Life does not begin at conception

One of the primary claims of the anti-abortion brigade is that “life begins at conception”, and because it is wrong to take a life, therefore it is wrong to abort a fetus (and perhaps wrong even to prevent a zygote from implanting by use of a UTI). However, this claim is not merely wrong, but ludicrously wrong.

Let me make an aside here. If you are of a religious bent, and if you believe in the existance of a soul, and if you believe that this soul is created, implanted, magicked into being, or otherwise attached to a developing human at some particular point in development, then of course that provides a logical point whereafter abortion may be seen as a crime against said soul. I think you are dead wrong about the existance of souls, but granted that premise, this objection to anti-abortionism does not apply to you. To you, all I have to say is this: Remember that your arguments are inherently non-secular and cannot carry force in a secular judicial system; and please remember that your arguments hold no force with those of us who are not religious.

---

With that out of the way, let’s restate the obvoius: Life does not begin at conception. Conception, in us sexually reproducing animals, consists of the fusion of gametes—the sperm fertilises the ovum. But, and this should be painfully obvious to everyone, the gametes are alive. You are the product of a living spermatozoon and a living ovum. Fertilisation did not mark the creation of life, only the fusion of two living cells into a single living cell.

This fusion is certainly a defining moment in your life. Barring mutation so unlikely that I expect it can be discounted, and excepting rare conditions like chimerism and mosaicism, it is the last event that defines your genetic makeup, when the chromosomes you inherit from your parents merge. It is, in a very real sense, a defining moment. It is not, however, the defining moment, because there are many. Even after fusion, not every zygote goes on to successfully implant, and early pregnancies often terminate spontaneously. The biologist Lewis Wolpert famously said that “It is not birth, marriage, or death, but gastrulation which is truly the most important time in your life”.

But before conception, a startling number of things had to happen in order to make you who you are. Before the fertilisation event was to matter at all, the specifics of meiosis in the germ line of each of your parents played as big a role in determining your genetic specifics as did the fertilisation itself: Meiosis, the process where a germ line cell divides into (haploid) gametes with half the chromosomal complement of a normal cell, is when the genetic contribution of each parent is determined. And of course any number of things had to happen very specifically in order to make you who you are, on this basis: Your parents had to have sex at just the right time when the spermatozoon and ovum each carrying half of your genes were alive and active. If they’d waited until next month, things would have been different…

But this is only the beginning (or the end, depending on your view). Those haploid cells, after all, were alive, each of them a living cell from one of your parents, whence they were produced by meiosis from diploid germ line cells. Each of those cells was the unlikely product of very specific meiosis, reproductive timing, and fertilisation by the (most likely four) people who were their parents…and the same goes for all of their parents…and that lineage goes back, centuries, millennia, millions of years, hundreds of millions of years. You are the product of a lineage of living cells that stretches back to the very dawn of sexual reproduction. Looking back further, you’re still the product of living cells, though the processes are different and lateral gene transfer makes the family tree a bit harder to draw…but ultimately, you are the scion of a family of cells—living cell to living cell to living cell—reaching back some 3.6 billion years—3,600,000,000 years—at a ballpark estimate.

That is when life began, and that is, in a sense, when your life began, too: It started then, and it hasn’t died since. Every single intermediary between you and the first primordial, primitive, living cell that serves as ancestor to all life on earth was alive. It started then, and in a sense, you’re just a heavily modified offshoot—3,600,000,000 years down the living line.

I find this an awesome fact to contemplate.

What, then, is so magical about conception? Nothing, really. It’s a defining moment in making you who you are, but it’s really just one of billions upon billions of defining moments. Causing the death of a zygote does exactly as much in preventing a particular potential person from coming about as does causing the death of a spermatozoon (e.g. by masturbating, by ejaculating outside a woman, by using a condom, or by doing nothing and letting the spermatozoon die and get reabsorbed into the body); as does wasting the life of an ovum (by menstruating, in the luteal or ischemic phase). But removing the possibility of a specific human being is even more ubiquitous; after all, every human alive represents millions of potential people lost, as the ones produced by the spermatozoa who lost the race would undoubtedly have been different.

---

My own opinions on abortion are not very well-defined. I am, of course, pro-choice, but since I’ve never been in a position where I’ve had to make a hard choice, I’ve never needed to figure out exactly what I think the hard lines are. What I do think, however, is that it is in no way wrong to destroy human tissue, while it is definitely wrong to destroy a moral human person.

