"But we should never disregard the fact that being pregnant means there is a baby growing inside of a woman, a baby whose life is ended."

I think there is a need for us to talk more about what it is we are doing, when we carry out or support abortion. We – in the states – have dealt heavily, up to now, in euphemism. I think one of the reasons why the ‘good guys’ – the people in favor of abortion rights – lost a lot of ground is that we have been unwilling to talk to women about what it means to abort a baby. We don’t ever talk about babies, we don’t ever talk about what is being decided in abortion. We never talk about responsibility. The word ‘choice’ is the biggest euphemism. Some use the phrases ‘products of conception’ and ‘contents of the uterus,’ or exchange the word ‘pregnancy’ for the word ‘fetus.’ I think this is a mistake tactically and strategically, and I think it’s wrong.. And indeed, it has not worked – we have lost the high ground we had when Roe was decided.

My objection here is not only that we have lost ground, but also that our tactics are not good ones; they may even constitute bad faith. It is morally and ethically wrong to do abortions without acknowledging what it means to do them. I performed abortions, I have had an abortion and I am in favor of women having abortions when we choose to do so. But we should never disregard the fact that being pregnant means there is a baby growing inside of a woman, a baby whose life is ended. We ought not to pretend this is not happening.

--Judith Arcana, former member of Jane*, speaking at Birkbeck College of the University of London, October 1999.

* Jane (The Abortion Counseling Service ) was the CWLU's [Chicago Women's Liberation Union] underground illegal abortion provider that performed over 11,000 safe abortions, many performed by Jane members themselves. [source]

"The Abortion Debate Brought Home"

MY WIFE AND I just had an abortion. Two, actually. We walked into a doctor's office in downtown Los Angeles with four thriving fetuses — two girls and two boys — and walked out an hour later with just the girls, whom we will name, if we're lucky enough to keep them, Rosalind and Vivian. Rosalind is my mother's name.

We didn't want to. We didn't mean to. We didn't do anything wrong, which is to say, we did everything right. Four years ago, when Tina and I set out on this journey to have children, such a circumstance was unimaginable. And yet there I was, holding her hand, watching the ultrasound as a needle with potassium chloride found its mark, stopping the heart of one male fetus, then the other, hidden in my wife's suffering belly.

--Dan Neil, "The abortion debate brought home", Los Angeles Times, 6 May 2007.

"Abortion: Why It's the Ultimate Motherly Act"

Ultimately, I don’t understand antiabortion arguments that centre on the sanctity of life. As a species, we’ve fairly comprehensively demonstrated that we don’t believe in the sanctity of life. I don’t understand why pregnant women — women trying to make rational decisions about their futures — should be subject to more pressure about preserving life than, say, Vladimir Putin.

However, what I do believe to be sacred — and, indeed, more useful to the earth as a whole — is trying to ensure that there are as few unbalanced, destructive people as possible. By whatever rationale you use, ending a pregnancy 12 weeks into gestation is incalculably more moral than bringing an unwanted child into this world.

--Caitlin Moran, "Abortion: why it's the ultimate motherly act", The Times, 13 April 2007.

Sometimes, the Best Argument Against Abortion Is an Argument for Abortion

The more abortion advocates seek to rationalize their beliefs, the more self-evidently repulsive their arguments become.

Hence, this blog. Herein the words of abortion advocates will be presented without editorial commentary.

They will speak for themselves.