Precisely because there are women who wish to remain childfree--that's one big reason why it is so important to make every possible form of contraception available, and to conduct scientific research aimed at reducing/eliminating of contraceptive failure.

As for women who become biological parents unintentionally and do not want to be mothers--being a biological parent does not dictate that one must be the child's *social* parent.  There are an array of open adoption options--some within-family, some not.  And these need to be expanded. Adoption is never easy for anyone involved. But at least it does not take the child's life.  And open adoption resolves many of the atrocities imposed on women through the old system of closed adoption.

As for women who would have abortions despite being surrounded by ideal circumstances and resources...our society is nowhere near that utopia, even for women who are relatively privileged.  The situational pressures to have an abortion are still fierce against women from all walks of life. 

I do *not, not, not* think a woman has to reproduce to be fulfilled or anything like that.  In fact I deeply resent that attitude, for one, because I have had people look askance at me for having "only" one child and choosing not to have more.  Like I said before, I have been blessed to have women in my life, of different sexual orientations, who did not have children and lived amazingly fruitful lives. 

 I am simply questioning prenatal lifetaking as a means to that quite valid end of choosing to be childfree.  There are other and better means to that end, and women have every right to them.

Nonviolent Choice Directory, http://www.nonviolentchoice.blogspot.com

.it depends on the pill and what it is for.

to prevent an unintended pregnancy, like oral contraceptives or EC?  there is no violence involved if it is a voluntary action.

to take a prenatal life after its existence can reasonably confirmed, like ru486?  that's a different matter altogether.

Nonviolent Choice Directory, http://www.nonviolentchoice.blogspot.com

Sayna, I am not speaking from on high and dictating What Every Woman Should Want.  I have lived through my own and my daughter's stories of unplanned pregnancy and borne witness to the stories of many, many women.  And what I hear is this, from women with a wide range of views on the politics and ethics of abortion itself:  A lot of women have abortions because they feel they have no other choice.  A lot of women who go to term do so because they have the support to do so.

It's not just the stories I've personally heard or lived.  These are quite commonplace themes in women's stories.

In short, "bribery" is not an applicable term.

As for the matter of the law, please see posts further down.

Nonviolent Choice Directory, http://www.nonviolentchoice.blogspot.com

I think you are mistaking me for someone else....

I decidedly do *not* believe a woman is simply a flowerpot into which a man plants a seed and a baby grows all by itself.  In fact, I have vigorously challenged such attitudes among rightwing antiabortionists for many years, and have have researched and published writings about the historical underpinnings of such attitudes, in the hopes of dismantling them.

A man contributes one small cell and a woman contributes one very much larger cell, then the woman's own body actively nourishes and builds the new body of the child for nine months, and her own body directly does for a time beyond if she breastfeeds.  And even if she does not breastfeed, after birth she can nurture that child through parenting, or making arrangements for guardianship, relative adoption, or open adoption with nonrelatives (though all humans are relatives if we could trace our family trees far back enough), for example. 

Unfortunately, and with tragic but largely preventable results, in the US the responsibility for nurturing the child, before, during, and after birth, is dumped so immensely and entirely upon the mother. When so much of it could be eased, so much if the burden could be lifted if only, in the collective sense, enough of us gave a damn.

I never said the fetus was "community property" or the woman just an inert, insensate community property container.  Human relationships aren't--or shouldn't--be about whose property is whose. 

 This isn't just a pie in the sky fantasy; my family has ancestors who were "owned" by other human beings and so I feel an immense responsibility to practically, concretely advocate for models of human relationships that break out of that paradigm into a new one of radical equality.

Both a woman and a fetus are profoundly interconnected at the same time that they are their own beings with their own bodies and life trajectories.  Profoundly connected to one another, and to other human beings, regardless of whether the connections are neglected or disrespected or rendered invisible at any point by anyone. 

I find in the down-to-Earth, practical philosophies called "ahimsa" and "ubuntu" expressions of what I am trying to communicate, better than any I could come up with myself. 

