I'm sorry, Greg, but people are admirable, honorable and awe-inspiring when they hold themselves to higher standards than the law, higher standards than their religion or higher standards than their subset of society, even when it is to their own detriment. Or they live up to higher standards than we hold them to.

In a context where the law and society is solidly pro-choice or even "pro-abortion" to the extent that such a decision is remarkable, one might consider such behaviour as you describe admirable. In your context, where you consider the opposite choice to be morally unacceptable, even murderous and you wish to have it prohibited by law, it cannot conceivably be considered admirable or awe-inspiring in any way.

Unless you empty the words of all meaning,  admirable, honorable and awe-inspiring describes someone who is remarkable, special, even unique. Someone far above the vast majority of us. Making the only requirement for such a description "She didn't break the law" is ridiculous.

You want to say its a good thing that women choose other options than abortion, then I agree. There may be cases where its a choice they regret, but I certainly think that such a decision should never be made lightly.

The kind of hyperbole you're dishing out here is incompatible with your position, because, again, you're presenting it as awe-inspiring that women choose to do what you would have them legally compelled to do in any case. You hold it as admirable that women live up to your minimum standards?

I'm not sure if that is disgustingly misanthropic or disgustingly misogynist, but it's one of the two.

I definitely see your point, Knut.  Let me put it this way: right now, abortion is legal.  Women therefore have 3 options for dealing with an unwanted pregnancy: 1) accept it, go to term, and raise the baby anyway; 2) accept it, go to term, and give it up for adoption; or 3) abort it.  My point is that with those 3 options, whereby #3 is clearly the one with the least amount of long-term responsibility and physical consequence (unless something goes wrong in the procedure, which can and does happen but that's another discussion), then it is admirable for a person to choose option #2, whereby there is some sacrifice involved.  #1 is downright amazing, because the unwilling mother/parents essentially sacrificed everything for the sake of the child's life.  This seems to be an option less and less common as contemporary generations seem to be more and more self-absorbed (and procedures make it easier and quicker to perform).  Now, if abortion is made illegal, then there is still the honorable choice of going to term and giving up for adoption should the woman/couple want to avoid any risk of prosecution by seeking an illegal procedure.  An unwanted pregnancy resulting in reluctant parents is admirable to me because the physical and monetary responsibility could have ended at 9 months.  But instead it (theoretically) turns into a lifetime of responsibility.

If pregnancy was forced upon human beings, we'd have an objective debate here.  But no woman or man capable of reproducing is ignorant of the fact that the risk for pregnancy is there regardless of using contraception or not.  My argument is that no human life is worth a simple incorrect decision like which contraceptive to use, or the reliability of it.

The Obama campaign is blaming someone else for a decision they themselves made is a non issue?

I see a pattern here.  You don't like the discussion, or the fact you've been proven inaccurate so you make a snarky comment and try to change the subject.

myself wrote: I definitely see your point, Knut.

Uhh, not the misogynistic or misanthropic line :-).  I missed that when I read through your post.  On the contrary, I have more respect and admiration for women than men because of what they are capable of physiologically.  It's because of my love of life and woman's role in it that I even have this opinion.

I'm reminded of the episode of Boston Legal where a woman stole a man's sperm, impregnanted herself, and the man wanted to sue her to have an abortion.  While everyone was saying it wouldn't be possible to win a court-ordered abortion, Denny (IIRC) said, "as soon as we get enough conservative judges on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe V. Wade, it will be."

Would that be possible?  Or is this just David Kelly writing some backhanded Pro-Life propaganda?

No, it is being opposed to the government deciding what is or isn't appropriate behavior.

But the government does that all the time...and the vast majority of people support it. Murder is inappopriate behavior and illegal. So is using heroin. So is theft. So is public urination. So is drunk driving. There is no "freedom of choice" in these matters. And very few argue that there should be. So the abortion thing has to be about more than "freedom of choice"...it's whether abortion should be a viable, legal option or shouldn't it.  (That's why I don't like the "freedom of choice" rationale any more than I like the "pro-life" rationale.)

Editing a typo thanks to Mike!

erm, Heroin.  Adding the "e" makes it a female hero.

Not that I'm any sort of expert or...

I'm not fooling anyone am I?

Well you shouldn't USE the heroine. Treat her like a real person dammit! She's not just a plaything for your amusement :-)

Thanks, I fixed that...

tee hee...

In other news - so... reading this... http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/hendrikhertzberg/2008/ 09/foreign-countri.html

well...

I've made no secret my disgust with Palin being thrust on the national stage - it's not her - you can't be mad at her for being her, but you can be furious that she's actually being considered for such a position - you can feel disgust at the political process and you can feel shame at our fellow American for not rioting over this, but... in the end... what I'm really starting to wonder is...

Is Palin related to this woman in any way?

Jeez, even Palin isn' THAT bad.

But again, her selection reflects on the decision-making ability of McCain. And frankly, as someone trying to claim his campaign halt last week was putting country before politics...choosing her as his running mate is the perfect example of him putting politics before country.