Nauman's attack on Sebelius (link to text for information purposes)

In our dog-eat-dog, rat-race culture, abortion IS "Pro-Life" because it denies blaspheming idolators economic slaves to send to kill innocents in other countries and eventually to become cannon fodder themselves. Lying about the value of life is Pro-Death, not Pro-Life. Sebelius is a hero.

Until this country recognizes the Moral Responsibilities of the group to provide basic welfare (Health, Education, Justice, Fiscally Rational National Defense, Egalitarian Economic Opportunities) for ALL of its members - equally - regardless of economic class, "Pro-Life" is NOT Pro-Life, Pro-Choice IS Pro-Life.

such anti-choice advocates try to dress up their rhetoric in terms of "protecting women" when the consequences of such advocacy are anything but beneficial to women.

Furthermore, as far as I understand it, the term "late-term abortion" has never been a medical term, but rather an anti-choice term used to try to frame the debate.

to infanticide as the child approaches full term. I cannot see any way to convincingly resolve disputes about whether destroying a tiny embryo is comparable to infanticide. On the other hand, the parallel between dashing a newborn's head against the rocks and dismembering a fetus only a few days before expected delivery seems clear enough: if one finds the first morally problematic, one should likewise find the second morally problematic, since moral arguments against the first are very likely to apply to the second as well.

I almost completely agree to your first point -- but with various tedious theoretical nitpicks, enumeration of which probably wouldn't be helpful

I resist the notion that women commonly use it as a means of birth-control.

I'm willing to begin with the premise that "health of the mother" should be more clearly defined. I suppose there are some reasons why that is difficult or maybe even un-workable, but I think this definition should be revisited in public discourse.

If it is the health of the child that is the issue, then shouldn't the state take full responsibility for those abnormal children that it requires mothers to bear? If not, it's better that mothers decide about bearing them.

I'm also willing to require parental notification as much as possible.

Increase legal support for adoptions.

Do whatever it takes to reduce the number of abortions and that includes the availability and price of child care, health care, and other family services after children are born.

But protect women's right to choose.

A debate about abortion should be a debate about the responsibilities of Society to each and every one of its members regardless of ability to pay, because women would not abort children who they felt confident about their abilities to take care of. A debate about abortion should be about what Society OWES each and every one of its members simply because they are humans and, according to Pro-Life values, humans have intrinsic value independent of economics and so-called "private" money.

It is clear to me that a fetus a few days prior to delivery is a human being in the same sense that you and I are human beings, and therefore termination of that life would be a killing. It is likewise clear to me that a fertilized egg is not a human being in the same sense that you and I are human beings. This is central to the notion that surrounds this topic: that of personhood.

I'm not sure, though, what any of that has to do with anti-choice advocates framing their positions as "protecting the health of women" when it is demonstrable that they do not actually care about the health of women but only in limiting their reproductive freedom.

I did not understand

I deliberately attempted to side-step the first paragraph of your post, and the question of whether a strong anti-abortion position can be construed as somehow protecting women and women's health. I can imagine a number of potential comments about the topic, but they don't all suggest the same conclusion; thus, none seem definitive to me, and so my speculations would be unhelpful. For example, pregnancy in homo sapiens is a rather risky affair, due in part to the large cranium; on the other hand, parity may depress breast cancer rates. Since mental health issues can be associated with physical health issues, one might similarly inquire into the psychological effects of pregnancy, but many effects are plausible a priori, some would suggest that abortion has negative mental health consequences, others that it has positive consequences. Any discussion is complicated by the fact that the battlelines here are well-established and don't seem likely to move. Anyone taking the position -- that a woman who has an abortion to save her own life is always morally equivalent to a woman who throws her child to the wolves to buy time for her own escape -- surely has no right to claim they are motivated by a concern for "women's health." On the other hand, if the psychological health of the parent were always the paramount concern, we might still follow the old Roman law which allowed a father to kill his child (of any age whatsoever) without penalty, as it is quite credible this law was sometimes very beneficial for the mental health of fathers. Well, that should be enough to indicate why I tried not to answer your main point: I can spew crap like this indefinitely, but it really doesn't shed enough light to be worth our effort