<It is interesting that the idea of "pro-choice" seems to be valid only if you are choosing abortion.

Does this phrase come prepackaged in the Conservative Boys' Survival Kit? This is soooo tiresome. You apparently never go to Planned Parenthood, where a full array of choices are available. The reason pro-choice is so proactive on the abortion end of the argument is that no one is organizing protests and PACs against, or shooting at, people who advocate parenthood. If the parents in question are poor, we'll make sure they have to choose between food and day care after the baby is born, but that's another issue. Maybe.

She said: "They explained the procedure and got me to sign some forms. But no one actually sat down and asked me if this was what I really wanted to do." etc. etc.

Gee, that sounds like the treatment I got at the hospital where I was surgically treated for a miscarriage in progress. I was angry as hell. There was no follow-up, and when I asked why, I got defensive stuff from the resident and a half-hour monolog on football from the surgeon.

Let me 'splain something to you, Lucy: termination of a pregnancy, however it happens, presents all kinds of physical problems that, because of hormonal involvement, will destabilize a woman emotionally. Think of it as post-partum depression without the distraction of the baby and without any support or attention whatsoever. Of course she's distraught. That's what happens. When there's no child, no one gives a rat's ass how you feel. The general philosophy is, "Oh, get over it!"

Read carefully: Her real complaint is "was offered no counselling". In other words, Standard Operating Procedure.

I think abortion is wrong and a symptom of a general devaluation of life and family values.

Abortion has been practiced in the West, through the agency of midwives using herbal abortifacients, for at least 3,000 years that we know of. So I guess that, if that's your marker for civilization, the West has been marching steadily downhill for about that long. Which would be, um, since its conception. Conception-- get it?

Granted, the family situation is difficult for another child--might I suggest a vasectomy?

What a splendid suggestion! Why don't you ask him? Do we want to speculate about what his answer might be?

Once again, the woman in the relationship has the responsibility for the size of the family and the emotional and physical burden of the decision.

But couldn't the child have been brought to term and given up for adoption?

First of all, the woman involved is more than a support facility for the womb. Pregnancy, though natural, is a very stressful and far from safe condition. To suggest that a woman remain pregnant against her will because some people find abortion offensive is tantamount to slavery.

Second, you have no idea what you suggest when you suggest giving up a baby for adoption. It's not like giving away a puppy. People believe that the mothers who do this are OK with it. News flash: they mourn.

Third, a full grown chicken has a more highly-developed brain than a fetus in its first trimester.

This kid got the death penalty not to save the mother's life, not because it was irrepairably deformed, but for the crime of being too inconvenient.

The death penalty can only be passed on something that has had a life.

Oh, and who will feed it after it's born and is a real human rather than a barely differentiated collection of cells? Who will care for it? Who will clothe and house it? Does right-to-life extend to a full set of vaccinations and a proper education? No? That's not "inconvenient"; that's "survival". "Inconvenient" is Scarlett O'Hara not wanting to ruin her figure.

Regards--
Mary Anne