The question, then, is what constitutes moral personhood. I will not pretend to have a clearcut answer. If I had to sit down and develop one, it would combine concepts like having thoughts, dreams, hopes, fears, and desires; taking part in emotional relationships (a reciprocal relationship); interacting (in some way) with people; acting as a moral agent, rather than merely being acted upon as a ‘moral object’.

It seems abundantly clear to me that no lump of human tissue can possibly meet my criteria unless it has a mind, which requires a working brain. After the brain works in some sense, I believe there is a window, a grey area, where I would in all likelihood agree that abortion may very well be morally acceptable—but this is beside the point I wish to make here, which is that until brain activity begins, I regard it as “no context”: Abortion prior to this is absolutely acceptable. (This may be around week 25 or so of a pregnancy; research shows that sustained EEG activity first appears in bursts around week 20, become sustained around week 22, and bilaterally synchronous around weeks 26–27.)

---

Once the position is taken that an early abortion does not, in fact, destroy a moral person, we are back to the notion of destroying “potential” persons. The problem is that we destroy potential persons all the time, no matter what we do. If we have sex, we destroy lots of potential persons (since most of the potential ones will never be, even if we do have children); whenever we don’t have sex even though we could, we are passively murdering potential persons, because we aren’t making children at all.

Modern biotechnology allows us to stretch this argument to a reductio ad absurdum without leaving the realm of the possible. In recent experiments (documented in some very nice articles in Nature), scientists have induced pluripotency in mouse cells and produced viable mice (fully viable, as some of them went on to reproduce). While cloning humans is likely to be much more difficult than cloning mice even on purely technical considerations, and it may well be impossible right now, it seems obvious that the technology is if not in our grasp, then certainly close to it, to produce viable humans from induced pluripotent stem cells. Taking things just a bit further, it may become possible to extract genetic material and inject it into pluripotent cells and so produce clones from any cell with intact genetic material.

Once the technology exists for doing this, the loss of any viable genetic material is, in a sense, the destruction of a potential human life. Scratching your head, cutting your hair or your nails, losing scrapings of epithelial material from your mouth, bleeding…every such act will prevent humans from being who might otherwise have been.

Unless you are willing to condemn this as murder, then any argument that boils down to “You are destroying potential life!” loses all force.

Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act hubbub

I was listening to the local Christian radio station when I heard an announcement about the introduction of a bill called the Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents act. The announcement pointed me to this site, where I found a nearly word-for-word transcript of the radio broadcast. 

“Democrats in the U.S. House have introduced a bill purportedly aimed at reducing abortions, but which would, in fact, increase funding of sex education without a major abstinence component.

You can find the bill here.

Well yes, because comprehensive sex education works to reduce abortions by reducing unwanted pregnancies. I’ve never heard of a sex-education program that did not have a major abstinence component. All of them (and I’ve read the details of about 30 or so sex-education programs) promote abstinence as the only 100% effective method to prevent pregnancy. In Title I, the bill states explicitly that grants will give preference to those that encourage teens to delay sexual activity and provide information about contraceptives but are only available to programs that agree to provide age-appropriate, factually and medically accurate and complete, science-based education. Pardon my sarcasm, but how dare those evil democrats try to propose funding for sex education programs based on *gasp* evidence.

Also, this bill was introduced in 2006, so while reporters seem to imply this bill is new and sudden, it’s not as if it was produced last week.

“The bill, the Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act, also calls for increased access to contraceptives and expanded Medicaid family-planning coverage.

It seems fairly obvious that one would want to increase access to contraceptives. Contraceptives prevent unwanted pregnancies. If you don’t have an unwanted pregnancy, you have a 0% chance of deciding to have an abortion.

"It's about death, and it's about spreading Planned Parenthood's philosophy and getting millions of dollars into their coffers," said Jim Sedlak, vice president of the American Life League.

I fail to see why this bill is all about death, but let’s look through it and see what the bill actually intends to do:

1.    Gives preference to pregnancy prevention programs that are science-based.

2.    Reauthorizes after school learning programs. (to keep those kiddies busy with activities other than bonking)

3.    Gives grants to states that submit a plan to reduce teen pregnancy rates and actually accomplish reducing teen pregnancy rates.

4.    gives a grant to establish a national center to enlist parents in preventing teen pregnancy.

5.    Reverses the decision of the Deficit Reduction Act, which allowed states to avoid Medicaid coverage for family planning services.

6.    Expands family planning services for low-income women to include prenatal, labor, delivery and postpartum care by increasing income ceilings for funding.

