I'm putting this here because I am bound to be modded to oblivion on Slashdot...I was responding to an off-topic post with an even more off-topic one. I need to say this, though. I need to speak my peace. The post is about that sure conversation stopper and fight-starter: abortion.

If you get right down to it, the anti-choice are less about "saving the children" and more about controlling the lives and choices of women. A barefoot-and-pregnant woman having babies every 9 months is also likely to be tied down to home and hearth, with none of the "uppity" ambitions that give these (mostly) men fits. She's also likely to die young, too.

A century ago, women like Margaret Sanger took up the cause of birth control because of the plight of the wife-as-baby-factory. Yes, she also had weird ideas about eugenics, but aside from those (which were common in her era) her arguments about the necessity of birth control are still valid.

In societies where safe and effective birth control is available and women are able to plan their families, women and children lead better lives. All religions except the Catholic Church and a small subset of Orthodox Judaism accept birth control now.

The thing that the anti-choice need to support is artificial womb research. If they want to end abortions, they should support research into making them obsolete. Instead of "killing" a fetus, you simply transfer it out of the womb and into the artificial womb until it comes to term. Then when the child is born, you find willing families to adopt.

Oh, silly me. Lots of kids are waiting for adoptive homes...where are the anti-choicers when the time comes to adopt? They're not there? What happened to "adoption, not abortion?" It went the same place as caring for the "poor unborn children" when they get born.