Abortion

[BillD]

How can we have a "Hot Button Topic" area without the most glaring hot button topic in America, abortion? Viewpoints range from abortion is murder under any and all circumstances (and therefore both practioners of abortion as well as women who receive abortions should be convicted of murder) to abortion is a choice and should be allowed at any point until the baby is born. Most people fall somewhere between these two extremes, but still near one end or the other.

What do you think about abortion, and why?

[BillD]

Personally, I think that a fetus is not a living person until it can live outside the womb. Although technology is making this viewpoint alter somewhat since babies which are very premature are now living, it's still the basic yardstick I use. I therefore think that abortion should be legal in all circumstances until the fetus has reached that point. After that point, abortion should still be legal but only used in order to alleviate suffering, either to save the mother or to prevent a severely sick or malformed baby from being born only to die after weeks of suffering. Doctors and the mother should be the ones making this decision, not legislators.

Although I'm a man, I do not think that the man should legally have any say in the decision making process. Instead, the man should only be allowed to advise to whatever degree the woman sees fit. That way, if it is a healthy relationship, the father would be a large part of the decision making process; however, if it is not a healthy relationship then the man would most likely not be the one stuck raising the unwanted child, anyway.

I personally think abortion is an ugly process, to be avoided when at all possible. However, it should be a choice which is available to those who wish to choose it. I donate to Planned Parenthood and NARAL pro-choice America. I flew across country to take part in the March for Women's Lives in 2004. I am very active in defending the right to choose because, although I'm too young to have experienced it myself, my mother has told me of the back alley abortions which occured before Roe v. Wade and I will fight to avoid that sort of thing occurring again in my country.

[Janiece]

What BillD said.

[taustin]

Whether abortion is right or wrong, and whether it should be legal, are not the same question. Usually, they're not even remotely related.

According to the more credible polls, most people think abortion is wrong. And a similiar percentage don't want the government deciding for them. I mean, really, do you want the likes of Ted "Teddy the Red Nosed Senator" Kennedy, or Danial "I have to hate gays because I hate myself" Craig imposing their moral values on you with the force of law?

You didn't think that religious values turned in to law would be based on your religious values, did you?

[Adam Ziegler]

Right or wrong depends greatly on the specific situation, but I think it should be legal. Generally I agree with Bill, but we might differ on some specifics. It's a difficult subject.

[MWT]

There are people in the world who think abortion is okay. There are people in the world who don't. It should not be up to the government to decide whether it is or isn't okay. The government should allow everyone to make that choice for themselves. It should be legal for people to choose to have an abortion, because that way the first group of people can live their lives the way they choose. Having it be legal does not automatically mean that the second group of people must agree that it's okay; they are still perfectly free to not have abortions.

All high-mindedness aside, there is a practical side to the legalities too. Making it illegal does not make it go away. The reason it's good for it to be legal is because otherwise, women are still going to be trying to have abortions, but they'll be doing it with coat hangers in alleys. Legalized abortion means they can do what they want in a safe way.

[Shawn Powers]

I don't mind talking about my views on abortion with intelligent people (like most Whatever* folks). That's simply because most are mature enough to have quite different views on things, and not resort to name calling, etc.

I'm very much against abortion. Perhaps it's based somewhat on religion, but more than that I actually do consider a fetus a person, whole and complete. That's how I view unborn children, so I MUST view abortion as wrong, and I think the legal system should defend those tiny ones.

What my pro-life friends would argue with me about, is when there are 2 lives at stake. (Physically at stake, not "the baby will mess up my life") It gets real messy when you start to weigh which life is more important, because they are both important. I really don't like to make a blanket statement about all possible circumstances, because there are different circumstances in every case. That's why they call them circumstances.

Since I consider an unborn fetus a complete and valuable life, I'm sure everyone can understand why I am against "pro-choice." If you don't see an unborn fetus as a life, then I disagree with you, but I see why you are more apt to go for pro-choice.

To sympathize with my pro-life views, I ask that a pro-choice person consider my attempt to explain the rampant, screaming, foaming at the mouth crowd I've lumped myself in with. Imagine, for a moment, that pro-choice meant it was OK to kill any child that was under 3. If that is what it meant, I'm positive no one would be pro-choice. I can sincerely tell you, that the seemingly insane (I know how some pro-lifers look) among us see a fetus just as alive as that 2 year old child. Again, I know pro-choice folks don't feel that way, but the reason we are so SO SO adamant about being pro-life is that we really do see a fetus as a life just that precious.

