I am not the least bit surprised that you have failed to mention the emotional destruction that abortions cause for many women who have had them. Most, if not all, abortion clinics fail to provide adequate follow-up care for the women that they deal with. If you truly care about women and their emotional well being, you would find a way to objectively deal with this issue instead of sounding like a cliched advertisement for Planned Parenthood.

THOUGH SHALL NOT KILL Why don't you have slaughter houses for local thieves as well! Murder is Murder. What does Choice have to do with murder? Can a women choose to murder her children if she cannot handle them?

Yes, abortion is an emotional, scary, traumatic experience.... but so is suffering from cancer, aids, a car crash, heart attack, burns, etc, etc, etc, etc. No one has the right to cheap, affordable birth control and, in the absence of that, convenient abortions- the combination of these two viewpoints shows absolutely no deference to the fact that abortion is still a horrible thing and human beings should control their behavior, even if I agree that abortion should remain LEGAL. I can't stand people who insist on looking at the world (and voting) based on their myopic view of all things female and reproductive. OPEN. YOUR. EYES.

I'm confused then, abortion should be legal but inconvenient and expensive?? and birth control should be available, but tricky to get and also expensive? its time for MEN to 'OPEN.THEIR.EYES' women have been utilizing birth control and abortion on their own since the begining of time- just because medicine is now modern doesn't mean it should be subject to laws that ignore women's rights

Hey Pro-lifer...since you quote the "Thou (it's not though stupid!) Shall Not Kill" commandment I'm curious if you, like your fellow Religious Right-ers, choose to apply that commandment only when it's convenient for your politics and support such instances of "murder" as the death penalty and war.

Pregnancy is a reward and a consequense of sex. Children are being educated at least by middle school now as to what causes pregnancy so there is no excuse for not knowing the consequenses of unprotected sex. Why not CHOOSE abstinence until marriage or at least CHOOSE birth control prior to conception? How many of the people who are pro-abortion would even be here if their mother had chosen to murder them because they were not "planned"? Abortion should not be a cheap and easy way to murder someone. If people would take responsibility for their own actions and behaviour, then choosing murder would not be an issue. I think that the worst thing a woman can go through is losing a child. I can't even imagine what it would be like to not only lose a child, but to be the one that hired someone to kill my child. Giving a baby up for adoption or raising an unplanned child could not possibly be any more difficult than living with the emotional trauma of killing one's own baby. Kids put parents through a tremendous amount of emotional trauma but they also give us a tremendous amount of joy and pride.

I am really surprised to find that more people have not come out to rebuff these attacks on a procedure that has been legal in this country for decades, and has been illegally (and dangerously) implemented throughout the world for a myriad of reasons for centuries. The fact of the matter is, abortion is legal, and this article was not being used to question whether or not it should or should not be legal, etc. Therefore, as with any other legal medical procedure, Ms. Gordon is intending to address the matter of HOW to provide a safe way for patients to obtain/undergo this service. To continue this debate by calling or implying that those seeking or providing abortions are murderers is ludicrous. There are so many reports on the positive effects of legalized abortion (ie- since they would be performed regardless of their legality, abortions are generally safe procedures when permitted to be carried out in clean and professional environments. Not to mention the aspects of family planning when conception is accidental for whatever reason.) Any other arguement against safe and legal abortions would be be allowing for the potential loss of life of the mother, and/or the loss of any potential future offspring due to permanent sterility or, again the loss of the woman's life. These arguements also ignor the many instances in which intentional abortion is necessary to save the lives of mothers who do "want" their children. If you say that these women should be left up to the "mercy of god," be sure that your next child is born at home, with assistence from people with little or no formal training and don't allow you, your child, or your spouse to benefit from the regular interference of modern medecine with "god's will." This also ignors the frequency of pregnancy following rape... you get the picture. (Sorry this is getting longwinded and perhaps incoherent) but another aspect of your arguements that is faulty is the assertion that abortion could be avoided with the use of contraceptives or abstinence. 1) we know how effective and realistic abstinence training is... 2) accidents happen. Contraception is not fool proof, and the most popular kind, the male condom, is prone to human error (ie- misuse) or damage (tearing/breaking, etc.) that could result in pregnancy despite protection. 3) many people do not rely on abortion as a contraceptive. Owing to the aforementioned emotional difficulty that many women have with the procedure (despite their willing reception of it), abortion is regarded by the general republic of responsible adults as a last resort measure.

