.
* we want safer sex supplies to be readily available, and education about how and why to use them to be in the standard sex ed curriculum.
* many would also agree on relationship education being included in the curriculum.

We can't agree on one point: where in the continuum between fertilisation and birth a potential baby becomes a separate human being with separate rights. Humanity has been working on that question since at least Aristotlean times, and we haven't been able to agree on an answer. I think it unlikely that we ever will.

My personal belief is that because we don't know, the woman (preferably both parents) should consult her (their) spiritual or philosophic adviser of choice, and decide for herself (themselves) whether to discuss an abortion with a medical advisor of choice. I believe that since we don't know, each woman (set of parents) has the heavy responsibility of making her (their) own decision.

I think many, if not most, pro-choicers agree with me.

My understanding of the moderate pro-life argument is that there are two versions:
* because we don't know, we have to assume that life begins really early on (*), and therefore abortion is murder unless the baby wouldn't have lived anyway.
* we do know, and we know that life begins really early on (*). Therefore abortion is murder unless the baby wouldn't have lived anyway.

(* exactly when 'really early on' is varies from pro-life group to group)

There are variations. Some think a child of rape can be aborted, some think that if either person's health (mother or child) is endangered by the pregnancy, abortion is okay. Some think that if the child would be born severely disabled, abortion is okay. Some think that no child ever should be aborted. The most common that I'm aware of is 'abortion is only okay if the baby wouldn't live anyway', with 'if the mother would die and the kid would die too' being included.

I believe I do understand the pro-life argument. If there is some aspect of the core premise that isn't up there, please let me know.

Unfortunately, the attitude I hear from some pro-choicers is "Haha, the government sided with us, so stick it up your butt!" and the attitude I hear from some pro-lifers is "You're all evil and going to hell."

That's immature on both sides. Please don't judge us all by our nutjobs.