Sorry if I spark a deep seated, bitter hatred in anyone. Like I opened with, I normally try to stay out of abortion discussions, but this crowd is generally able to discuss topics like this rationally.

[MWT]

I do see an unborn child as a fully valid life. It's why I couldn't personally ever have any of my own children killed. HOWEVER, I am pro-choice because I recognize that not everyone agrees with this point of view, and they have the right to choose their own way, and their way may be different from mine.

I read recently that traditional Icelandic culture didn't view a newborn as a fully valid life until after it was named. It was up to the father to decide whether to name and raise a new child. If he decided against, well... so, lots of different views and ways in the world. It's not up to me or you or the government to decide which ways are right or wrong. And eliminating the choice only endangers the mothers.

[Shawn Powers]

I do see an unborn child as a fully valid life. It's why I couldn't personally ever have any of my own children killed. HOWEVER, I am pro-choice because I recognize that not everyone agrees with this point of view, and they have the right to choose their own way, and their way may be different from mine.

Wow, I guess I'm just not able to understand your point of view there. To me, I don't think they have that right. Again, to me, it's just like someone killing their 5 year old, because they claim, "it's not a life to me"

Maybe I should have clarified that I think a fetus is a full fledged person, and that person has the same rights as a person with a birth certificate. Again, I can accept our views and understanding is different, but I can't agree with you. In my own perception, it would make me a monster. (I'll reiterate that I'm NOT calling pro-choice folks monsters, but rather if a person felt the way I did, and STILL was pro-choice, that person would be a monster)

[MWT]

You can't force other people to live by your ways. They who want to live by their ways will find a way to do it, legal or not. Someone who wants to get an abortion will find a way to have one regardless of what anyone else thinks about what they're doing. You can't choose that for them. Abortions exist, period, whether you want them to or not.

So the question isn't about morality at all, it's about practicality. Before Roe vs. Wade, they were doing it in highly unsafe ways. Legalization means they can do it under medical supervision. When the real choice is between abortions that endanger the mother, and abortions that will leave the mother able to continue having a healthy life afterward ... I choose to be compassionate toward the mother.

[BillD]

You can't force other people to live by your ways. They who want to live by their ways will find a way to do it, legal or not.

By that logic, lynchings shouldn't have been outlawed since the KKK didn't view blacks as fully human (much like I don't consider a fetus as fully human, although I'd like to think I've got a bit more science and morality on my side... but that's a whole different tangent) and they found a way to do it, legal or not. I'm afraid that, although I agree with you in being pro-choice, I can't wrap my mind around your allowing abortion if you believe it to be extinguishing an innocent human life. Is there any other way you can explain it further, or are you just enough of a cultural relativist that you honestly do think morality is different for each person, a viewpoint which I can respect if not understand? I honestly do want to understand how you came to your position, but I'm just not getting it.

[Shawn Powers]

BillD: Your views are the type I meant in my original post. I disagree with you (very much in fact), but I understand your position. I can tell by your response that you understand mine (although, again, you disagree with it)

MWT: I think I'm just not understanding your angle completely. BillD used a better example with the KKK than I did with the "5 year old child" comparison. I too want to understand better where you're coming from.

[MWT]

Just a quick short note to say that I see the question, I think we're definitely hitting on the crux of the issue (a crux, anyway), and admirably we're doing it without resorting to flame wars ... but I'm going to have to step back and think about how to explain before we continue. But I'll be back.

[jas]

I'm with the pro-choice crowd. I honestly think that any critter short of viable is no different from any other (likely) benign growth, hitching a ride in a woman's body. As such, it should be a woman's right to decide whether or not she let's it continue to sap her personal resources.

For those on the other side of the story: when does life begin, in your opinion? Is it the second that the sperm and egg attach? Is there a certain number of divisions of cells that have to occur? Or does it just have to start to look like a people?

[Shawn Powers]

Honestly, for me, it's when the little clump of cells starts reproducing. ie, right after the sperm and egg meet. Yes, I realize there are many such "clumps" that never make it -- but in my mind that doesn't make it any less real. Again, feel free to disagree. :)

And yes, MWT -- the reason I actually posted in this topic is because I was relatively sure we could all get along. I actually enjoy discussing issues like this when everyone can remain civil and respectful. I look forward to your return.

[jas]

Interesting. So, what's your take on Plan B?

Or contraception in general?

[Adam Ziegler]

Interesting. So, what's your take on Plan B?

