The use of euphemisms to soften one’s political message became a fine art during the regime of George W. Bush.  But it hardly began there.  As someone pointed out, “pro-life” illogically extrapolates backward to everyone who isn’t being pro-death.  The “pro-abortion” folks aren’t much more honest: they use the slogan “pro-choice,” which extrapolates backward to everyone who isn’t being narrow-minded, bigoted, misogynistic, and downright dreadfully dull.  Which of course they are.

How could there be any compromise on this? How DOES one compromise on it?

If you don’t approve of abortion, don’t have one (or better yet, do!)

The measures Obama talked about taking like sex ed and helping mothers have always been liberal issues so I’m not sure why E.J. thinks he’s going to have to compromise w/ conservatives to live up to his words. 

Also E.J. uses the inaccurate frame of “pro-life” for anti-choicers, which automatically places pro-choicers in the anti-life or pro-death corner.  The question is whether or not a woman should have the right to make her own choices regarding her pregnancy.  One camp is against it, anti-choice, and one camp is for it, pro-choice. 

Also, life does not begin and end with our species, pro-life makes these people sound like they give a rat’s behind about life in general, and in most cases these anti-choicers are completely anthropocentric.

Mr. Dionne’s idea has to be one of the worst suggestions to a president-elect in a long time.

who hasn’t made their mind up about abortion, one way or the other?  who’s mind could be changed by changing the federal executive branch approach, which ever direction it went?

There is no middle ground on abortion.  Along with “gay marriage” (as opposed to gay civil unions) one is hard-pressed to find an issue sure to be divisive.

I respectfully suggest that Mr Obama focus on ending the US part of the war in Iraq,  on stabilizing the US financial system, and on rekindling job growth in the United States.  Those are universally-shared desires, regardless of political perspective.  And if he has any success, he will be a shoo-in for a second term.

Mr. Dionne is simply and very wrong in his thinking.

I think EJ is right but a bit naive. Bill Clinton prevented more abortions than any of the “holy-holy” types.  But it was by means they don’t support.

I think of abortion the way I think of leg amputation. Nobody wants it, and anything you can do to prevent its necessity is a Good Thing.  But when you have to do it, you have to do it.

The first, best way to prevent abortions is for girls and women to not get pregnant.  That means birth control.  “Abstinence Only” programs don’t work.  Sure, abstinence works, but only if it’s practiced with 100% compliance.  99.9% doesn’t work. Just ask Sarah Palin’s pregnant teen, who’s now going to have to marry the thug who knocked her up. So The Pill, IUDs, and condoms are the next line of defense (because vasectomies for all pubescent teens and men under 35 isn’t too practical….).

But it’s at that next line of defense that the “Pro-Life” movement shows its hypocrisy.  They aren’t “Pro-Life” but anti-sex.  Because EVERYTHING but abstinence means people (and especially THEIR daughters) are having sex, sex outside marriage and sex inside marriage just for fun.  It has long been a tenet of the Catholic Church and many of the Protestant churches that sex is only and solely for procreation.  You’re not supposed to have fun or even enjoy it.

About a decade ago or more the Catholic Church relented and allowed that it was OK for a married couple having sex to actually enjoy it, even beyond their Christian duty to procreate (but they couldn’t practice birth control).  wow. radical.

But IF the “Right to Life” movement is serious that its goal is to prevent pregnant women from having abortions, they must acknowledge that NOT getting pregnant is the first, best way to do that.  They must also acknowledge that without birth control, girls and women ARE going to get pregnant, that abstinence only works if you are abstinent.

Finally, all sides need to work together to make adoption easier, both international and transracial.  These anti-gay marriage initiatives are a step in the wrong direction.  The goal should be to place children in SAFE homes where they will be loved, no matter if the parents are married-straight, married-gay, single, rich, poor, whatever.  SAFE HOMES!

I’m an adoptive father. We adopted our younger one, and he’s from Central America.  The barriers are incredible.  His birth country has just shut down international adoptions because of pressure from UNICEF and the US.

But as long as both sides stand on ceremony, EJ’s solution won’t happen.

Mr. Dionne, just exactly what do you mean by:
“Obama added: “Nobody’s pro-abortion.” Once he assumes office, Obama might be tempted to forget that moment, issue the pro-choice executive orders that the abortion rights movement expects…”

Just WHAT “pro-choice executive orders” are you talking about?  I’m serious.  WHAT orders? 

