I felt a "need" to have an abortion because I did not then and still don't believe in embryonic personhood and I did not want to be pregnant or give birth. No amount of "support" from the "spiritual" types on the "left" or "right" would have changed that. As I ponder the fact that if I had given birth I would be a really rich Mill Valley wife with a handsome hubby right now, (as opposed to a lower middle class working woman), I still do not regret my decision to not bear a child for myself or any other rich white couple that I could have "arranged a lucrative adoption" with, if I really wanted some "support".

Wallis has so much in common with James Dobson. Kindly old "well meaning" father figure wannabe that he is. He just can't help it if he thinks he knows more than he does and views himself as far more important that he is. Some guys are just wired that way. They often refer to themselves "spiritual leaders". Buyer beware!

Although I bristle at anyone suggesting that I may not really know what I need, I disagree with the assertion in a previous post that Wallis is in the same ballpark as James Dobson. Dobson is a hard-core idealogue who makes an enormous amount of money for his hard-line stances through his books, etc. I believe that there are a lot of Wallises out there, who may be capable of honest dialogue and possibly of change.

We do need a real National dialogue about this issue, and we would do well to be more observant and inclusive of all the gradations of pro-choice that are out there. I fear that taking a hard-line "either you're with us or against us" attitude only gets people to shut up, not reflect and reconsider.

There are many out there, and I know a number personally, that feel that abortion is wrong for ethical or moral or religious reasons, but still feel it is not in the government's sphere to decide for any woman whether she should have an abortion or make another choice.

I visited the Holocaust Museum this past weekend and read the text at every exhibit. Besides feeling outraged and profoundly saddened by what I saw, I came away with a renewed repugnance for any government exerting its will on and silencing any group.

It is not so simple as the hard-line stances on either side of the argument would have us believe. Adoption is, of course, a wonderful choice, but it is definitely not the whole answer. There are thousands of kids already in the system who need adoption, will most likely never be adopted, and it is a lengthy, very expensive process. I know this personally: because of fertitlity issues and my advancing age,we adopted our two kids when they were babies; we cut our spending, second-mortgaged and raided insurance policies to pay for them. We would not be able to afford an adoption at all at today's prices. It is also a very wrenching decision for a mother to place her child for adoption. I am endlessly grateful to the birthmothers of our two kids.

Besides my personal experiences, I was a social worker for nearly 20 years, and my clients taught me many things.

I have a special disgust for anyone who denies a woman the right to emergency contraception or a later abortion if she has been raped. I have personally known women who were forced to carry these pregnancies to term and to raise the children that resulted. One in particular stands out: a beautiful, bright woman who was raped at thirteen. She tried desperately to love her daughter, who resembled her rapist physically and intellectually, and certainly did her honest best in trying to raise her. But she and therefore her daughter were caught in a cycle of grinding poverty. The daughter became delinquent, and the mother became a grandmother at age 27. The mother should have finished school, certainly could have gone to college. Instead, she did menial jobs on the side to supplement her meager welfare checks.

I have also seen firsthand the dynamics of incestuous families. Forcing a pregnancy is a ruthless show of power on the perpetrator's part. Anybody who rhapsodizes about the sanctity of the family in making decisions for their minor daughters is thinking about some other family, some cozy TV show group, not these.

Girls in these situations need a real source of support in deliberating whatever choice they need to make. They do not need hard-liners on either side proseletyzing for the superiority of their own world views.

It really is our own bodies, and it is really scary for the government to tell us what we may do with them. It is imperative to understand the range of viewpoints that are out there. That means that we need to listen to a lot of shades of pro-choice.

Greetings,

You had to seriously tarnish an intelligently written article with your claim that Miss Palin did not intend her pregnancy. If your goal is intelligence, and it certainly seems that you want it to be, than do not present your private speculation as objective fact.
Timothy+

Why does talk of reducing abortion mean we treat women as second class citizens? Where do you garner this amazing confidence that every woman will make good moral decisions in her reproductive life and shouldn't be questioned? Aren't some women, like men, bad or possibly evil? Even a tiny few?

I think most people want to reduce abortion because it is a bad thing. According to most polls a clear majority of Americans (%73 in the 2006 Pew Poll) believe abortion is nearly always or sometimes morally wrong.

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

My question to you: "Is there anything at all bad about killing fetuses and embryos?" "Do they have any value?" If you are afraid to consider the idea of reducing the abortion rate because it could compromise your pro-choice position let me offer an example as maybe some genuine common ground.

In Judith Jarvis Thompson's famous defense of abortion she likened unintended pregnancy to having your kidney's being hooked up to a violinist without your consent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion

One may have a right to not be a "Good Samaritan" and unplug oneself from the violinist, thus killing him. Some women may have no qualms about unplugging themselves, while others may be saddened or seriously grieve killing this violinist they could not care for, even if they had a legal right to unplug themselves (just like women who regret having an abortion).

Surely we could agree for the violinist's sake and the women's sakes that reducing the number of instances where violinists are killed (abortions) would be a good thing.
You may retort that we should prevent women from being hooked up to these violinists in the first place (i.e. prevent unintended pregnancy), I agree, and comprehensive sex-education is a good start for that.

But I suspect one reason many people want to prevent unintended pregnancy is because 1 out of 3 (not sure of the stat) of these pregnancies ends with the intentional death of a fetus or embryo, which many people with good reason find to be, well, bad. Why else would people describe abortion as a "difficult" or "tragic" choice?

Of course if you think human life before birth has no value than my points are moot. But if you do think that, I think you are a little detached from the rest of us.