Yes, that would be interesting. Also, Shawn, what is your take on in-vitro fertilization or unimplanted but fertilized embryos?

We obviously do not agree, but your willingness to engage the other side rationally and without namecalling is refreshing.

I will concede that if I did view a fetus as an unambiguosly full-fledged person, I'd have to be right there with you. That's really what it comes down to, isn't it? For me, it gets very iffy in the third trimester. I remember singing and talking to my daughter when she was still in the womb around that time, and she seemed responsive. But should it be illegal? I'm not entirely sure. And if so, what is the penalty? It gets very complicated quickly if you aren't rabidly pro or con.

Still think Clinton had it right with "safe, legal and rare."

[Zalandris]

I completely agree with BillD's point of view.

What I consider interesting will be how this debate is going to change in light of the rapid medical technology advances. Already we have cases of children being born 3 months premature and surviving. I can completely forsee a time when they invent the artifical womb. Imagine what the debate will be like then?

On the flip side, I think the only reason abortion is such an issue for us is because we do such a poor job of educating and providing birth control. If we had 100% birth control usage (except for couples actively trying to conceive) then there would be no abortion issue. Abstinence only sex education is a joke.

[Shawn Powers]

My wife and I used condoms when we didn't want kids. Now, after our family is complete, we've both been surgically "fixed"

I'm not sure what Plan B is, but if it's another "morning after" type thing -- then my initial explanation stands. Once Mr. Wiggly gets to home plate (Mr. Wiggly being sperm, not, uh, the other Mr. Wiggly), I consider that life.

I'll be honest, while I truly do consider life at conception -- it gets harder for me to stomach an abortion after the little guy starts to take the shape of an actual little person. I'm not terribly proud of that realization, but I'm trying to be as honest as I can.

Since I'm being honest, something I struggle with as well is quality of life for those yet unborn. Might a young death be better than a horrible life with a parent that doesn't want you? I'll say no, but I'll admit it's a gut wrenching situation.

The folks that bother me are the ones that take a stand so firmly, and so blindly, that they don't admit there are actual rough, miserable, unfair, and extremely difficult issues within issues.

If it sounds like I'm waffling, I certainly don't mean to -- I'm just trying to be as open as possible. Even with my own struggles.

[Shawn Powers]

If we had 100% birth control usage (except for couples actively trying to conceive) then there would be no abortion issue.

And if those couples had to pass some sort of test or something. There are so many horrible, stupid, worthless people having babies. Ugh.

(Can the pro-life guy call someone "worthless"? Sure, because the folks I'm referring to have proven their worthlessness. :)

[Zalandris]

If we had 100% birth control usage (except for couples actively trying to conceive) then there would be no abortion issue.

And if those couples had to pass some sort of test or something. There are so many horrible, stupid, worthless people having babies. Ugh.

(Can the pro-life guy call someone "worthless"? Sure, because the folks I'm referring to have proven their worthlessness. :)

Oh I agree completely. Any trip to Walmart or Applebee's makes me wonder if some of these people really have enough brain cells to remember to breath. The fact that they then go on to reproduce makes me lie awake at night.

[Janiece]

Still think Clinton had it right with "safe, legal and rare."

I agree. While I'm pretty much with BillD on this issue (viability outside the womb is my "yardstick"), I'm honest enough with myself to say that people who are cavelier about it make me uncomfortable. While I don't think a fetus is a "person," they certainly have the potential to be one, and that potential should not be taken away lightly.

[jas]

Hey, an area where we all agree!

Contraception in the drinking water, and a Parent's License much like a Driver's License.

[Shawn Powers]

Also, Shawn, what is your take on in-vitro fertilization or unimplanted but fertilized embryos?

While it may be boring, I'll still refer to my initial take on the matter. I think sperm+egg=life. In a womb, in a dish, on a train, on plane.

The unimplanted, yet fertilized embryos? Yes, I think it's wrong, but again, like I said before -- for reasons I'm ashamed of, I'm not quite as bothered by that. I should be, and again, I'm not proud of it. I definitely don't gain any pro-life street cred by admitting I'm bothered more by "womb removal" than anything else, but hey, I'm only human. :)

[jas]

The unimplanted, yet fertilized embryos? Yes, I think it's wrong, but again, like I said before -- for reasons I'm ashamed of, I'm not quite as bothered by that. I should be, and again, I'm not proud of it. I definitely don't gain any pro-life street cred by admitting I'm bothered more by "womb removal" than anything else, but hey, I'm only human. :)

You should give your compatriots lessons in introspection and respect for open discourse, Shawn. You're definitely one of the good ones.