7.    Authorizes increased funding to Title X of the “Prevention First Act”.

8.    Authorizes grants which require accurate and complete contraceptive information for teen and new mothers being visited by a nurse home visit program.

9.    If a woman seeks an abortion, the act requires that she receive informed consent, including nonjudgemental and science-based information about adoption or carrying her pregnancy to term.

10.    Provides states with the option to cover pregnant women under Medicaid.

11.    Close gaps in coverage of pregnant women by not allowing insurance companies to count pregnancy as a pre-existing condition.

12.    Grants for ultrasound equipment to offer pregnant women an ultrasound.

13.    provides for treatment and an awareness campaign of women who are pregnant and victims of domestic abuse.

14.    Provides grants to research pregnant students who decide to carry their pregnancies to term and parenting students.

15.    requires that federally-funded group homes for pregnant women provide adoption and parenting skills counseling (on request).

16.    Increases the adoption tax credit and makes it refundable.

17.     Increases support for new parents by providing support through food stamps and nurse home visits.

Saying that this bill is “all about death” is sort of like saying the pro-life movement is “all about owning women”. Your credibility is seriously diminished when you demonize your opponent like this. I would really like to see pro-life advotes use stronger arguments in support of their position.

“Sedlak described the bill as one that helps fund the wish list Planned Parenthood gave the Obama administration in its earliest days.

"And that wish list, if you added everything up, comes out to $4.6 billion going into Planned Parenthood and their friends," he said.

Ziztur said, "if you add up all the grants given out in the Faith-Based initiative, it comes out to $65 Billion. Isn’t the faith-based initiative all about spreading religious philosophy and getting billions of dollars into their coffers?" You could make this argument about any organization that receives any government funding. If the argument can be applied to all, it loses any validity.

"Valerie Huber, executive director of the National Abstinence Education Association, noted the House Energy and Commerce Committee has rejected Title V abstinence-education funds from going to states and replaced it with a $50 million program for teen pregnancy prevention.

Yes, that’s because the abstinence education funds could only go to programs which, among other things, barred teachers from discussing contraception and required them to say that sex within marriage is the expected standard of sexual activity. The title was rejected because the program was not proven to be effective.

"And that ," she noted, "is just code for more contraceptive education, explicit sexual education in the schools across the country."

It’s not a “code”. We want sex education that has evidence of providing reduced pregnancy rates and increased contraceptive use without increasing sex among teens. Comprehensive sex education has been shown to be effective at this. Saying that it is a code implies some sort of deceit. Once again - demonizing your opponent only make you lose credibility.

Sedlak doesn't buy the claim that the bill has support from some pro-lifers. 

"There is no major pro-life organization in this country that would support this kind of a bill," he said, adding that the bill's mention of adoption promotion is simply the other side "throwing us a bone."

“Support from some pro-lifers” is not equivalent to “support by a major pro-life organization”.  The bill is also known as the Ryan/DeLauro bill, named for its sponsors by Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH) a nd Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT). Ryan used to be on the national advisory board of Democrats for Life of America, a pro-life organization. He is a strong pro-life advocate and was booted from his position on the board after sponsoring the bill. Apparently the Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good organization doesn’t count as a pro-life organization because they support funding a common ground.

bone marrow transplant = adult stem cells

Here is another article, courtesy of the Christian Research Institute's Twitter feed. (I am a glutton for punishment)

Scientists at Children’s Hospital in Oakland, California, are discovering a potential cure for leukemia and sickle-cell disease. How? By using blood stem cells from the placentas of women who have had Caesarian deliveries.

But researchers at the hospital are frustrated. State agencies have made multi-million-dollar grants available for embryo-destructive research, but money is scarce for its ethically sound counterpart, adult stem cell research.

Really? Not according to CNN. Please provide evidence that embryonic stem cells are ethically unsound.

In the Contra Costa Times, lead Children’s Hospital researcher Frans Kuypers says, “No one has been cured by an embryonic stem cell. We are able to cure folks with [adult] stem cells.”

Normally I don’t dive into ad hominem attacks, but this is pure insanity and betrays either a misunderstanding of the differences and similarities between adult and embryonic stem cells or a deliberate deception. Allow me, a complete layman when it comes to stem cells, to explain:

There are two classes of stem cells: multipotent and pluripotent. Pluripotent stem cells can give rise to any type of cell in the body except those needed to support and develop a fetus in the womb. Multipotent stem cells can give rise to a limited number of different types of cells.
Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent. Adult stem cells are multipotent. What this means is that while adult stem cell X may only be able to give rise to blood cells, an embryonic stem cell can give rise to blood and any other type of cell.

