Rebekka
I think you miss the point my objection to the dehumanizing of an unwanted fetus it is all about Audrey and her pals being self deluded about the difference between humanity and sentience. When faced with any moral dilemma we all seek ways to make the decision more palatable. Why do you think that in war time the propaganda makes the enemy out to be less than human? It is to make it easier to overcome our cultural prohibitions against killing. Thus it is with Pro-abortion advocates by declaring that the fetus is "not human" or "not a person" until Blah point in its development. It is easier to justify killing it. As Audrey and her Ilk are so very keen to do.
And frankly it is not just a question about bodily integrity as you suggested in an earlier post. With the notable exception, of a pregnancy that results from a rape. No woman gets Pregnant with out first deciding to have sex. Pregnancy is the natural consequence of doing that and if no child is desired then stick to abstinence or sexual activity that does not put sperm where it will find the ova, simple really.

Franzy - hi, yes that is also something that could be imagined.
But why stop there? Wouldn't it also be something if a woman could just swallow a pill (or think really really hard and have the right feelings) and WHAMMO instant bun in the oven! Save all that finding a man to have sex with for sperm. Then she really would have complete autonomous control over her reproductivity.

I guess eventually, we industrious humans will find a way to separate the sexual act from reproduction totally so then we'll all be able to run around and have sex with anything and everything we please, wherever and whenever we like, with absolutely no thought in the wind of possible consequences, because there wouldn't be any (besides the occasional pesky STI). O brave new world that would be. I mean we've already done pretty well with all the contraception we have and now with abortion becoming easier and the stigma of it being eradicated by the valiant efforts of the Audrey Apples of the world with their "sexual freedom" war cries. Soon we will have our way i'm sure.
Now wouldn't it be ironic if after all this has been achieved we come to the discovery that the act of sex, once intimately linked with the creation and survival of our species but now just a fun pastime, is no longer that pleasurable?

IAIN, "or sexual activity that does not put sperm where it will find the ova" - you will probably find if you look around that the most adamant of the anti-choice mob obect to a lot of those options as well.

One regular poster objects to gays in part because they waste sperm by putting it where there are no ova (but seems to have not issues with an apparently celebate Jesus or catholic clergy).

I do think that there is value in the point you make about a tendency to try and change the perception of the seriousness of an action to make it more palatable. It is a common habit to pretend that our opponents are villans (or just stupid).

I'm undecided about the humanity of the fetus at an early age, I see truth in both sides of the argument.

I've often been intrigued by a perception that the most adament of the pro-life group are often also pro capital punishment and willing to support non defensive wars whilst the most adament of the pro-choice group are often very anti capital punishment, anti war etc.

R0bert

Donnie – You missed my point (although, it may not have been glaringly obvious): we don’t live in your perfect world where women can’t control their reproductivity or bodies, nor do they live in mine where they do. Well, we’re a bit closer to my utterly bizarre fantasy than to yours.

The mode of argument on this forum is beginning to go around in circles. If someone (usually pro-choice) makes a point then an anti-aborter will leap about chanting something about killing babies and coma patients or pushing the statement to an illogical extreme (what if we lived in a world where you couldn’t abort pregnancies? That would teach people to have sex!). Donnie, how can you want to be taken seriously by suggesting that science is working towards removing sex from the procreative process? What possible furthering of debate could that statement possibly have? And before anyone bothers pointing out my previous statement about women self-aborting, remember that it was to serve as a mirror example of Donnie’s extremism, not as a serious wish.

Iain – You can make all the points you like about the softening of language around abortion to make it easier. But it never never never is easy. Not even the slightest bit. Have you talked to anyone who’s actually had an abortion yet?
You want the language changed so that women realise what they’re doing? Fine. But I can bet you whether you call it an abortion clinic, a baby-abattoir (babattoir?) or Women’s Happiness Centre, women will still go there to get abortions/kill babies/make their lives more convenient. They will still experience the extremes of fear, depression, terror, sadness and relief, whatever you want to call them.
Next you’ll be telling people not to say “My son passed away” but “My son was killed in a blazing inferno”

One more point: “With the notable exception, of a pregnancy that results from a rape.” How about broken condoms? Failed vasectomies? Poor or no sex education? Religious pressure to breed?

Snigger....babbatoir.

I'm glad you're seeing the humour, Audrey!

The only possible answer to Iain's comment about sex = pregnancy, so if we ladies don't want to get pregnant, we shouldn't have sex, is to say that if you men don't want us ladies killing babies for our own convenience, then don't have sex with us.

Other than that, it's up to us, because you're not ever going to be the ones facing an unwanted pregnancy, so quite frankly, you don't get a say - unless we choose to give you one because you're involved in our lives.

So you can go back to your cave, or wherever it is you live, leaving us in charge of our sexual destinies, as thank goodness we are.