I will clarify that the textbooks are not only clear that the two-week embryo is human, but also that (s)he is A human. And while I’ve seen some people attempt to create some sort of distinction between “human being” and “person,” I opt to lean towards science and use the terms interchangeably.

“The reason I can support abortion rights while being a vegan rests on the notion of sentience and the capacity to feel pain. It is why later-term abortions do trouble me more than earlier ones.”

Careful, speaking too much about “sentience” will turn you into Peter Singer, who, as well all know, is a lunatic who supports infanticide. If I see an ant walking across the floor, I could simply step on him/her and (s)he would die instantly, hardly suffering at all. So do I do it? Of course not, because, suffering pain or otherwise, that ant has a life that possesses value. As for our species, we are human beings long before we possess the ability to feel pain.

“That’s a big part of why every feminist I know — including several devout Catholics, and even one who is opposed to abortion — is a strong supporter of contraception.”

What is your definition of “support”? I don’t know anyone who is in favor of making contraceptives illegal — provided that they are true contraceptives, rather than abortafacient agents. But that doesn’t mean that everybody thinks that using artificial methods of birth control is always the best course of action, or that the “contraceptive mentality” that a child is equivalent to a venereal disease (to be prevented at all costs!) is at all healthy. I believe that abortion gained such a foothold (to the chagrin of both pro-lifers and some pro-choicers) because this contraceptive mentality was already so popular. Mind you, this is not to condemn everyone who uses contraceptives, but those who eschew them aren’t backward-thinking, either.

Yet you paint it as an “easy” choice anyway, and pretend that the choice pushed on women is abortion, not adoption, as if women aren’t told “you can just give it up for adoption”? And bringing up your friends with fertility issues doesn’t really make it sound as though you are all that concerned about the woman facing the choice. She’s not merely a brood mare for couples who can’t have babies, you know.

At the same time, the extreme of the other side almost pushes for “do what you want with no thought to the consequences…the best birth control is simply abort the baby.” I think there is a big part of personal accountability before God and ourselves that leaves out being responsible for the choices that lead to pregnancy to begin with.

I am middle of the road on the issue as a whole. I agree that neither option is wonderful and always right in and of itself, but I guess if there is any fence-sitting involved I would fall off on the side of adoption. Maybe it is my own experience, but I cannot say with a clear conscience that “it would be better to have a mill-stone tied about your neck and be dropped into the sea than you should harm one of these little ones” does not influence my thinking as well.

I wish there were an easy answer.

I hear there’s a new movie out about abortion. It’s in independent theaters. I am not sure what the title is, but I hear that it’s pro-life.

I just think that often abortion is the “easy” way out (understanding fully that it is far from an easy decision - I have been on the “counseling” side of this as well with a teenager who entrusted me to help her through it…and in the end she also opted for abortion) but all too often the push from society and worry about parent’s reactions and so on push one to simply terminate and then sweep it under the rug (that was this girl’s thought processes in the end).

I would argue that carrying the baby to full term and then giving it up is far harder than deciding for the abortion. I would also argue that in the end the abortion is far more damaging to the soul, at least in the vast majority of cases.

Believe it or not, I do consider myself pro-choice…I believe God gifted us with freedom of choice and that we have to have those choices available to us to fully realize the blessings that come from those choices. I just happen to believe that in the majority of cases, abortion is the wrong choice.

Also, opponents of abortion (and some feminist critics of surrogate motherhood) sometimes argue that an emotional bond forms between a pregnant woman and the foetus she is carrying. Assuming this bond is real, then adoption could be almost as traumatic as a stillbirth or miscarriage. In this case, an aborting the pregnancy early on, well before such a bond can form, might be the better option.

Of course, I don’t want to argue that adoption is a bad idea. I just want to resist the oversimplifying assumption of many opponents of abortion — that, while abortion is a `hard choice’, adoption is the `easy choice’.

Adoption is one choice, and a fine choice, but one that comes with far greater costs than the deeply affecting (but decidedly rose-colored) vision painted in “Juno.” I honor those who freely give of themselves in this way, but there’s a colossal distinction between honoring it as one option among many and privileging it as the “best” one.

I also have friends right now (2 couples) who are patiently waiting to adopt. They cannot conceive (both medically necessary hysterectomies (sp)) and desperately want a child. The wait has been pretty long.

Why is this choice coveniently left out of so many of these conversations regarding being pro-choice?

This is what made Juno such a great flick. The “other” choice was actually in the spotlight.