Adult stem cells have been being used for over four decades to cure disease in the form of bone marrow transplants. So of course people have been cured with adult stem cells. They’ve been researched for far longer than embryonic stem cells.

Embryonic stem cells have vastly more potential than adult-derived stem cells because they are pluripotent. What has been done for adult derived stem cells could potentially be done for embryonic stem cells, but on a much larger scale. Unfortunately, scientists have only been researching embryonic stem cells since 1998, all under heavy legal restrictions. Comparing the gains made by adult stem cells to the gains made by embryonic stem cells is akin to comparing the advanced problem-solving abilities of a two year old to that of a thirty year old.

 So why isn’t adult stem cell research receiving more funding? Josephine Quintavalle, director of Comment on Reproductive Ethics, says “What you get from [the adult stem cell] approach is a patient-specific cure. There's no middleman . . . and there's no drug company that's going to get rich as a result of it.”

Why would a treatment with embryonic stem cells be less “patient-specific” than treatment with adult stem cells? Can the author provide evidence of the lack of funding of adult stem cell research as I have provided evidence showing that adult stem cell research received lots of funding?

If by “middleman” he means the companies who currently own the stem cell lines, then opening up embryonic stem cell research funding would eliminate or reduce this middleman, as those companies who have grandfathered in stem cell lines from before federal funding was banned would no longer be the sole holders of stem cell lines, as other companies could receive funding to develop new lines.

As far as the “get rich” comment… if no one has been cured using embryonic stem cells, how can a company “get rich” from them?

But, she explains, a lot of the pressure for stem-cell research is to find products that they can sell, as opposed to a treatment they can do to cure you.

Evidence please.  So what the author is saying is that embryonic stem cells don’t cure people and aren’t patient-specific, but drug companies think they can get rich off of them by marketing a product that sells rather than cures, due (in part) to this mysterious middleman. Got it. Provide evidence for this assertion.

Quintavalle is just one of many experts from both sides of the debate interviewed in the new documentary, Lines that Divide, produced by the Center for Bioethics and Culture. http://www.cbc-network.org/

Ah ha! Here is one point of this article – buy or see this documentary. I’ve e-mailed them and asked for a review copy.

In the documentary you’ll hear first-hand testimonies from people whose lives have been saved through adult stem cell research. Like Barry Goudy, who suffered with multiple sclerosis. Since undergoing adult stem cell replacement therapy, he’s been free from MS for five years.

“adult stem cell replacement therapy” - AKA a bone marrow transplant – has been conducted in uncontrolled trials for people with MS. No controlled trials have been completed, though there are some underway. Here is how it works: MS is an autoimmune disease in which an individual’s immune system attacks the myelin sheath surrounding their nerves. This causes symptoms as nerves do not function properly when the myelin is destroyed or damaged. Bone marrow is extracted from a participant with MS. The participant’s immune system is destroyed with chemotherapy. Then, the participant’s own bone marrow cells are put back in, effectively letting the participant with MS grow a new immune system. There is no proof that it works.

They reboot your immune system,” he explains. “I live a normal life. I coach hockey, I play racquetball, I golf.” Without the adult stem cell transplant, Goudy would probably be in a wheelchair.

The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data (Thanks quackcast). Also, it really annoys me when writers say things like, “if X did not happen, he’d be in a wheelchair’. Being in a wheelchair is better than being stuck in bed without a wheelchair.

Twenty-two-year-old Corrina Archuleta also shares her dramatic recovery from a flesh-eating auto-immune disorder. Her family was making her funeral arrangements before adult stem cell therapy saved her life.

So… she had a bone marrow transplant? I wonder why the authors don’t mention that bone marrow transplants can cure leukemia and other autoimmune disorders. A blood marrow transplant is a transplant of stem cells. Why don’t the authors of this article or the writers of this documentary call it a “bone marrow transplant”? Most people understand what that is. My guess is that if they stop calling it “bone marrow transplant” and call it “adult stem cell transplants” then they can politicize it.

The film also covers why even traditionally pro-choice advocates are speaking out against embryo-destructive stem cell research. In order to extract enough eggs for embryonic stem cell research, a woman’s ovaries are hyper-stimulated so that she will produce a dozen or more eggs at a time.

But doctors know that ovarian hyper-stimulation syndrome and the drugs themselves have caused blood clotting, stroke, and even death. The former chief medical officer of the FDA warms that potential egg donors “need to be aware that this is not a procedure that is without risk.” Even the risk of death.

