As for the alleged cruelty, I am not sure it is more cruel for a fetus to be aborted than it is to bring a child into the world who isn't wanted by its parents. I have seen too many parents just walk away and leave the child to fend for itself. And once a human being is outside its mother's womb, most anti-choice advocates don't seem to be willing to build much of a safety net into the system to ensure the child has adequate food, care, health care, etc., etc. That's equally, or more, cruel according to me.

As for religious grounds for arguing for it—the sacredness of a human life etc. etc.—those beliefs are not shared by all people, and it is wrong to force them to comply with my beliefs.

So I do not want to do that. Those in that unfortunate situation must choose their own form of cruelty.

….BUT NONE OF THAT WAS MY POINT ANYWAY. It's an emotionally charged issue on which people hold strong views.

My point is that IF you are pro-choice then DO LOOK AT MCCAIN RECORD. He's not a good option for people who feel that this issue is important. As “fla lady” says, this is not a 'one-issue election.'

I didn't say that it was. I said: IF YOU DO CARE ABOUT THIS ISSUE, LOOK AT MCCAIN'S RECORD. I don't think Obama has this principle, or holds it strongly—his statements about late term abortions were inaccurate legally, but conceded that sometimes it MIGHT be necessary—so he is the better option for pro-choice voters.

And that's ALL I was saying. You can all fight about whether abortion is right, wrong, cruel, less cruel than the alternatives all you want, but that is NOT MY POINT.

The correct terms have always been and always will be “pro-abortion” and “anti-abortion.” “Choice” is weasel language, a deliberate evasive euphemism that so many use who are cowardly or evasive.

I disagree with you on this.

The position which states that government should have nothing what-so-ever to do with abortion is is neither pro-abortion nor anti-abortion. It is pro-choice.

While there are those on the left who claim they are “pro-choice” but nonetheless support using taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions either at home or overseas (forcing taxpayers to pay for medical procedures that they find abhorrent isn't really “pro-choice”), there are also people who take the libertarian position that the government should neither be used to prevent people from getting abortions nor to use taxpayer dollars to pay for them.

Government neutrality is the only true pro-choice position. There's nothing weasely, cowardly, or evasive about it. The true weasel words come from those on the Left and the Right who insist on characterizing everyone else's positions in terms of “pro” and “anti” (i.e. abortion, drugs, guns, marriage) without stopping to consider whether government should be involved in these issues in the first place.

As for Pacatrue –

1. I'm telling people they should say what they actually and really mean. Corrected!

2. Abortion in the USA is complicated by our federal system. Constitutionally it is up to state and local government to legislate on abortion as each sees fit, and it may be different in different places. It has no legitimate basis for encroachment by the federal government (least of all an illegitimately activist judiciary who would make up law out of thin air).

3. There is no absolute “right” [sic] to unrestricted abortion, much less any “right” [sic] constituting a claim on government services to provide this to those who want it.

4. Abortion will become a serious issue if federal health care (the typical model anticipated being “Medicare for all”) is expanded beyond the elderly and disabled. I don't consider abortion that big a deal (unlike the most wacky leftists) and view it in the same context as contraception (though they're quite different things), and look at the big picture. But plenty of people are against it strongly and of course it's fully open to question and exclusion if only elective (not for health reasons) as a new federal health benefit (or a government benefit anywhere).

5. And as the Florida Lady said, this is not a one-issue election and what kind of people make looser abortion laws their holy grail, anyway?

McLuhan would be smiling right now.

I personally prefer to use the term “Pro-freedom-of-choice”, or “Pro-freedom” for short, and those who favor limiting a woman's constitutional rights to an abortion as “Anti-freedom”.

Of course, pro-choice is different from pro-abortion in the exact same way that libertarians do not actively support everything they believe people have a legal right to do. I believe it's none of the government's legal business if a spouse has an affair, but I am not therefore pro-cheating. I am not pro-get-plastered-on-vodka-and-bourbon-every-night, but I do not support the government legally punishing someone for doing so if they harm no one else in the process. The list could go on and on.

In the debate on abortion, the essential question always comes down to, “should the state determine the manner in which a citizen uses her bodily organs when another life is dependent upon her decision?” Believing that there are good and bad ways a person can make that decision (i.e., having an opinion on the morality of an abortion), but also believing that the state does not have a right to legally compel that decision is entirely consistent and in no way cowardly or evasive.

Just execute them if they are not adopted by the age of oh say 3. Thats a good arbitrary age to determine whether they should live or die.

The correct terms have always been and always will be “pro-abortion” and “anti-abortion.” “Choice” is weasel language, a deliberate evasive euphemism that so many use who are cowardly or evasive.

Only those who are unnecessarily defensive about it, and why are they defensive?

There is always “pro-abortion-rights” if they have the intellectual capacity for this longer alternative.

But I certainly don't see abortion as some sort of “choice” like picking a pair of socks.

Perhaps the word choice unfairly trivializes it, but the label “pro-abortion” unfairly stigmatizes a great many people who only see it as a necessary evil.

As for pre-viability abortions, which comprise the vast, vast majority of them, Obama is pro-choice and McCain is pro-life. Me? I'm torn. I find abortion abhorrent in all cases. But I'm genuinely torn on what to do about it legally. I'd feel better if we used whatever mechanisms possible (better contraceptives, adoptions services, etc.) to lower the number of abortions without outright banning it. But I certainly don't see abortion as some sort of “choice” like picking a pair of socks.

What I really wanted to get across is that McCain is antichoice.

What about a 3 month old fetus? 4 month? What about a pregnant woman who has 3 kids & whose breadwinner of the household up & leaves in the middle of the night ?
What about a frightened 19 year old who made a mistake & is now pregnant, in jr.college & whose parents have stopped talking to her since she “sinned”?
And when did these personal, heart-wrenching situations suddenly become your or my business?

Though I'm certainly in favor of developing technology to make such procedures as painless as possible. Since “viability” of the fetus is the test, and technology makes that happen earlier, I'd even support outlawing it at an early stage.

But ban abortion? No. Who is going to feed those children, bring them up, see that they get health care, clothing, an education—if the mothers don't want them? How is that kinder?

The choice in question is to take a 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 month fetus and torture-murder him; to stick a scalpel in his head, then suck out his brains, crush his skull, tear him from limb to limb, and then throw the remains of what was once a fully conscious and growing human being into a bio-hazard bag and in turn throw that bag in the garbage.

That, Damozel, is precisely what you call “reproductive freedom.” Now, I ask you, who exactly is using words to obfuscate, instead of describe, what you're really in favor of?