RE: what France is providing for support - it has to - they are no longer reproducing themselves as most countries (particularly in Europe)are not and will face critical social and economic problems within the next 20-40 years.

There are also many pro-life groups to numberous to mention that help young woman have their children and then support them by helping them gain an education, shetler and all the necessities of life.

My last question to you - are you glad your Mother chose life for you? Any why is an unborn child’s life any less important than your own.

2. How is abortion less violent than continuing a pregnancy? If you read about the actual procedure, it’s utterly gruesome.

3. To say that abortion is a necessary evil is really sad. FFL makes an excellent point here, which is utterly warped by the agenda-driven ladies who cannot concede even the most rational and feminist of ideas, should they be held by their detractors.

The point: that the presence of women who desire abortions in 2006 is just sad. There’s birth control. (70% of women seeking abortions haven’t used it.) Women who abort for lack of other options - financial and social support - should, in any reasonable society, have such support. Women who don’t want any more kids should have the options to not have more kids - i.e. husbands who get vascetomies or doctors who will perform a tubal ligation (which can be very easy if performed concurrently with a Caesarean section). Health insurance should cover the Pill. Host of other choices for not becoming pregnant in the first place!

The fact that about 3 million women in the US have unwanted pregnancies every year says something really sad about our society. We can provide abortion, but it doesn’t stop the unplanned pregnancies. Abortion treats the symptom… and is much like taking an Advil for the headache caused by a tumor. Treat the underlying social problem and the abortion issue will take care of itself.

As I said, though… acknowledging this involves not skewing FFL’s position to suit your own needs.

4. Ladies, outside of rape, you aren’t forced to create a baby at the end of a gun. Baby-making happesn when you have the sex. Of course, being hip, intelligent, pro-sex-ed young women, you know that. It’s just more convenient to say that you’re forced to make a baby at the end of a gun.

5. Finally…. in case you guys missed it… the essence of civilisation is that we don’t do what we want to do, all the time, without consequences. If a man didn’t want his girlfriend to be pregnant and kicked her in the stomach, feminists would be up in arms. He can choose to not be a father, but battering his girlfriend for this end is not socially acceptable. Likewise, not being a mom is a very valid life choice, but that doesn’t mean that all methods of acheiving that end are legal and moral.

FFL is merely pointing this out. The pro-abortion side does like to pretend that, when it comes to women, all methods are equally valid. A condom is just like a seventh-month abortion. Maybe y’all should consider that some methods are better than others, for all invovled. A woman who “chooses” abortion would, most likely, have preferred to not be pregnant in the first place. A woman who “chooses” to abort, even though she would love a child but lacks the financial resources, doesn’t see that as the best end for her.

You left a fake email address, coward. Here’s the reply I emailed you:

Actually, Feminists for Life’s claims of anti-choice sentiments
prominent early feminists are made up.

http://pandagon.net/2006/10/13/would-suffragette-city-have-a-planned-parenthood/

It’s a stretch and a half to claim that someone like Anthony, who had
no children, agreed with FFL that women were supposed to spend our
lives pregnant. Stanton was also adamant that she *chose* to have 6
children because she loved them so much. No where is implicated in
there that she thinks everyone should be like her.

I know you’re just a concern troll, because otherwise, you could have
done a quick search in my bar. But hey, thanks of reminding me I need
to tag that post about how FFL is lying about Anthony!

In descending order of nonviolence: (1) resorbtion of pregnancy, (2) lithopedion [WARNING, graphic pic]–pregnancy calcifies and remains in situ permanently, (3) abortion [no labor, controlled delivery], (4) natural labor and delivery.

The religious right here is pushing for a very small (read ‘not possible to live on’) monthly payment for those parents who choose to stay at home with the kids after the first year, thus neatly placing stay-at-home parents in economic dependence on their spouse - right where subsidised child care was supposed to get them out from…

Most women do not have abortions as a matter of “choice,� but because they feel they have no resources to support a different choice.

so, did I miss the bit where FFL are advocating universal free daycare/healthcare for 18 years for all mothers, plus 100% tuition & bursaries for all mothers doing college degrees? Isn’t that the minimum resources necessary to support a different choice as they’re advocating?

(and no, I don’t agree that would be sufficient ground to make any sort of abortion illegal - but it would be a marvellous step towards making it less necessary for some women).

No, but the example of people dying screaming in agony would serve to dissuade people from smoking. The application of this to abortion and another of life’s little pleasures is left to the reader.

Mezosub, I disagree that choosing to have an abortion is like choosing to buy a sailboat. I tend to agree with the person who said that a woman chooses to have an abortion the way a fox caught in a trap chooses to gnaw off her own leg.

FFL, of course, would want to spare the poor vixen such a choice, and would humanely sedate the poor creature until the trapper can arrive.

After all, besides the horror of losing a leg, such a choice would also spoil the hide.