Simply because Barack Obama said “Nobody’s pro-abortion,” does not mean he was negating being Pro-Choice and 100% so.  To be Pro-Choice does not mean you are “Pro-Abortion.”  If you are not Anti-War does that mean you are Pro-Killing?  We sometimes have to make difficult choices because our lives are complicated and accidents happen.  But we have to have all the options available in order to have maximum choice.
 
Your article is also very telling in terms of your own prejudices.  In referring to the Anti-Choice forces as “Pro-Life” do you ever question why are they not also Anti-War or Anti-Capital Punishment, or, for that matter, vegetarians.  They are NOT Pro-Life.  That is their self-righteous rip off of a moral high ground that is false.  They are Anti-woman and Anti-Choice and mostly oriented toward controlling the lives of women by keeping them pregnant and homebound.  The women who maintain that position are just well-programmed and slavishly obedient to the Patriarchal hegemony.

I’m with FlamingLib on this one—the twain cannot meet.  You are either 100% Pro-Choice or you are Anti-woman/Anti-Choice (same thing).  There is no compromise.  The so-called “Partial Birth Abortion” line is ta lie.  Late term abortions are never ever done in legitimate medical facilities for no good medical reason.  Almost always late-term pregnancy terminations are wanted children, but there are such horrible complications that the life of the mother is at stake, or the fetus is dead or dying. 

Obama has made himself clear.  He will appoint justices who reflect his values.  He is Pro-Choice.
If he does not do this in his first term (should the opportunity arise) he will not get a second term.

Many different groups can claim they “elected” him, but without women behind him, it won’t happen again.

I am sorry Mr. Dionne, but as Jake said to Lady Bret at the end of *The Sun Also Rises,* “Wouldn’t it be pretty to think so?”  Look, choice is choice and ban is ban and never the twain shall meet.  Do you really think a person like John McCain, who has probably sired a child or two out of wedlock (they don’t call them “flyboys” for nothing, you know), couldn’t care less whether a woman aborts.  He only went far right to woo the “base,” which means ban-absolutists, the people who think abortion is bad in any trimester, bad even in cases of rape and incest, and bad even if the mother dies having a child.  These people aren’t subject to being reasonable; they turn a deaf ear to compromise.

The best thing Obama can do is put pro-choice people on the Supreme Court.  At least that will halt the further erosion of our Constitutional rights and make sure that the Catholics like Scalia won’t be joined by any new crypto-fascists on the bench, having already mesmerized his yes-men Alito and Thomas.  And while we’re at it, the latter, a womanizing, sexist, porno-addicted “justice,” is a disgrace to our judicial system. But hypocrisy being what it is, you can bet your ass he would have paid for Anita Hill’s D&C;had she’d given in to his advances and “put out” for him.

All we need is one more GOP fanatic on the Supreme Court. McCain would have had to appoint one just as payback for the theocratic right’s support of his election.  In our rush to be bipartisan, let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

In the not too distant future, the human population of the earth will balloon to unmanageable proportions, which will simultaneously shrink to extinction (now happening at alarming rates)  the populations of all other species because of intrusion into their habitats and global climate change.  It will not be long, according to scientists.

I appreciate the arguments for educating people and providing safe contraception as well as support for uncoupled women who choose to have the baby, but can’t afford to support it.  That is the largest need for women who want to have a child whether or not they are in a committed relationship.  Without financial support, the choice needs to be there to terminate a pregnancy that would result in another child in poverty or abused because of the level of frustration and distress involved with raising it.

However, the United States must also take the lead and support wherever,whenever and with abundant generosity the control of populations all over the planet.  We must have a government, unlike the most recent idiots all the way back to Reagan, that understands our role in educating, providing birth control methods and services, and helping in all ways those countries who have none. 

In order to do this, the people of the United States of America must NEVER again elect Repugnican Regimes who refuse to give government aid to other countries unless there are conditions that the funds not to be used in any way to provide birth control services, as the Bushits did. 

This is so stupid, there just aren’t words.

