I am 79 yrs old and never in my life time, have I heard one woman flaunt having an abortion. On the contrary, they did not want to discuss it much. Now, I am a woman’s, woman...they sure have reported being raped in many numbers!

@Freedompath You should see some in the Pro-Abortion marches with shirts on saying they are proud to have an abortion. I know this is the minority but there are some out there.

What, how many women have you met that are "proud and flaunting" this? I have never in my life met one. If you have red it somewhere than I doubt that it is correct.

@abyers1970 that is not flaunting abortion...a person with a sign has taken a stand and is supporting others who have the same need! A women should have dominion over her own body, period! And, until a man has been pregnant, he should stay in his lane!

Why isn't there a pro-abortion group?

I must disagree on ‘both sides...extremist,’...being a rape victim myself, in a supposedly civilized society, which cannot be compared to rape in war...which goes beyond my comprehension! ALL, need comprehensive mental and physical attention...denigrating a woman at the core of her nature, is no simply thing!

@Freedompath Consider being more generous with things appearing to be 'beyond your comprehension'. For you, understandably, this very broad issue is viewed through the personal prism of having been victimized and damaged. Though valid, the frame of reference isn't sufficiently broad enough to include other equally valid concerns for women and, incidentally, the other even more damaged half of humanity that happens to be dominating and poisoning every society on the planet.

To paraphrase another slogan.. Women's lives matter alright, but all lives matter no less and no more. We can have a system that protects privacy and bodily sovereignty for all, not exclusively women and NOT dominated by males. Unfortunately, neither you nor I will still be around to see it.

I also disagree. A woman having an ability to control her body is not an extreme side (except for many males). No entity is human until it can survive on it's own. Until then it is a collection of cells with a potential direction. Aspects that are continually missed are what chances does this new life have for a successful life? Is this a wanted or loved child? What does this child's birth mean for the parents future? And the most important one of all, will this addition to an already heavily overpopulated species add or subtract to the continued evolution of all life (not just human). The answer to that last one is it will only contribute to the continued eradication of species, natural resources, wars (possibly even nuclear), starvation, pandemics, suffering, increase of the negative effects of Climate Change and perhaps (for the benefit of the planet) our own demise. Lastly, no male should have an opinion on a women's right over her own body. We have had that so far and look how we have abused that.

@JackPedigo 'A woman having an ability to control her body', I agree is certainly not extreme. That, however, isn't what the 'pro-choice' extremists are about. It is only thier propaganda, just like the disingenuous position of so-called 'pro-life' hypocrites claiming reverence for human life.

A woman's right tomake decisions regarding her body is the smoke screen and false billing. What is extreme isn't the phony 'wordsmanship' used by both sides, but their respective blindness to anything that doesn't comport with their dictated narrative; their hallucinating about motives and positions unstated that they conjure when a word or two expressed about the issue by an 'outsider' triggers them to spew the mush they are spoon-fed by trusted, pathogenic leaders.

Solutions are so far beyond your anecdotal and hypothetical examples and those of the "pro-life" automata as well, that there is little hope for the future. That is a tragedy for all families, women and men. Sorry, I can't give ya that ol' time relijun on either "side".

@Silver1wun you had too much intellectual jargon for me too follow....we are addressing ‘rape of women,’ here...violence bestowed upon her because of her vagina! Sure all humans should be treated with dignity, at least respect for being human. Rape...is specific, and sure it can happen to men, and that too deserves the same attention!

@Freedompath Sorry Freedompath, please reread the post. It is broader (as I've already pointed out) than your frame of reference. It includes it but is not LIMITED to it or by it. FOR YOU, it is about 'rape of women'. You are free to make it about that limited dimension if you choose. I understand in more ways than you are probably aware, just why.

Though I sympathize, sympathy isn't a reason to allow you to limit the scope as your personal grandstand. That my 'jargon' is too much for you to follow is obvious but even that doesn't license you to dictate to me the scope of this conversation nor the issue itself.

@Silver1wun you should be a woman...I think as a man you may have a blind spot where we are concerned.

@Silver1wun Since there are only conjectures and no real examples I can't go along. I once took a position toward pro-life but later learned that this position was extremely one-sided and wrong. I left the church and got involved in the environmental movement and my eyes were opened. I admitted I was only seeing one side. Since joining this group and having such discussions I have learned things about a long term relationship and my late-partner I didn't know. One partner was alcoholic and it was in her family. She did not want to have a child for fear of her passing on to another what she had to endure. I am sure she would have gotten an abortion if she had ever gotten pregnant. My late partner had 2 abortions. I asked her about this and got an inconclusive answer. Now I understand her husband forced himself on her throughout their marriage.