These arguements (sic) also ignor (sic) the many instances... Learn how to spell, then maybe someone will take you seriously.

It's almost amusing that some of you refer to "safe" abortions when the purpose of an abortion is to take a life. Here's how it works: If you cannot have a kid under any circumstances, don't have sex. The whole "my birth control failed so now I have to have an abortion" argument is absurd. No birth control claims to be 100% effective. So if you can afford to be in the 1% where it fails, just don't have sex. And Furman: it is my understanding that many, if not most, Christians make allowances for abortion when the mother's life is in danger.

[QUOTE id="b38de9b3-ea2f-49d1-9df4-a33efc0a3de5"]"These arguements (sic) also ignor (sic) the many instances..." Learn how to spell, then maybe someone will take you seriously.[/QUOTE] On the whole, her post was well written and easy to understand. So she made a typo on an online forum that didn't in any way impair others' understanding of her message. Stop being a condescending pedant and maybe someone will take you seriously.

Nicholas, Orthodox Jews also hold that abortion is MURDER but the Talmud makes an exception when the mothers life is in danger. Alum, Your diatribes did not answer "Pro-Lifer's" questions: "What does Choice have to do with murder? Can a women choose to murder her children if she cannot handle them?" Also, there is a huge difference between the death penalty which is used against convicted murderers and abortion which kills an innocent child. P.S. There are more murders through abortion per hour than are felons who are executed for their crimes each year. Furman, A 5-4 Supreme Court decision based on "penumbras" (ie the Justices own opinions and not the Constitution)may make it legal in this country(for now). But it is still murder. Mora, I feel sorry for you. [QUOTE id="24a19aa7-51f1-43fb-b92b-c5911261226a"]It's almost amusing that some of you refer to "safe" abortions when the purpose of an abortion is to take a life. Here's how it works: If you cannot have a kid under any circumstances, don't have sex. The whole "my birth control failed so now I have to have an abortion" argument is absurd. No birth control claims to be 100% effective. So if you can afford to be in the 1% where it fails, just don't have sex. And Furman: it is my understanding that many, if not most, Christians make allowances for abortion when the mother's life is in danger.[/QUOTE]

The column makes absolutely no comment on the morality of abortion. For all we know, Mara Gordon might find the whole thing repugnant and murderous. There is no apology for abortion and no celebration of reproductive rights in the column. Abortions are legal; that's not what the column is about. The column is about doing abortions right. It points out a problem in how abortions are carried out. The only possible reason to be against the provision of this service at HUP is malice towards women who want abortions: a need to shame or discomfit these people who have no reason to take joy in what they're doing. I think the article is written with this sort of compassion in mind and makes no comment whatsoever on the legal or moral appropriateness of abortion.

[QUOTE id="b38de9b3-ea2f-49d1-9df4-a33efc0a3de5"]"These arguements (sic) also ignor (sic) the many instances..." Learn how to spell, then maybe someone will take you seriously.[/QUOTE] I merely pointed out one line. Everyone is guilty of typos. However this person consistently spells "arguement" and "ignor." Part of making a convincing argument is demonstrating that you have at least some level of education or awareness of basic grammatical conventions. As such, this person does not deserve to be taken seriously (even on non serious forums such as DP posts).