It's a good thing I came to this discussion now, and now when I was 18. Back then, I believed that life didn't begin at conception so much as at puberty. :)

[Shawn Powers]

You should give your compatriots lessons in introspection and respect for open discourse, Shawn. You're definitely one of the good ones.

I thank you for the compliment. I must admit, the discussion is remaining civil and insightful, and that's largely because there aren't a lot of pro-lifers here. ;o)

I have a ton of respect for intelligent conversation.

[MWT]

I guess we have one standard pro-lifer, and then there's me, who is pro-life while also pro-choice. ;) So... getting back to the question posed to me earlier.

I'm afraid that, although I agree with you in being pro-choice, I can't wrap my mind around your allowing abortion if you believe it to be extinguishing an innocent human life.

My view boils down to:

a) Life is precious. However, each individual living thing is not.
b) Human life is not more precious than other life.

We are all part of the cycle - birth, growth, reproduction, death. Some living things eat other living things to live. Some of them hijack other living things to their own ends (disease-causing microbes). Living things are fighting over resources all the time - plants try to outgrow each other, ants have territorial wars, etc. Humans are part of the cycle too and no different.

So while an unborn child is a fully valid living thing, it isn't inherently precious just by the fact that it's alive. My own children would be precious to me, of course, but I'm not going to argue about the children of everyone else on the planet.

Also, an unborn child is not more precious than a human at another stage of their life cycle. Think of it in terms of war as an example. We send people to war with the understanding that they are going to kill people. We also understand that they might get killed. Why do (conventional, not me) pro-lifers not argue vociferously in preserving their lives (all of them, both sides) as much as the lives of fetuses?

There's one more side to it that, at least to me, is implied by many prolifers. People seem to want to place the emphasis on physical life as the precious part. But life isn't just the physical body. There is also the soul. I believe the soul joins the body at conception. If the body dies, the soul is not destroyed - it just goes elsewhere. So maybe I just don't see it as as much of a loss as some of you do, because the soul has barely begun before the parting, and can begin anew.


As with Shawn, I'm striving for openness and honesty here. This is the first time I've actually tried to explain my views to anyone, as this is the first place where I've felt comfy enough to do it. I'm hoping that I've not just pegged myself as a monster that nobody will ever speak to again...

[Adam Ziegler]

I sometimes wish there were such a thing as a Parent's License, because there are people out there who would be doing everyone a big favor if they got their tubes cut.

But then I ponder who would get to bestow such licenses, and what criteria would they use, and it gets scary pretty fast.

[Shawn Powers]

No, in fact I have a lot of respect for your views, MWT. I didn't understand where you were coming from earlier, but you explained yourself well. I don't agree with you on everything, but I don't think you come off as a monster to anyone.

I have to go to bed, but I just want to say to the whole group, this has been a wonderful discussion. I've seen pro-choice folks admit there are things they're uncomfortable with, and I've also been comfortable sharing some of my non-standard pro-life thoughts. It's amazing what rational conversation can accomplish.

G'night all.

[kiernen]

One more for the Pro-Life team, here. I believe that life starts with conception, just as Shawn does. I still have hang-ups though, because it is much easier to see, care, and want to save a woman with whom you can speak than a child that is still a collection of cells. One of my major problems with abortion though, has very little to do with when the fetus is a 'living being' and more to do with the emotional trauma of abortion on all involved parties. I have several friends and acquaintances who have had abortion. One of them had an especially difficult time coping with the aftermath of her abortion. Her reaction was very similar to Post Traumatic Stress, but no one seemed to think that it was a big deal. Many of the Pro-Choicer's didn't seem to fully understand her grief, and most of the Pro-Lifer's either wouldn't talk to her or seemed to feel that her emotional distress was her punishment. Similar distress (though to a lesser extent) was felt by other women I know who got abortions, and by a guy I know who's girlfriend got an abortion without telling him. The emotional distress seems to me a very very good reason to find other options than abortion, even if you don't believe in life at conception.

Of course, this isn't to say that giving up your child for adoption is less emotional distressing. The one person I know who went with that choice doesn't seem to regret it and doesn't seem to have continuing mental anguish (Of course that happened to her something like 30 years ago and her son has since found her and keeps in contact).