The big problem is that things often get to such a point that only be going to another extreme can people finally wake up to what is going on. It wasn't until the OJ Simpson case that people woke up to domestic violence and, yes, it did get to an extreme. I got caught up in that extreme and suffered a false accusation which was, after a lot of work, eventually thrown out. We need to start paying attention to problems before they escalate. Right now the problem of pedophile clergy (not just priests) shows how that still doesn't seem to work.

@Silver1wun I re-read the post, and I must report that in my mind I mixed this post in with the UN resolution on Violence against women, that I had just read. But I will say, in my 79 yrs, the extremist are on the anti- abortion side...blowing up clinics and killing doctors! I call that extreme, ON ONE SIDE!

@Silver1wun on my ‘personal grandstand,’ what does that mean? You are on your personal grandstand here...why is mine ‘less,’ in the big picture, than yours?

@Freedompath There is no reason for me to be a woman in order to apply reasoning to anything. As a matter of fact, like all males, I've been female but not for very long. By limiting I mean not allowing you or anyone else to define my positions on things based on group-think triggering and gross assumptions. I'm definitely NOT a member of either group. I do, however, support positions taken by both groups, depending on the question at hand. This is called independent reasoning and thinking. Group identity clouds it at best and completely neutralizes it a worst.

When agreeing with the pro-life herd, as often as not, it is for reasons that differ with their group reason. The same can be said of sharing a position with the pro-choice mob. What is darkly humorous is how members of both group identities automatically equate agreement with membership and/or shared motives; in likewise fashion disagreement causes automatic judgment that one belongs to 'that insideous other group'. When I disagree it is also more times than not, for different reasons than those with whom the disagreement is shared. But reasons aligned or not,don't really matter as long as they originate with the individual creating the thought process that so often places them in odious company.

Freedompath, yours is less because you make it less; not I. We agree that things like violence against women and children, including rape are a very important aspect of the overall issue. That a woman (all people to me) should control her body and have it protected by law, we also agree on. In other areas I'm CERTAIN that we strongly align in our points of view. That does NOT make me a member of your 'ism' or group. Call it outsider support because I can't tolerate either recipe cooked-up and spoon fed by corrupt, inhumane,politically motivated leaderships of both camps.

New thought has never been controlled by emotion nor born of it; only motivated and fueled by it. How one feels, on the carousel will never cause the riders of it to get anywhere. They must first recognize that they are going in a perpetual circle and admit that the ride is taking them nowhere: like the definition of stupidity: doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different outcome. I call it, not stupidity but abdication of faculties in exchange for comforting ignorance.

Potential child is just a figment of imagination.

@Jolanta It is linguistic and scientific fact. It is a state of existence between infancy and adulthood. There are acknowledged differences among different groups and differing legal authorities about when exactly it begins and ends. 'In utero' existence is considered by some extremists to be part of childhood and argued by other extremists as pre-childhood. I happen, as usual, to agree with one group on the designation that it is pre-childhood. An unborn is only potentially a child until it actually becomes a child. Physiologically, even after partum, a newborn is still gestating. The difference is only environmental and geographic. Legally, it is quite another disputed issue.

I want to thank you, Freedompath and Jack for presenting your parts of this discussion so well. You clearly demonstrate precisely what I've been talking about. Though a foil is seldom moved to change their thinking, especially when it is static, y'all benefit those reading our exchanges with your examples. Some of them will cheer-on one 'side' or other and some will find our exchanges illucidating and THEY will be moved to re-think and expand.

@Jolanta This statement applies to all who subscribe to thought recipes contrived and issued by others, yet represented by consumers as 'native product'.

@Silver1wun sorry you are making no sense to me...you are trying to straddle the fence so you don’t need to take sides. And you can stay there, but as a women all my life and studied men and their operating skills or not...you still cannot speak for a woman or women...the same as I would not try and speak for a man, other than for the same human emotions that we each have. Just my two cents here, but you speak like a person that has read a lot about the abortion issues, but have little if any personal experience that you can bring to the table. I believe that is the reason I cannot connect to your train of thought...some key element is missing for me. I am no expert but I have lots of personal experience about female issues and abortion. People tell me their stories...and I educate myself on all human issues, ‘cause that is just what I have always done. I just know for certain...there are NOT extremes on both sides. I myself have never been extreme in any way, I take each incident individually and find out all the details that I can...even when other people have passed on by, I will still be taking in everything around me! That does not make be better or smarter, but I assure you, I will see things that others missed! And I believe something is missing from your response to me. What I do not know?

@Silver1wun I did have one thought on why I am not connecting in ‘your ball park’...you are coming from a position of authority...without the AUTHORITY...in your response I expect some Scientific data, along with all your certainty. So I am left feeling empty from something that should be most important!

@Freedompath You and I are a bit advanced in ages to make broad, judgments about what is in the hearts and minds of others, save by their actions over time in differing circumstances and 'community' identity if they claim loyalty to one or some. What we're presenting here are points of view. Mine was expressed about the 'abortion issue' in the popular sense and what drones on about it in common public discourse.

