With apologies to Elizabeth Barrett Browning:

Libertarian: Keep government out of the bedroom and doctor's office.

Civil rights: it's all about privacy.

Empowerment: my daughter should have the authority to make such decisions for herself.

Professional autonomy: Since when did the government come to know more about medical procedures than doctors?

Religion or Separation of Church and State: If abortion is a deeply religious question, government should not take sides.

Science: On what basis should legislators determine when human life begins?

Population and the Environment: One of the best ways to protect the environment is to make it easier to prevent unwanted additions to the world's population.

I am pro-choice for a simple reason: Life is complicated.  When you get pregnant, it is the result of an activity that can take a very short amount of time.  Why should a very short activity cause you to be enslaved for 18 years at a minimum?

I am pro-choice because a child is a choice, not a requirement.

I can't make that kind of decision for someone else.

I'm not just pro-choice, I'm pro-abortion.  Abortion serves a positive function in society.  It serves a positive sociological function and a positive ecological function.

I'm all for reducing the number of abortions if that means reducing the root cause of abortions, which is pregnancy.  I do not support attempts to triangulate on the issue in other ways, such as making abortion "rare" by encouraging adoption and the like.

Abortion is a form of birth control and should not be separated from other forms of birth control.  And birth control is a right.  The right to health care includes the right to birth control, which includes abortion.  Separating abortion from other forms of birth control only lends credence to the religious right dogma that fetuses have "rights".

Fetuses are not babies.  Life begins at birth, not conception.  The worldwide overpopulation crisis demands widespread use of birth control.  Abortion is a form of birth control.

This will probably piss off some people here, but even though I am strongly pro-abortion, I am not in favor of "a woman's right to choose." I believe in a couple's right to choose. The father should have equal say in the matter. I don't buy the argument about a woman having control over her own body. Having control over your reproduction trumps that by a long shot, and that involves the man just as much.

The way I see the best policy working is like this:

1. When a woman gets pregnant, both parents can decide whether they want to keep the baby.

2. If either parent wants to keep it, the woman has the baby.

3. If only one parent wants to keep it, the other is absolved of any responsibility for caring for the child after it is born.

4. If only the father wants to keepit , he must pay the mother a large fee to have the baby for him.

That seems fair to me. I welcome opposing arguments.

I'm not... but don't hold it against me!

I am pro-choice because I do not think the government should intrude upon private decisions. It also distresses me that those who are anti-choice are also anti birth-control (see: Dr. David Hager), anti-evolution, anti stem-cell research, and anti right-to-die. What next, a return to the abacus?

While I'm absolutely pro-choice as a matter of public policy, I also don't think that there's a constitutional right to it.  I think that if the vast majority want to ban it as a moral issue, that in a democracy you should be able to do that.  And I also think that decisions reached by legislation will eventually be much more stable than those reached by judicial fiat, as has been the case in Europe.  

reasons to be pro choice are many. my own personal top of that list: anti-choicers are racist hypocrites who don't give a shit about living babies out of the womb. how many brown or black orphans have most anti-choices adopted? none, you say? well, have a nice cup of "shut the fuck up" then.

however, i'm not entirely happy with the way the left addresses this topic either. this proved to be the hardest post i've written in months, and i'm still not happy with it. but i believe it's possible to be pro-choice, and still have "issues" with abortion.

and to whoever said it's the "couple's" choice: i'm fine with that, the day it's possible for both parts of the couple to carry the child. until then, here- i have a cup of something for you too.

Because reproductive freedom is an inhernetly personal decision.  Because I don't want my daughter forced to do anything.  Because I don't believe anyone's religious beliefs should be forced on the rest of us.

