Don't let Saletan fool you, folks--he's a pro-lifer through and through. What he conveniently leaves out of the abortion debate is the unfortunate fact that women don't get pregnant all by their lonesome selves, so calling it a "lady parts" problem leaves out half of the equation. The reason women *must* be allowed to choose abortion is precisely because the person donating the other half of the requisite gametes *cannot* be compelled to carry the child to term if the woman is unwilling or unable and is in no way obligated to bear any of the burdens. Saletan says he "writes about the value of unborn life because that's the problem my fellow pro-choicers don't like to talk about," but that's simply untrue and highly insulting to those of us in the movement. I don't know a single pro-choicer who isn't acutely aware of the value of unborn life and hasn't struggled with how to reconcile the rights of the woman vs. the unborn. The realization they generally come around to is that yes, unborn life has value, but it's potential life, and the needs of potential life are outweighed by those of the life that's already here and born. Unless and until men can become pregnant, they really shouldn't have a whole lot to say on the subject, IMO.

"Lady parts" wasn't his term, it was one his critics used. It wasn't some effort on Saletan's part to hide the role of men in conception.

As for him being "pro-choice"- he wants abortion to be legal! I'm not going to embrace him as a fellow pro-lifer. He thinks unborn life has some value, but - in my view - not nearly enough. But I have to give him credit for at least talking about these issues in an interesting and thoughtful way. He looks at both the ethical and scientific dimensions of the isssue. Can you point me to other pro-choice commentators who do a better job of that and who frequently do write about the value of unborn human life, and explain why I should read them insted?

It seems to me that most writing related to the abortion issue is simply political, so most the pro-choice stuff focuses on women and most pro-life stuff focuses on the unborn. At least Saletan tries to write about both - or rather (because I think his claim of respect for unborn life is exaggerated) the complexities of the issues involved.

I do give Saletan props for writing about the complexities, but what raises my ire is his assumption that other people don't and wouldn't consider those complexities without being prodded by him. I just find it arrogant and elitist. What he's really saying (though of course not in so many words), is "Women who abort think they're just having a clump of cells removed! It's up to me to inform them of the moral complexities! Because it's not possible for women to feel conflicted enough about doing it--I must make it worse for them!"

I don't think Saletan's target audience is that group of women already pregnant and considering abortion. I think it's the larger audience of men and women who are in the mindset of reckless copulation - meaning copulation without birth contol - as well as the audience of people who might influence public policy about contraception availability and education.

It may not be true that pro-choicers don't like to talk about the moral complexities, but it is, in my experience, true that most of my fellow pro-choicers don't like to talk about the absolute stupidity that results in unwanted pregnancy in the first place.

Sure, men should not have an opinion regarding abortion. It is just not about men not being able to decide whether a woman must carry to term, which men should not have an actual say in, but now it goes to men not even being able to have opinions because they cannot become pregnant. That is a rather extreme view. I suppose that no one who is unable to actually experience something should be permitted to talk about it. You have better arguments to use than that. You are hurting your position with such statements.

Being that if said child is carried to term, and the man may have to pay child support for the woman's decision to carry to term, I do think men can and should have opinions on abortion - a woman's right to choose does have an effect on him.

I am pro-life - I hate the idea of abortion and I believe it is inherently wrong- but I have to acknowledge the fact of it. regardless of its legality, women will choose to terminate pregnancies for a multitude of reasons, and have done for centuries, if not millenia. I can't say with confidence that I'd want abortion to be illegal, but I can say with absolute certainty, I don't think they should be easy to obtain. I have to agree with more pro-choice people that contraception is the answer. an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure is the old saying.

No one said men can't have an opinion. Their opinion simply doesn't carry as much weight as the woman's is all.

Look, if a man and a woman disagree, you'd say the woman's opinion trumps because it's her body. If the man always loses when he and the woman disagree, then his opinion is worth nothing. No way around that.