Nonviolent Choice Directory, http://www.nonviolentchoice.blogspot.com

It could be that I am not expressing myself clearly enough.

And/or:

It could be that I am coming from the sort of place that both "sides" in the abortion-debate-as-usual does not quite recognize, at least immediately.

In any case, I will try to explain.  This is not an evasion, this is really how I feel, and nothing's hiding up my sleeve.

In the present debate, I neither work for nor against legal restrictions or allowances of abortion per se.  I feel the issue of the law, either way, does not get to the root of the matter, and often the legal debate distracts from deeper questions of why so many women feel abortion is their only or least bad choice, and what can be done to make better alternatives widely available.

My focus is on transforming at every level of society the conditions which cause so many unintended pregnancies and abortions, regardless of whether and to what extent abortion is legal or illegal.  Whatever the law does in regard to abortion itself, abortions will take place on a massive scale if the injustices leading to them--such as lack of contraceptive access, lack of comprehensive sex ed from an early age, poverty, domestic violence, male abdication of responsibility, the legacy of inhumane adoption practices, etc, etc etc--remain in place.

And I want to do this because I feel that in every abortion an irreplaceable life is lost, and so often women have abortions because they are ensnared in conditions of disempowerment.  But no woman should have to face a ruinous life for herself, or for that child after birth, simply because she has gone to term with a pregnancy.

I define myself as prolife because I believe this is precisely what prolifers should be doing, and in concert with prochoicers.  There are people on both "sides" doing this work, despite all the mutual stereotypes to the contrary.

I define myself as prolife because, among other things, I would never get involved in providing abortions or even helping someone to get one.   My own daughter included.  When I found out she was pregnant I immediately accepted both her and my unborn grandchild. 

I would--and I have personally done this many, many times--ask a woman what brings her personally to the place of contemplating an abortion, whether this is the deepest desire of her heart, what she would need to carry out a decision to consider parenting, adoption, or another option like guardianship--and then help her connect with the relevant resources for her situation.  While letting her know, gently, that I would not help with getting an abortion-- I would not-- at all--be sternly moralistic and judgmental towards her.  These situations require sensitivity and compassion for the woman as much as her unborn child.  I have *no* feelings of "You slut!" or worse for women in these situations, whether or not they ultimately have abortions--and in my experience, most do not.

I do see a big problem with Roe v. Wade.  It completely absolves men of sexual and reproductive responsibility and the wider community for its collective responsibilities regarding the creation of substantive alternatives to abortion.  It essentially tells the pregnant woman, "You're all on your own."  When the abovementioned responsibilites should be written right into *any* law permitting or restricting abortion.

It would be better if US abortion law was like that in some European countries, which recognize these responsibilities of men and the wider community towards women and children, even the claims of developing life.  We'd probably have a fraction of the abortion rate we have now--scandalously, for such a rich country, one of the highest around.

That much said, I do not work for or against overturning Roe. Our society has to evolve a great deal beyond its current mass-scale densensitization towards women and children, before it could even contemplate such a European-style scheme...I want to cross that bridge when and if the US ever comes to it.

In the meantime, and maybe even thereafter (it depends on what precisely happens, or doesn't), my energies do *not* go into the legalization/illegalization of abortion. 

Nonviolent Choice Directory, http://www.nonviolentchoice.blogspot.com

What if such a consciousness was applied to getting fetal deaths from abortion as close to zero as possible?

That would be great. Even better if you actually achieve it. That still wouldn't in any way make it okay to remove abortion as a possible option. If one woman comes along, wants an abortion, and refuses all your sincere offers of financial/emotional assistance, adoption arrangements, maternal counseling, or any other kind of support, and then is denied, then guess what---your true colors are no different than those pro-lifers.

Pro-choicers are all about reducing the need for abortions in the ways you support, but the moment legal prohibitions enter the picture, the conversation changes entirely.

What if such a consciousness was applied to getting fetal deaths from abortion as close to zero as possible?

Were that the goal and stated focus I think we would inevitably end up with even higher maternal mortality rates and child poverty rates than we have now.