We are not obliged to substantiate our opinioins with what others might consider science or Biblical or other so-called authoritative sources. (Read the meme above) Taking strongly supportive position of advocacy on a question is hardly what can be called 'straddling the fence'. I take strong positions based on personal, NOT GROUP, pedgree, authority for the reasoning behind them.

IWhen a law applies to all and not some; when it makes no prejudicial exceptions or exemptions before applicationit can effect optimal 'justice' and protections. In an egalitarian, self-governing, secular society with laws protecting everyone's natural and civil rights, there should be no need of distinction between which category of person deserves preference.

The so-called abottion tug of war has nothing to do with dedication to choice or life. That is window dressing. Inside the store is where the political and ideological war is prosecuted. It is a war, like most, of conquest and power, with many deluded soldiers. As rape is an important part of the abortion issue, abortion is an important part of the greater issue, filled with evern more emotion.

Question: When, under what circumstances and how does homicide become an acceptable solution to a perceived challenge to livelihood and/or survival? That question transcends all of the related issues. Secondly, once it is agreed that homicide IS acceptable depending on circumstances, WHO gets to determine the criteria socially, morally and most important, legally? Both alleged sides of the smaller abortion question AGREE that circumstances arise variously wherein homicide is acceptable.

Both sides also differ greatly within their agreement on the criteria. The, constantly evolving body of local and Federal laws over my lifetime disclose this war if one perceives them functionally. Abortion is merely part the larger question of bodily sovereignty vs. the common interests of society at large, in which we all possess a vital stake. 'Captial Punishment, Abortion, War, Assassinations, Self-Defense, Defending another who's life you believe to be in immanent jeopardy, Infanticide after partum, Mercy Ending of Life are all forms of homicide. Murder, as emotionally as it is thrown about, is homicide. As an act of homicide that is must also be unlawful.

You want science? How about fundamental biology? A zygote posessing 46 chromosomes, demonstrating the life process is a living specimen of our human species at the earliest stage. To terminate it by any means is homicide. I see no conflict between that biological fact and my support of any woman as a 100% sovereign of her body at all times.. Pregnancy termination happens both spontaneously and intentionally; her business. Is that position /straddling'?

We qualify as citizens of this society, by law, two ways. 1. Being born of American parent/s 2. Via naturalization. LIke it or not. Argue we may. Those are the only way the state has provided to become a 'person'. The process of birth/ introduction ends the pregnancy as partum certified as 'live'. That's it. It is a process over which society, therefore has some degree of purview, however minor.

Birth isn't an end of gestation but merely a continuation of it. It just happens to be where the law has drawn a sort of 'infranational ' port of entry. So, before some arbitrary stage of internal gestation what is mis-titled abortion is more accurately induced birth; that because the separation doesn't necessarily result in homicide. Being 'born alive' by Constitutional definition is the starting point of being a citizen and member of society.

Just as strongly as I argue in support of ANY person's bodily sovereignty and right to live, I also strongly assert that termination of a pregnancy when life outside is viable with normal incubation and nourishment is reasonably eligible for a measure of social and legal purview. It's the process, not the woman/parents. This is also not fence sitting and is only one facet of the complex of related conflicts.

@Silver1wun I am sorry, I cannot understand this ‘double speak’...and I do not speak FOR others and I am not able to understand your position! What it seems to me is ...you are attempting to solve the ‘worlds problems,’ and the focus here was on abortion, about which you have never had one! Right off the bat... you are taking both sides...second... you didn’t approve of the ‘group think,’ and finally, the individuals themselves were the problem! ....Sir find your own level...i ain’t it!

@Freedompath We certainly agree on those points Freedompath. I knew you'd eventually 'come around'.

The point is that people who use their grey matter as individuals will find themselves on both sides at different times because recipes are personal but just as valid as ordering from the menu.

@Silver1wun I can’t find a way, using the information that you presented...! Why are you still trying to get ‘one up?’

@Silver1wun I think you should write a book on this subject, not sure whether anybody but you would understand it fully though.

@Jolanta Thank you. It is a rather lonely place to be most of the time. Wouldn't trade it for membership identity with 'isms' for anything. Also, often feels like the saying 'what has been seen (understood) cannot be unseen'.

The religious element, must have been promoting that idea, because that is what one of my daughters tried to sell to me! I had never heard that in all of my years in religion. The far-right, don’t have a problem bending the truth, in order for things to go their way!

The problem is that many people do not understand the difference and think that PP is just an abortion clinic.

@itsmedammit The problem is that too many people think they have a right to interfere with their opinions, as ignorant and uninformed as they may be.
It doesn't matter what anyone thinks. It's none of their business.

Only the people who care, will listen...the rest (religious zealots) are ‘stove up in god!’ It has been drummed into them...’it goes against god’s will,’ they care little about the person, who is pregnant!