Excellent point, Kevin. Nicholas- I wasn't just implying Christians. Really I was just using that, obviously to no avail, to make the point that there are many who hypocritically try to impose their own beliefs on others about how much or how little medical intervention an individual should be able to access. Last time I checked, that is why we have governmental bodies to determine relative safety, not individuals (ie- clinic bombers) who think that what they themselves are comfortab;e with is all that anyone should be able to utilize. And though "many, if not most, Christians make allowances for abortion when the mother's life is in danger." Pennsylvanians were only just able to vote against an outspoken christian lawmaker who was opposed to ALL abortion, regardless of whether conception was initiated by rape, incest, or other complications arose at a later date. Again, Kevin is correct, the article is not about the morals or legality of abortion. It is about allowing the experience to be less mentally or physically excruciating, particularly for those whom abortion is the last resort (ie- victims of rape or incest, and/or those who have encountered insurmountable complications in their pregnancy.)

It's so easy...write an op-ed about abortion, attract a lot of intention/comments, and feel good about yourself. Please write about something interesting...the abortion debate is old.

I have just seen more typos in my recent post. My apologies to everyone but "No time for idiots." If you care so much about grammatic correctness and proper editing, you would do better to patrol forums for papers that refrain from making similar mistakes on a daily basis. Additionally, my second post (the one that initially gave rise to your unfortunate, but thankfully short diatribe) was written while I was busy but felt the need to respond to some of the shortsighted posts I was reading. In general, I attempt to be as grammatically sound and as "by the dictionary" as possible. I, too, am irritated by people who refuse to edit or, at the very least, make their posts legible. I do find it interesting (but in no way surprising,) however, that you only commented on my spelling mistakes, as opposed to those of preceding of successive posts. Case and point: Take Responsibility's opening line: "Pregnancy is a reward and a consequense of sex."

[QUOTE id="fae9e7ec-535c-4dcd-8cc0-63795062deaf"]I have just seen more typos in my recent post. My apologies to everyone but "No time for idiots." If you care so much about grammatic correctness and proper editing, you would do better to patrol forums for papers that refrain from making similar mistakes on a daily basis. Additionally, my second post (the one that initially gave rise to your unfortunate, but thankfully short diatribe) was written while I was busy but felt the need to respond to some of the shortsighted posts I was reading. In general, I attempt to be as grammatically sound and as "by the dictionary" as possible. I, too, am irritated by people who refuse to edit or, at the very least, make their posts legible. I do find it interesting (but in no way surprising,) however, that you only commented on my spelling mistakes, as opposed to those of preceding of successive posts. Case and point: Take Responsibility's opening line: "Pregnancy is a reward and a consequense of sex."[/QUOTE] As I stated, everyone is entitled to typos, even posts that are ridden with them, without being scorned or even reminded about them. But when you consistently (ie more than once) spell a very basic word like "argument" or "ignore" incorrectly in a post, it suggests not that you were busy, which might lead to error-ridden posts as mine frequently are, but that you never knew how to spell those words to begin with. That is indeed a very sad revelation about your education/intelligence, suggesting that you ought not be taken seriously. No offense though, I'm sure you're a nice person.

Not to get into a grammar fight with you, but how are "posts ridden" with typos less indicative of intelligence/ less sinful than a few mistakes (that, at any other instance, with more time) a person with my education would catch and remedy? How is a person, representing their education/lack thereof in so careless a manner supposed to be deemed a more legitimate advocate for any opinion? For those posting on serious forums as though they were doing nothing more important than sharing an IM with a buddy, I say they are certainly "revealing" more about their "education/intelligence" than one who is trying to contribute to a discussion in a thoughtful way, despite the mispelling of a few words. I do in fact know how to spell "argument" and "ignore," but the cost of my Penn education, as it is, and the resulting need to dedicate a large chunk of time to working, doesn't leave much time for Grammar-Nazi ass kissing. Why should someone be so apologetic for a few mispellings that detracted only slightly from the presentation of an opinion, while those who allow themselves to be represented by typo-ridden posts be permitted a pass, regardless of how difficult those typos make the job of contemplating their argument to be?