Bone marrow transplants are not without risk, either.

The vast majority of embryonic stem cells are leftovers from thousands of unused embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics. A simple solution to this problem might be to limit the ability of women to donate eggs to a stem cell clinic unless they are part of a fertility procedure. This is not an argument against stem cell research but an argument against fertility procedures.

That’s not what you are seeing in the media. What you do see, however, are celebrities and politicians gushing over the potential for embryo-destructive stem cell research. Even while lives are being saved today by adult stem cell therapy.

Well yes, because embryonic stem cell research does have lots of potential, whereas the potential of adult stem cells has been realized (at least in part) for 40+ years.

We need to be informed in order to help shape the public debate-and encourage our leaders to fund proven, morally unproblematic adult stem cell research.

That’s why I urge you to get a hold of the film Lines that Divide.

Wait, what was that about profits? I don't want scientists to research procedures that have already been proven effective. I want research to fund potentially effective treatments using science-based methodology.

Fetal personhood laws

I know that fetal personhood supporters will probably ignore this video, but not only does it provide actual (rather than invented or skewed) reasons why fetal personhood hurts pregnant women, but it also provided enough references that the stories can actually be checked.

pharmacists and birth control

It seems that before Bush leaves office, he is planning to pass the Right of Conscience rule, which will broaden the current rules allowing doctors to refuse to perform abortions to a new rule that permits doctors, nurses, and other health care workers to refuse to participate in any procedure they find morally objectionable, including abortion and possibly artificial insemination and birth control. If this law passes, that means that the government will have the ability to force employers to retain employees, such as pharmacists, for not participating in certain morally-objectionable procedures such as dispensing contraceptives.

Pardon me, but I am going to have to switch into scathing mode for a moment:

< scathing commentary >

You are a pharmacist. Your job is to follow the pharmacological code of ethics and fill people's prescriptions. Your job is not to pass moral judgment on the individual asking you to fill the prescription, or the doctor who prescribed the prescription. I know you want to harp on about how your freedoms are being violated, but they aren't. Consider this, and read it slowly:

My mother takes contraceptives. My father had a vasectomy. My mother is 49 and she has three adult children. My mother takes contraceptives to regulate her hormones. Without these contraceptives, my mother bleeds profusely and is intense pain. These contraceptives are prescribed to her by her doctor to prevent this pain, not to prevent pregnancy.

Because my menstrual periods are quite wacky,  it has been suggested that I take contraceptives to prevent osteoporosis. Other non-birth control reasons might be: PCOS, as hormone therapy for women who have hyperthyroidism or other hormonal disorders, endometriosis, etc.

Even if you are morally opposed to contraceptives, how do you know that your patient is taking said contraceptive pills for birth control, or for some other medical reason? The only way for you to know is to disrespect the autonomy and dignity of your patient. The only way for you to know is if you ask. But it is not your job to pry into the personal lives of women to ask if they are taking birth control because they have cancer, or if they are taking birth control because they have sex.It is also not your job to undermine the doctor-patient relationship.

Your job is to be a pharmacist. That means you do your job. Your job is to fill prescriptions. your job is not to decide if a prescription prescribed by a doctor is appropriate for your patient - that has already been decided for you. If you find part of your job morally or religiously questionable, find a new job.

< / scathing commentary >

It's simple. Should a meatpacking company be forced by the govornment to retain an employee who refuses to work because he morall opposes the killing of animals? Should Planned Parenthood be forced by the govornment to retain an employee who opposes abortion and so refuses to give any information about abortion out over the phone?

Should doctors be allowed to refuse to perform abortions? I think so, actually. A doctor who opposes abortion would be rightfully performing surgery outside of his scope of practice - he would not be the best individual for the job. If a doctor knows another doctor would be better suited to provide care for his patient, he is obligated to refer his patient to someone else. I don't know of any doctors who were forced to perform abortions or any other surgical procedure they did not feel qualified to do. But should an abortion clinic be forced by the govornment to retain a doctor who was hired to perform abortions but now refuses? No.

Abortion and informed consent

A friend of mine runs a blog called Pro-Life Voice, where Flimsy and I have been debating for weeks on issues of abortion. weeks. We've got practically a novel written in the comments section of his blog. Our debates have gotten me to research both positions and have shed some light on some common assertions.

It is often asserted by some people who want to abolish abortion that Pro-Choice activists don't actually care about the rights of women. One of the (many) reasons they justify this assertion is by pointing out the fact that said activists have opposed legislative acts such as the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act.