Well, obviously some will think me a barbarous fellow for this post, but I am not pro-choice. In my opinion the notion that anyone should be empowered to "choose" the abortion of a pregnancy and end a life, save certain extraordinary circumstances such as rape or concern for the mother's life, is morally abhorrent. Obviously some have the opinion that a fetus is not a life, that it is without rights and the protection of the law. To start, that is not even the legal situation today, the killing of a pregnant woman resulting in the death of the fetus carries with it two counts of murder. Even worse is the idea that abortions should be preformed to meet some academic, sociological end. No one should be aborted to decrease the stress on social services, or to curb the growth of poverty. Obviously this implication brings with it a obligation on the part of governments to provide for the people, to fight the "root causes of abortion." We must ensure access to health care, jobs, etc... but even in a society that fails to meet such standards, abortion is still the taking of a life, and no one has that choice. The solution is not to condone or encourage abortion, but rather the improvement of existing social conditions. When you have consensual sex, you must accept the possibility of pregnancy. One's lack of preparation or youthful inexperience is no excuse to simply do away with the unborn.

I am pro-choice because if somebody else tried to tell me what to do with my own body I'd stick my finger is his fucking eye. So even though I do not have a uterus, I feel obliged to vigorously defend the rights of those who do to use them as they see fit.

And yeah, sure, it's not really all that simple -- the issue is fraught with such immense moral ambiguities, and that's obviously what makes for all the strong feelings. For me, though, it really is as simple as being sovereign over one's own body. Period. Everything else, morally fraught though it may be, is secondary to that principle. That's why I'm pro-choice.

and saw the damage that did.

Two of my friends got pregnant in high school, at 14 and 16 -- both were A students who were forced to drop out of school, marry, and face the world with 9th and 10th grade educations.

Another high school friend was sent to Arizona, supposedly for her asthma, but I now believe to an unwed mothers "home."

All of that so frightening to someone who wanted out of that small town, and the instant housewife life, that I didn't have sex until I was 19.

My former babysitter also got pregnant at 16, dropped out of high school to marry, and when I next saw her, she was missing teeth at age 30.

In college I met the daughters of the rich and upper middle class, who had been flown to Puerto Rico for their abortions pre-Roe -- the only lives destroyed were those of women who weren't lucky enough to have rich parents.

I am vehemently pro-choice because I am terrified that I may one day face a situation where I may want to have an abortion, and I don't want to have to ask permission from a politician to have to do so. Plain and simple.

I only just read it today, but the NY Times Mag this weekend had an interesting article about "Post-Abortion Syndrome." Abortion is an immensely complicated issue, and undertandably an emotionally wrenching thing to go through - for some women it indeed may not be the best course of action, and we should encourage and support women who make these decisions based on what what is actually good for themselves and not what is good in the eyes of politicians or the clergy.

What I found especially interesting/sad about the article is that Rhonda Arias, the abortion-recovery counselor who was followed as a subject, seemed to be driven by the need to absolve herself for what she perceived as the sins of her own previous abortion experiences. It's a bit hard to tell what her feelings are regarding her early life experiences mentioned in the article, but I can only think that the religious fervor that drives her is still rooted in a misplaced notion that women are responsible for the often terrible situations they find themselves in. Sexually abused by a step-brother? Forced into sex at 14 and then forced to give up the resulting child for adoption(by whom?)? Arias seems not to question these situations because "she can't do anything about them," and instead continues to berate herself in her work to stop abortion. It seems to me that she is an example of the patriarchal causes of abortion that continue to be ignored so that women can be blamed instead.

Yes, women should have the right to choose what happens with their bodies and government should have no say about what goes on in someone's uterus.

That said, the idea of abortion still sickens me. I am not concerned about what happens to the child in utero, I am not sure when a fetus goes from being a mass of biological matter to being a child and don't think anyone has a good way to determine the difference. I know it is not something I want to see happen but don't feel compelled to judge other people for their actions.

I am bothered by it from the perspective that having a child is a very complicated issue and there is too much group think when it comes to the topic of abortion on the right and the left. Every person's situation is completely unique and, perhaps more than reproductive rights, people need space to make decisions that are right for them. No one needs to be pushing agendas on vulnerable women one way or the other, and politicizing abortion such that there are so many strong right and wrong actions diminishes the people's ability to make intelligent decisions.