In order to do this, we must also clearly separate Church and State.  Religion, church-related moral imperatives and definitions, or any other religious dogma, including “when does life actually begin” must be removed from and kept out of civil law when it means restrictions on a woman’s right to choose when, if, and whether she wishes to have a baby, as well as with regard to important scientific research involving stem cells.

As women, we should also rethink the whole issue of whether or not we really want children in our lives, rather than unconsciously carrying out an expected social role.  The Capitalist Materialist Corporate Military State wants those outside of The Ruling Class to have children, so our kids can fight their wars for oil and territory and power.  The media, including the entertainment part of it (TV sitcoms, etc.) just feed the romantic notion of family incessantly. 

Most families are unhappy.  More than 50% of marriages end in at least one divorce.  Women often privately admit they wish they had never taken on the burden of child-rearing at the expense of their own lives, careers, creativity, peace of mind, health, wealth, and happiness.

And, of course, I totally honor those who are drawn, for sane and healthy reasons, to be parents, especially those dedicated to producing good citizens and happy individuals.  In my opinion, parenting is the hardest job on the planet, when done with consciousness and a truly kind heart.

However, one does not have to reproduce to be fulfilled.  In addition to Choice regarding our bodies (which must remain legal), The Women’s Movement of the 60s and ongoing, helped open up other opportunities for a woman to have a fulfilling life.

Women need to rethink this issue DEEPLY. 

This planet will not survive the current rate of population growth.  Abortion must remain an option and even possibly be made a “sacrament,” which Gloria Steinem said years ago it would be if men became pregnant.  Call it a “sacred decision” if you wish, but let’s de-stimatize it in honor of The Earth, The Mother of Us All, who needs our help, or we won’t have her to kick around anymore.

I can’t see any common ground between those who think abortion is the business of the state because it’s murder, and those who think what happens in one’s body is absolutely not the business of the state.  They reflect two different concepts of the social order: totalitarian theocratic absolutism on the one hand and liberalism, with personal rights and limited state power, on the other.

Reducing the number of abortions, while it is desirable from a public-health point of view, does nothing to smooth over the conflict between the anti-abortion and pro-choice points of view.

If something is made illegal, people find ways to get/do it. Drugs are illegal and we still have a drug problem in this country. Murder is illegal but people still kill each other. Alcohol was illegal which created a lucrative business for bootleggers.

On abortion, we can only hope that the numbers decrease and procedures are safe. Legal or not, it will still happen… people find ways. And it’s such a personal issue that I do not want the government telling me what to do with my body.

This has been Nothing more than a Political tool to shanghia elections.
Any one who is Pro Choice KNOWS non of Us are Pro abortion..But the right wingers have won off that falsehood for decades now.
And those who truely wnat to reduce the necessity for abortions has KNOWN lack of prevention and education has only proliferated the problem.
These are not divideds among the people, it’s the issue most cherished by those who want to divert attention away for their own criminal activities.
How can you be ‘Pro Life’ and Support War? How can you be for Womens health and not realize it is a decision that should be done Early to assure the Life and health of the Woman? Procrastination is not an viable excuse , as neither is Ignorance and Prayer a solution.women who drag their feet or use this method of birth control as their preferred method are as guilty of derailing personal choice as those who refuse preventive birth control and reproductive education….Frankly Bloods on ALL your hands!
I’m disgusted by ‘abstinence only’  education( ignorance the cause of unwanted prenancies) and I am Just as disgusted with supporting woman who just can’t make up their mind until they are coming close to giving birth- If it is a Viable Fetus, it is Murder.
So ladies if you want to stop being treated like children, then stop acting like children. Take responsiblity for you own education and prevention; teach your daughters too and have a pre game plan if a pregnancy should occur, esp with disabilities.
I’m 45 I have been down this road, I made a decision I had already contemplated. At this age I still have a game plan - I’ve made my decision should the Unexpected happen. Take some Damn Personal Responsiblity and stop acting like you are victims of the evil male religious dogma! You ARE NOT!
The way this issue has been presented is exactly the way Ceasar Milan talks about dogs..“they only live in the present’ ...No Ladies we are perfectly capable of thinking into the future and considering all possiblities and their solutions…We are Not Dumb bitches victims of Unforeseen circumstances! And make you Damn Partner do the Same, You are allowing them to get off with ‘in the moment ’ ignorant bliss!Personal respsonsiblity , foresight and planning will reduce Abortions!