No; however, if your perception is that all forms of intercourse are a form of rape, then prseenting “willingness” as an arguement that it is not rape will not suffice. Does that make it rape? It would depend on the circumstances of course; if we are talking about two legally consenting adults (using those words to avoid drunkeness, being drugged, being by reason of insanity etc. etc. unable to actually give consent) I would have to say no it isn’t. That doesn’t change the mind of someone who believes rape means penetration of a woman by a man under any circumstances. Similarly, if one were to say that it is impossible to rape a woman will also not be persuaded by any arguments suggesting it wasn’t consensual. So what is the solution?

The middle ground is where I head; but my middle is someone else’s right (far right) another’s left, and we still leave people dissatified. Perhaps that is what happens. We will always need to keep arguing abortion till somehow it is decided absolutely by some factor or other, if we want to keep it legal at least in some instances.

Comparitively, abortions are down right clean.

If it was murder, I’d be in jail as a self-confessed person whom has terminated a pregnancy, and well, I’m not, and there hasn’t been any attempt to prosecute me as so.

Abortion ! = murder. Period. No matter how hard moralists attempt to make the argument, it just isn’t so.

For another example, I think attempting to force a woman to do something with her body that she is not willing to is rape. Does that make anti-choice people rapists, just because I said so?

And I agree that is the problem. However, the reason the problem exists and I’m not certain there is a solution, is because one group feels abortion is murder. They cannot simply allow murder to continue. It is easier for me to debate this issue and allow people their say,because while I think many abortions are immoral, I do not think they are murder. But if one thinks that abortion is murder, if one thinks that contraceptives are murder, then there is no more talking. The “other side” cannot sit back and allow a discussion to go on but must work tirelessly against laws which allow, what they feel is murder to continue.

It is like two people debating whether a garment is aquamarine or plain green; one can take it to a vote, but that doesn’t alter anyone’s vision.

“If you really wanted this procedure to be nonexistent, you wouldn’t force poor women to save hundreds of dollars to have an earlier abortion performed.”?

Although, with all due respect, the alternative is to force people who think abortion is murder to support it through their tax dollars. Not really a pro-choice position.

I’ll rephrase: If a pro-lifer wants to force a woman to choose between a late-term abortion and no abortion at all, they can’t complain when she chooses a late-term abortion, or act as though women in general or pro-choicers in general support or prefer late-term abortions.

Although, with all due respect, the alternative is to force people who think abortion is murder to support it through their tax dollars. Not really a pro-choice position.

Granted, people already are forced to support things they find immoral through their tax dollars, but in most of those cases the people advocating government expenditures aren’t calling themselves “pro-choice.”

Virtually all aboriton procedures can be described in ways that make them sound gross. However, I don’t think we should base our laws on what sounds gross or not.

Especially since, I’m guessing, Will doesn’t want any abortions legal, at any point in the pregnancy.

Let me ask you this Ampersand; Do you seriously consider that you can deliver a baby entirely except for the head, puncture the skull, suck the brains out and consider that right and just?

You’re kidding, right? This is how most pro-choicers make omelettes. Because if liberals hate anything, it’s the unborn.

I love pro-lifer reversals. Almost all late-term abortions are performed for the sake of the health of the mother; in many states–like mine–they’re illegal otherwise. If, for example, you detect anencephaly after the second trimester, you get to deliver the baby. There are exceptions, but they are extremely rare. If you really wanted this procedure to be nonexistent, you wouldn’t force poor women to save hundreds of dollars to have an earlier abortion performed. Do you think a woman would dither for five or six months over an unwanted pregnancy if there weren’t other considerations?

And if you care about keeping fetal brains intact, what’s your excuse for voting for the Mercury President?

Let me ask you this Ampersand; Do you seriously consider that you can deliver a baby entirely except for the head, puncture the skull, suck the brains out and consider that right and just? Oh yes, I am being very closed minded in not mentioning that this is only one of the ways that this is praticed. The others might not be as sick and disgusting…

Virtually all aboriton procedures can be described in ways that make them sound gross. However, I don’t think we should base our laws on what sounds gross or not.

Regardless of if D&X abortions (which is what you’re describing here) are “right and just,” I think that’s a decision better left to individual women than to Big Brother Government. So to some extent, I think your question is irrelevent.

However, yes, I think that D&X abortions can certainly be “right and just.” For some examples, read these two earlier posts I wrote: why D&X abortions are medically necessary and some real women who have needed d&x abortions.

The problem, Rachel, is that this issue is not about people agreeing to disagree, but instead people attempting to force agreement or compliance of their beliefs on others personal life-altering decisions. Nobody is forcing anyone who objects to terminating pregnancies to do so, unfortunately the same can’t be said with regards to those attempting to force their beliefs with regards to people objecting to deciding to terminate a pregnancy.

As for rape victims….pregnancy and childbirth will make everything all better for her, won’t it?

I think most pro-lifers know it would cause the mother a great deal of pain, but believe the life of the baby outweighs that pain, and if one believes a conception is equivalent to a child, then it doesn’t matter what the stage of life is. I don’t agree that life begins at conception, but I think one has to understand how the “other side” views things, and not to simply tag them with a deragatory label. If one believes it is murder it is murder, and would I really want someone to say; “Okay, its murder. But that’s alright. I’ll let it pass.” ?

There might not be a solution to this and many other debates. I don’t know; I think we have reached the point where many of us are secure in whatever belief-niche we are in, and can no longer regard the multiple views of the issue as having moral standing. “I disagree but accept that you have a right to your beliefs”.

Let me ask you this Ampersand; Do you seriously consider that you can deliver a baby entirely except for the head, puncture the skull, suck the brains out and consider that right and just? Oh yes, I am being very closed minded in not mentioning that this is only one of the ways that this is praticed. The others might not be as sick and disgusting…

That’s because they are babies, geniuses…

I don’t see the need for rude sarcasm, or for insulting other people’s intellgence.

Might it also help to put this into a larger context of censorship and hindrance of healthcare providers? Stem cells, Planned Parenthood’s other services, defunding of support services for the sick?