My daughter was born while I was in college and unmarried. When I told friends the mother was pregnant, the first question anyone asked is whether I was taking her to get an abortion (sometimes phrased as when am I going to do it). From what I could garner, the mother was getting the same on her end. When we told our parents, the first thing we heard from both of them was that we needed to have the baby and give her up for adoption immediately. It was non stop, we both were getting calls from everyone we knew, old relatives were suddenly looking to reconnect, professors were taking me aside to weigh in on the situation, campus security suddenly noticed I was living in the wrong dorm, I was getting letters from the Dean of Student Affairs about available conselling services, coaches from the various sports I was involved in could not keep their mouth shut about personal responsibility, and my friends could not talk about anything else when I was around. Strangers were in on it too. I was in standing in line behind some people at the canteen who didn't know me but were talking about that pregnant girl who is getting an abortion. I was getting papers dropped under my door listing the addresses of abortion providers. The campus christian coalition showed up at my door with an alarming frequency.

What I found was that everyone was absolutely convinced they knew what was right and they had to talk about it right then and there. With the abortion people, it was like having a child was an inconvenience (which it was, but a worthwhile one) and something was wrong with actually wanting to be a parent unless you are financially stable. With the baby people, it was like having an abortion was a terrible thing and we would both be scarred forever if we went through it. There was no middle ground and no one was interested in letting us think about what we really wanted to do (especially after the mother got fat with kid). If abortion was an option, we really didn't consider it because of all we had to sort through from all the people around us who would not shut up.

More than abortion rights, I think potential parents need people to shut up sometimes and this should be a right, a right to conscience. All this talk is about what women do with their bodies and there is an absolute indifference to what people are doing with their minds except from the perspective of moral certainty. Decisions are made on multiple levels, and the opinions of other people should not be the primary maxim in deciding what to do with your life. So, yeah, I am pro-choice from the standpoint that everyone needs to shut the hell up.

M

I am not pro-choice, I am anti-coat-hanger.

I believe abortion is wrong. The pro-lifers have a very valid point that most abortions are not for convenience and not for any medical purpose. Certainly having a baby as a teenager is difficult, but is it ok to kill to avoid this difficulty? I think not.

The only time I consider abortion to be an acceptable option is if there is significant danger to the woman's health and abortion is the only way to resolve the problem. Rape and incest are terrible, but two wrongs do not make a right. Abortion does not undo the violation.

Furthermore, easy access to abortion allows society to abandon their obligations to the most vulnerable members of society. It is no coincidence that one of the first laws legalizing abortion was signed into law by Ronald Reagan, something most people don't know. As a liberal, I believe that pregnant women deserve better choices than abortion or poverty. Unfortunately, too many liberals sound like country club Republicans when it comes to supporting families.

However, I know that abortion was not invented in 1973. I know that legal or illegal, like it or not, abortion is between a woman and her doctor. A law against abortion would be selectively enforced  if at all. Meanwhile, women who were pregnant and didn't want to be would continue to try to terminate their pregnancies often with disasterous results.

Despite my personal feelings about abortion, I know criminalization is bad policy. The best way to end abortion is to prevent unwanted pregnancies and to give the women who do become pregnant better options. Like it or not, young people ARE having sex and they do need to know how to be able to protect themselves from pregnancy and STD's. Make it easier for women and families to bear the financial cost of having children. I believe there is no more pro-life measure that can be taken than to guarantee health care for every American.

I believe abortion is wrong, but criminalization is a bad idea. Instead, the best way to reduce abortion is to give women better choices.

I'm going to turn the question around: why are people anti- (abortion, stem cell research, the right to die, etc)?