[Zalandris]

Also, an unborn child is not more precious than a human at another stage of their life cycle. Think of it in terms of war as an example. We send people to war with the understanding that they are going to kill people. We also understand that they might get killed. Why do (conventional, not me) pro-lifers not argue vociferously in preserving their lives (all of them, both sides) as much as the lives of fetuses?

I just wanted to second Shawn. You explained yourself very well.

There is a interesting blend of natural selection and spirituality going on in your viewpoint. Similarly, I've always wondered how many pro-lifers could be against abortion as murder but still favor capital punishment. Murder is murder, whether done by a doctor in a abortion clinic or at the behest of the State in the gas chamber, no?

[MWT]

Ah good, I'm not toast. ;) And yeah, my outlook on life is pretty strange, which is why I tend not to talk about it much. Though it looks like people here might be more receptive than average.

To take the discussion on a somewhat related tangent, how do people feel about conjoined twins? Sometimes one has to be sacrificed to save the other, etc. Then there are cases of parasitic twins - where one of them has a complete body but the other one only forms parts of a body (usually either the top half or the bottom half). Especially if it's the top half, are the parasites separate individuals with equal right to life?

[Janiece]

There's one more side to it that, at least to me, is implied by many prolifers. People seem to want to place the emphasis on physical life as the precious part. But life isn't just the physical body. There is also the soul. I believe the soul joins the body at conception. If the body dies, the soul is not destroyed - it just goes elsewhere. So maybe I just don't see it as as much of a loss as some of you do, because the soul has barely begun before the parting, and can begin anew.

I think this statement does a very good job of addressing the "spiritual" aspects of abortion for me. As a Buddhist, I believe a person's consciousness enters their mother's body at the moment of conception - but that if the fetus is destroyed (either through miscarriage or abortion), then the consciousness simply goes back to the Bardo. Since the idea of a "soul" in the sense that monotheists mean it is foreign to Buddhist practice, this may be a disconnect in the way that I look at this versus a monotheist.

Also, I'd like to thank everyone on the board for their civility and willingness to discuss this very emotional topic.

[Lilitu]

I'm so vehemently pro-Choice, I've lost friends over the issue but, Shawn, you've been so damn reasonable I can't even bring myself to dislike you the teeniest bit. In fact, I do believe this feeling is respect and I'm going to have to ask you to stop that because it's making my brain hurt.

More seriously, my stance is only formed partially by my belief about where life begins. "Life" is rather the wrong term, anyway. There's definitely 'life' in late-term fetus, but I don't believe that fetus to have full personhood until after it's born. That said, I don't think it matters whether it's life or not. It's still forming inside a grown woman, who should have the right to decide what lives in her body. We cannot compel living organ donors; we must not compel living incubators.

I've always wondered how many pro-lifers could be against abortion as murder but still favor capital punishment. Murder is murder, whether done by a doctor in a abortion clinic or at the behest of the State in the gas chamber, no?

This actually does make sense to me, though I don't support the position. The explanation I've always heard is that the fetus is an innocent, while the prisoner has done something to deserve his death. You have to already believe that people can deserve to die--and, moreover, that the State is able to make that judgment--but it does have a certain logic to it.

To take the discussion on a somewhat related tangent, how do people feel about conjoined twins? Sometimes one has to be sacrificed to save the other, etc.

Conjoined twins are a different story, having been born and attained personhood. In the situations in which one twin is actually sacrificed (as opposed to simply dying on the operating table due to complications from surgery), I'd imagine that twin is usually not really functional anyway. Especially in the case of parasitic twins, the twin that didn't fully form is usually completely anencephalic. In other cases, I think the benefits of separation surgery outweigh the extreme risks. Though I've no doubt that the parents and--if they're old enough to understand it--the remaining twin suffer terribly when separation goes wrong.

[Tor]

Just to clarify (or remurkify) one issue from upthread. Plan B is commonly understood to NOT be an abortion. But from some quick research, it isn't entirely clear. Plan B's main method of action is to prevent the release of an egg (Mr. Wiggly apparently hangs out waiting for Ms. Eggly, and not the other way around - Mr. Wiggly can last 5 days, Ms. Eggly - 12 to 24 hours). So if Plan B prevents the release of an egg, the two never meet - not abortion, but contraception. BUT it is apparently unclear whether Plan B can ALSO prevent the fertilization of the egg (still contraception, I think, but Mr. Wiggly and Ms. Eggly have at least met), or prevent the conjoined Mr. Wiggly and Ms. Eggly from implanting itself in the uterine wall. Whether this is abortion or not depends on when you believe conception occurs. If it occurs when the egg implants itself in the uterine wall, it is contraception. Some medical authorities believe this. If you believe that it is when Mr. Wiggly and Ms. Eggly first meet (but do all Mr. Wigglys get to the center of the Ms. Eggly? I dunno), then it is abortion. Either way, the faster you take Plan B, the chances of it being abortion decrease. The odds of the third option happening are supposedly very low.