Are you ever going to write about anything but birth control and abortion? We get it, abortions, unprotected sex w/o babies, lots of birth control pills, liberation, etc. all good...oh and they have to be cheap and super convenient. Next topic already.

kgb, in addition to cheap and super-convenient, you forgot that abortions need to be obtainable from any hospital and from any physician of the patient's choosing. Give me a break- obsessive, single-issue political wackos are not good for democracy. Many things in healthcare/medicine need more space!

Well put kgb. It is a bit tiresome already. However, I must comment here on Ms. Gordon's tone. Most "pro-choicers" at least pretend to believe that abortion is an unfortunate, albeit necessary, option for women. However, Ms. Gordon seems to believe that abortion is no more important or emotional than getting a tooth filled. After all, most procedures are done in an office - not even an operating room! How utterly callous and cold. In a way, I pity Ms Gordon. In her columns, she seems so devoid of emotion or pity. Its all about physical gratification (without consequences), as if that were the sole point of human existence. Free sex, free top notch birth control, and if that fails, cheap quick abortions. Nothing more than brushing or flossing one's teeth really. How mechanical and mundane. She seems to have a void which she cannot fulfill any other way outside of the physical. Perhaps its just the folly and hubris of youth. I pray that one day when she is a mother herself, she looks back on these columns and shakes her head in disbelief.

Great article, Mara. These few people are vocally irritated by reading about women's/reproductive issues once a week, belying the fact that there are many more who benefit from the insight you are able to provide. jk- I don't think Mara is devoid of emotion, etc. In fact, she states that one of the most pressing reasons for desiring/planning "more space for abortion" is so that women at a very emotional and generally difficult time are able to interact with doctors and facilities they trust. Without this improvement, they must face a medical procedure among many unfamiliar faces and spaces. Alum- if you are so concerned as to state "Many things in healthcare/medicine need more space!" then pick up a medical journal... or two. This is a college newspaper! There are few health issues facing college students, male or female, more relevant to their four years here than contraceptives and reproduction-related information. Honestly, I am glad that there is DP space dedicated to addressing "issues" more important than women wearing leggings and whether or not cheat sheets should be permissable.

[QUOTE id="6b7a290a-1393-49c1-b63c-4f258951bc7e"]Not to get into a grammar fight with you, but how are "posts ridden" with typos less indicative of intelligence/ less sinful than a few mistakes (that, at any other instance, with more time) a person with my education would catch and remedy? How is a person, representing their education/lack thereof in so careless a manner supposed to be deemed a more legitimate advocate for any opinion? For those posting on serious forums as though they were doing nothing more important than sharing an IM with a buddy, I say they are certainly "revealing" more about their "education/intelligence" than one who is trying to contribute to a discussion in a thoughtful way, despite the mispelling of a few words. I do in fact know how to spell "argument" and "ignore," but the cost of my Penn education, as it is, and the resulting need to dedicate a large chunk of time to working, doesn't leave much time for Grammar-Nazi ass kissing. Why should someone be so apologetic for a few mispellings that detracted only slightly from the presentation of an opinion, while those who allow themselves to be represented by typo-ridden posts be permitted a pass, regardless of how difficult those typos make the job of contemplating their argument to be?[/QUOTE] Simple answer to your question--if I'm in a rush, I might write an error-ridden post consisting for example of an accidentally inserted number where I intended a letter or a misplaced period, comma, or other careless things like that. However you, on more than one occasion in that egregious post wrote "arguement" AND "ignor" whereas the rest of your post was mainly error-free. Your misspelling of these two words, in other words, was consistent. This leads to the logical conclusion that your being rushed had NOTHING to do with these mistakes, but that you simply did not know how to spell those words, which is INEXCUSABLE for a college student (assuming you are one). Thus I did not deem a response to the substance of your post to be worth my while, although for what it's worth I agreed with most of it. You will not be taken seriously in the real world, despite whatever great argument you think you have, if you make those sort of mistakes.