My claim is that this goes back to some fundamental religious beliefs that guide people's thinking. This has nothing to do with "morality". If it did then religions wouldn't have the concept of a "just war". If the belief is over the sanctity of life why permit wars or executions?

The underling reason is the belief in the immortal soul. Many people need to believe that some part of them persists after death. It is one of the strongest appeals of many religions - be obedient and you will go to a better place. This soul has magical properties, such as becoming embedded in a blastocyst at some unspecified moment. To allow for the possibility that decisions about life and death can be made for scientific or practical or compassionate reasons allows doubt about the existence of the soul to leak into the public debate. This is dangerous to belief and unnerving.

If progress is going to be made on dealing with these issues rationally those in favor of more flexibility will have to face up to the fact that they are dealing with irrational opponents and frame things accordingly.

If a woman asked my opinion on whether she should have an abortion (and truthfully this usually only happens if it is a relative, a close close friend, or your the daddy) I would say No... she should give it up for adoption.  That is the way I personally feel.

But ultimately, I would never force her to go through with it.  The government has no right to interfere with women's health, except to maybe make it safer.  I am pro-choice because abortions will happen regardless, and I don't want women in back alleys with coat hangers or risk jail time.  I also don't believe that the fetus is truly alive until it gets heart and brain functions.    That is just wrong.  As much as I hate to say it, HRC has the right approach... They should be safe, legal and NEVER.  Our goal should be for 0 per year.  We need better education and easier access to birth control.  This is the most effective way to reduce abortions, not making them illegal.

Abortion has always been (and liekly will always be) the grayest, most difficult issue that I wrestle with as a progressive Christian.  I absolutely, positively do not want to strip a woman of any control over her own body- that sounds like one of the most fundamental precepts of progressivism.  And yet I can't help but think that at some point a viable, unborn child has to acquire some rights.  It's when the rights come that I struggle with.

Some points are easy- before viability the rights of the mother absolutely take precedence.  That means I believe that the mother has absolute control for  the first twenty four weeks.  Once a child becomes virtually autonamous from the Mother's body, on the other hand, I think the mother forfeits control- she has no right to kill a fetus thatcan exist perfectly independent of her, so after thirty three weeks abortion should be (and I believe is) illegal in all cases- since an emergency delivery is never unavailable should a complication arise.  Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

As for those two 'tweener months- wow, what a struggle.  I'm pro-choice and leave the decision to the mother, but boy do I wish my thinking were a bit more decisive...

Because it's too important of a decision to be made by anyone else.

And also because the blatant, cold-hearted, misogynist hypocrisy of holier-than-thou white males really pisses me off.

My pro-choice stance is a nuanced thing - I want abortion legal, yes, but I also want there to be fewer abortions, by teaching abstinence and birth control, by providing education, learning materials, condoms, to prevent unwanted pregnancy and stop the spread of STD's and AIDS, to empower young women to have the confidence to say "sorry, no" and young men to have the brains to accept "sorry, no" as an acceptable response, to educate everyone that the consumerism that promotes sexuality as the only identity is incomplete and based solely on monetary gain. These are all based on choices we all must make, and we should all be free to make them.

-GFO

- "anti-coathanger" is a good way to put it.  until safe, perfectly effective birth control is available worldwide, abortion may be necessary for some women.

- if i catch you entering my house trying to steal a $100 television, i am allowed to shoot you in self-defense.  pregnancy is a lot more costly (in $, time, and health risks) than most items stolen from houses.  abortion is sometimes necessary as self-defense.  

- unless i am reasonably suspected of a serious crime, the government should stay the hell out of my bedroom, my doctor's office, my mailbox, and my computer, period.  

- the 1st amendment guarantees all of us the freedom NOT to be subject to laws enforcing other people's religious beliefs.   if your faith includes the tenet that all life is sacred and abortion is wrong, please, by all means, don't have one, and i hope to see you protesting outside San Quentin when prisoners are set to be executed.  but don't tell anyone else what to do.  TIA.