The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act would have mandated by law that physician's performing abortion read a Congressionally scripted statement about fetal pain and give out a pamphlet giving out information regarding fetal pain. The act was opposed by the House in 2005.

The problem with mandating all physicians performing abortions to read a Congressionally scripted statement and give out a specific pamphlet of information regarding fetal pain under the duress of losing their licenses is that scientists, researchers and physicians does not agree on when, where and how fetal pain occurs. Scientists do not determine scientific facts by Congressional vote or any other type of vote. Scientists determine scientific facts by observation, experimentation, and rational thinking. Having congress vote on disputed scientific facts is not likely to lead to accurate scientific information.

It's not that abortion-rights advocates don't want women to have information regarding fetal pain, it's that advocates want women to have accurate information. So the opposition of this law is not due to people caring less for women, but due to people caring more for women. Abortion-rights activists opposed this act because they want women to have the ability to give informed consent. She can't give informed consent if she is given inaccurate information.

Physicians are already required by law and under the medical code of ethics to provide informed consent for all medical procedures, including abortion. Some Pro-Life activists assert that physicians are not required to give informed consent for abortions, and think this is terrible. It is terrible, but it's also false. I can understand why people might believe that the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act gives physicians an out to not give informed consent, but it doesn't. Unfortunately, it seems to take a deep understanding of law to really see this that goes beyond a typical individual's understanding.

State-developed materials that are mandated by some states for informed consent regarding abortion do not always measure up to the standards in informed consent. If you are giving a woman inaccurate information regarding her health and the health of her unborn, you are negating her ability to give informed consent.

We have another problem: how do we know that a physician is not negating a woman's ability to give informed consent if the physician is giving the woman inaccurate information on his or her own? At the moment we can't legally prevent physicians from giving out inaccurate medical device (though they could get sued by individuals for providing inaccurate information), but the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act would have decidedly forced physicians to give out unsubstantiated information.

Obviously we need a moment of science. Preferably a zillion moments of science.

pro-choice/life/death/abortion anti-choice/life/death/abortion

Pro-choice/anti-choice, pro-abortion/anti-abortion, pro-death/pro-life. However you swing it, the abortion debate still rages on.

Most atheists, including myself, want women to have the ability to have abortions. I want humans to be able to use condoms, spermicide, contraceptives, and any other matter of birth control they want. It's a complicated matter that at times skirts the gray line of morality and ethics.

I've been thinking about the different terms one uses to describe one's position on abortion, and have decided that the standard dichotomies listed above do not do anyone's position complete justice. For example:

Pro-choice/anti-choice: The labels work fairly well, until one group or the other gets called hypocritical for wanting choice in the arena of abortion but not in some other arena - for example, calling pro-choice advocates hypocritical for wanting women to have the choice of abortion, but also wanting tax dollars to help fund Planned Parenthood, thus removing the "choice" of taxpayers to have their money go to fund something they do not approve of. Pro-choice only applies to people who want women to have the ability to have abortions and does not necessarily extend to pro-choice in other areas, and so the terminology itself can be used to muddy the waters.

Pro-abortion/anti-abortion: I would say that many people who think women should have the right to have abortions still wish abortions would occur less. So one can be anti-abortion while still maintaining that women have the right to abortions. I think people have the right to have abortions, but I wish they wouldn't.

Pro-death/pro-life: Everyone is pro-life in a general sense. I think that there are many people out there who would prefer that abortions do not happen, but understand that women have the right to have abortions. If they had a choice between saving an unborn and killing an unborn, they would save the unborn - all other issues aside. There also might be people out there who prefer death, perhaps because they think the world is overpopulated or for racist issues (hoping that more African-American women have abortions to curb the number of African-Americans in the population, for example) Calling people who advocate for a woman's right to abortion "pro-death" is goofy - it is the same as calling someone who advocates the death penalty "pro-death".

I suppose you could call me pro-choice, pro-life, and neutral-abortion. I think that there are times when abortion can be a moral good and a positive choice, and I think that there are times when abortion can be morally wrong and a negative choice. I depends on the individual and her reasons for choosing. The fact that women have to be in a position to choose abortion is unfortunate, but not something she should be ashamed of. Either way, I support the right of women to have abortions. I absolutely support the right of people to use other birth control methods  (condoms, pills, IUD's, abstinence, etc) and I definitely favor reducing the number of abortions by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies - through means such as more affordable contraception and reality-based sex education and human development programs.

P.S. Some atheists do not support the right of women to have abortions.