I don't know a single pro-choicer who isn't acutely aware of the value of unborn life and hasn't struggled with how to reconcile the rights of the woman vs. the unborn. The realization they generally come around to is that yes, unborn life has value, but it's potential life, and the needs of potential life are outweighed by those of the life that's already here and born.

How many pro-choicers do you know? I've not managed to witness many abortion debates without hearing a pro-choicer say something along the lines of "It's just a clump of cells," or "It has no rights." Your statement here is either a fabrication or you only know a very few pro-choice people.

And frankly, your entire post is just blindly written garbage. What makes a person pro-choice is his or her support of legal abortion. Saletan believes in legal abortion despite his moral qualms, and he is in good company here. That doesn't make us "pro-life," and this isn't some us versus them game where you can draw lines between authentic pro-choicers and heretics.

For 7 years I lived around the corner from a Planned Parenthood clinic and couldn't go out for a quart of milk on a Saturday morning without the fetus fetishists screaming at me not to kill my baby, so I started volunteering to escort women into the clinic. Yes, I know more than a few pro-choice people, and they are as I described. Saletan may say he "believes in legal abortion despite his moral qualms," but that's only because we live in a constitutional democracy and he knows he's in the minority when it comes to an outright ban. But his every piece of writing on the subject drips with his (negative) opinion of those who choose the repulsive thing he dares not ban.

You say Mr. Saletan has a negative opinion of those who choose abortion. I disagree, from his writings I would say he has a negative opinion of abortion itself. Yet he still advocates that it should be kept legal. That is the essence of being pro-choice.

But how can you separate the woman from the abortion? It's something that takes place within her own body, for crying out loud. The negative view of abortion of necessity extends to the woman doing it. I on the other hand don't have a negative view of abortion. I consider it one of those sad facts of life like death and taxes. We're supposed to enjoy sex--the existence of the orgasm proves it--and it's just not enjoyable to always have to think about precautions each and every time, so there will always be "accidents." Suck it up, Saletan. Personally, I wouldn't have it otherwise. And in the whole vast configuration of things, abortion can often be the lesser of many evils. How does it benefit society to have people having children under duress?

Saletan's view of abortion is openly and avowedly negative. He even says that in his article.

The very act of framing abortion as a "moral issue" is inherently an anti-choice approach. Why? Because it blithely asserts the implication that women chosing abortion are making a morally debatable choice. And a "morally debatable" choice is simply another way of saying "morally questionable" which itself is a euphemism for a "morally dubious" or "choice of dubious morality".

This sort of denigration of the morality of others is exactly what has historically been part and parcel of an effort to strip individuals of their rights and to empower The Government to regulate them.

That is the essence of being anti-choice.

Once again I have to disagree with you Degsme. To say or feel abortion is morally questionable is not anti-choice, it is anti-abortion. Al Gore said a simular thing in the 2000 campaign. Pro-choice means what it says. Mr. Saletan doesn't have to like or support the choice others make to be Pro-choice. He just has to support their right to make it. Government has no right to legislate morality.

I used to buy the "pro-choice, anti-abortion" rhetorical stance. From a political perspective its what any centrist politician has to do. But just like the Intelligent Design movement actually cedes the discussion to the realm of science because of its attempt to use scientific method, so too arguing that "we should reduce the need for abortions" cedes the debate to those who make women seeking abortions be deemed as "inferior" if only on a moral level.

And frankly I don't see any reason for why a woman's morality should be questioned simply because she seeks an abortion.

add to that the very Calvinistic penchant (and Calvinism is the core mythos of the USA) for seeing the morally inferior as perfectly acceptable subjects for worldly punishment (Scarlet Letter anyone?) and it strikes me that ceding the "morality" to that of the anti-choice group is not only a mistake, but itself immoral.

Unlike Gore, Saletan has no public office to run for. He has no need to "appease the independents", no need to "avoid alienating minority preachers". He is solely beholden to his own beliefs. And if those beliefs say that it is less moral past a certain point to get an abortion, then he has just begun castigating women as morally inferior beings. Beings who's morality is so dubious it cannot be relied on

And THAT is a very very very familiar highway