I think I agree with most of what leofwynne said here about the abortion issue. Probably the only place that I differ is that I believe that the "choice" came and went when a woman (and a man for that matter) chose to have unprotected consensual sex. And as rape victims didn't get a choice, I'm for the standard exclusions of rape, incest, and life of the mother.

"So, McCorvey has become a born-again Christian?" -- Taffy

There seems to be an implied cause and effect conclusion you are drawing here. Are you attempting to imply that only born-again Christians (something I'm not) can change their moral compass? Can you image the stress of being known as "Roe" and all that came from it if you'd had a change of heart? Surely the desire to fix one's mistakes is not something reserved to the Christians?

"I'm not trying to imply that only born-again Christians can change their moral compass, no. But you didn't answer my question. Your McCorvey quote implied that she had changed her moral compass. I was wondering whether she had experienced religious conversion." -- Taffy

I see. Again I don't understand the relevance of her changed opinion to any religious conversion. Does faith or lack of faith in a God somehow advance or discredit her position? As you once pointed out quite elegantly, "morality is not the sole providence of those who believe in a God." (not a direct quote but close).

"Interesting paradox here in reading all these comments that you posted from women that lived thru the angst of abortion. I understand the grief and pain that can come with an abortion, and therefore personally, I know that it isn't a choice that I would feel comfortable with if it was my body or even my baby, if I had to make it today. But I have to wonder where the conservative principle of Personal Responsibility is in all these comments. Some of these claims seem factual, but some seem to be blaming a wide array of personal problems at the feet of some one else. In this case, the system that allowed them to have abortions. Am I misreading this? You seem to be posting the same sorts of testimonials that liberal�s use, and that consequently, drive me away from their platforms and politics." -- BdeB

As to this above observation I would first point out that the testimonials were both part of the article and part of the "case." As to whether or not there is a shirking of personal responsibility, I did catch that they were blaming others. I thought I read testimonials of women who are drawing a "cause and effect" relationship between a personal "choice" they made in their past and the negative things that followed. When you say "I was wrong and here is why" you are not only taking personal responsibility, you are proffering yourself up as an example to others of what could happen to them if they made the same "choice." I once heard abortion referred to as "the rape you chose to participate in." Not sure I agree or disagree with the statement as I have never been raped nor had an abortion but I think I can understand the sentiment. Regardless, it is a painful experience I'm sure most women would rather not have to choose.

Remember too that if the Roe vs Wade protect goes away it just puts the "choice" back into the hands of the various states. I'm not so stupid to believe that each state will immediately move to outlaw all abortions. It is too engrained in our culture to be thrown out like that. Sure, one or two of the more conservative states will enact legislation but it won't be so unless the people want it. The people will have the say and isn't that what we are talking about?

"I think both sides of the pro-choice/pro-life debate can agree that abortion is a sub-optimal way of assuring that no woman has an unwanted pregnancy. Significant education on birth control and access to birth control is a far better solution. The problem is that many of the conservative christian types who are pro-life are also against any sex ed in the schools that is not purely focused on abstinence, or ready access to birth control, despite the fact that most researchers agree that programs like that DO reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, particularly amongst teenagers. Until all women have ready access to and the education to use the tools that would give them full reproductive control over their bodies, abortion needs to be retained as an option." -- Lucia

The body of evidence you are speaking of proves this to not be true. I beg you to read Dr. Thomas Sowell's "The Vision of the Anointed." You don't even have to get past the 1st chapter ("The Pattern") before the whole sex education argument is completely debunked. During the 1960's, educators, Planned Parenthood, etc. urged the introduction of sex education into the schools, to reduce venereal diseases and unwed pregnancies in high school girls. This was over course during a period in which fertility rates among teenage girls had been declining since 1957, gonorrhea declining since 1950s, and syphilis infection in 1960 was half of what it had been in 1950. Back then, when critics said that sex education would lead to more venereal disease and unwed pregnancies among teenage girls, similar arguments as you made today where made then. In 1964, the OEO's budget for sex education increased five-fold with an additional five-fold during the period of 1968-1978. The result was that the national downward trends in teenage pregnancy and venereal diseases reversed. Birth rates among unmarried teenaged girls rose 29% between 1970-1984 even while abortions DOUBLED during the same period. Rates of teenage gonorrhea tripled! All this let Sargent Shirver, former head of the OEO to testify before a congressional committee in 1978 the "Just as venereal disease has skyrocketed 350% in the last 15 years when we have had more clinics, more pills, and more sex education than ever in history, teen-age pregnancy has risen." Maybe we are looking for a cause and affect relationship between sex-education and unintended pregnancy when none really exists.

"This is not a "state's rights" issue -- where the right at issue is one that applies to all americans through the Constitution, it is a federal question." -- Lucia

Again, I disagree. You were a lawyer so you know that each state has it's own set of laws to govern its citizens. Originally based on English Common Law, each state has set of statued that the do's and don't and the associated penalties for violations of the laws. For the federal government to step in to overturn state laws, it must first show that the law violates an individual's contitutional rights. If there is no conflict, there is no jurisdiction. In Roe vs Wade, the Courts set limits on the states as to how restrictive states could be. Currently, Congress is setting limits on the mothers/doctors as to what type of procedures they can use. Personally, I think neither is appropriate at that level of government. It is not a "commerce" issue, it is not a "civil rights" issue (by legal definition), and it is not a protected liberty. That power belongs at the state level. I could go on but let me leave it there for now...