More information is available here.

In other news, I just wanted to thank Shawn for a very well written explanation of his beliefs. They aren't my beliefs, but I do respect and appreciate the way you've explained them.

I believe that life is kind of a continuum - kind of a Schroedinger's Cat in the womb. Before conception - no life. At conception, the possibility of life, but not the same as a full living breathing baby. And everything else is relative. If I were forced to make a choice, I would choose the life inherent in a newly conceived egg over the life of my dog, but not the life of my wife. Which is to say, it has significant value to me, but isn't the same as newborn baby. And it occurs to me that the continuum switches after birth. I would value the life of either my 2 or 4 year old as much more valuable than my own, and would sacrifice it in a second if it would save their own life.

[JustAnotherJohn]

I used to be vehemently pro-choice. I'm pretty much pro-individual freedom on most issues, I think.

But since the birth of my daughter, since I reached down and helped pull her out, since that moment that I saw her blinking up at me, awake and alive and attentive, my vaunted ideals have crashed into a wall of pure emotion that I can't dismiss.

I guess what it comes down to is that I still believe in the right to choose, but would never ever choose such a thing myself, and can't imagine anyone else doing so, except in extreme cases (child of rape, mortal danger to the mother, etc).

[mjr]

I'm another Pro-choice mainly because otherwise you're forcing the woman into an unwilling indenture. I might change my position if there were artificial wombs but...

We cannot compel living organ donors; we must not compel living incubators.

One of my major problems with abortion though, has very little to do with when the fetus is a 'living being' and more to do with the emotional trauma of abortion on all involved parties....

Agreed, abortion can cause a lot of trauma and probably the majority of women will second guess their decision. Also, it appalls me that some people see it as an acceptable substitute for prevention. However, women will feel free to say they regret having an abortion but what woman would dare say she regretted not having an abortion? Such a comment just is not acceptable to most of society. And yet I know, having worked crisis lines before, that there are women who feel that way and they struggle daily with just as much guilt, anger and resentment as women who regret having had abortions.

When the decision is so conflicted and personal I just don't see that the government has a right to legislate the issue.

And shoot, I think I sound a little pedantic there but my lunch breaks over.

[mensley]

To sidestep the issue, is there any research about fetal transplants?

Has there been any work done about taking the fetus from a woman who does not wish to bear a child, and then transplanting it into the womb of a woman who cannot conceive or who just wishes to bear such a fetus?

I know that this wouldn't be possible in almost every case, what with tissue compatability and all, but the idea has always fascinated me.

That said, I think that the solution for society in a legal sense has to be one of practicality. If the fetus can at all survive, then it should be considered a citizen and be regarded full rights thereof. If not, then it should be considered to be a part of the mother's body and she should be able to control what happens to it.

This has nothing to do with morality (which I'm unsure about), but is just a statement of legal practicality. If someone can be born, then they are a citizen.

It would be nice to develop the technology to either transplant unwanted fetuses or gestate them in an artificial womb, but we're not there yet.

I do not believe that a woman should be forced to carry a child against her will under any circumstances.

[MWT]

I guess what it comes down to is that I still believe in the right to choose, but would never ever choose such a thing myself...

That's basically my take on it, except I arrived from the direction of vehement pro-life. Vaunted ideals are fun, huh.

...and can't imagine anyone else doing so.

And yet there are people who find themselves stuck with making the least bad choice among a gamut of bad choices. Until you've walked in their shoes, you may not be able to imagine it but such situations do exist.

[Zalandris]

I saw this article titled "The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion" a while back and found it to be sad if fascinating reading.

http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html

What kind of mental loops a woman has to twist themselves into to go from the picket lines, to getting an abortion, to back to the picket lines amazes me.

Likewise, if you haven't seen this video yet it's pretty interesting stuff. A guy goes around interviewing abortion protestors and asking them, "If abortion was made illegal, what penalty should women face if they still get one?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk6t_tdOkwo

It becomes rapidly evident that most of them had not thought the issue through that far.