Suprised. No. Annoyed. Yes.

As I have gotten older my opinion on abortion is become more and more defined. My attitude on it is certainly less casual. I have always believed that it is a person's right to choose how best to handle the processes with in their own body. Don't worry. I am still pro-choice. What has changed is a realization of how sad and serious an affair abortion really is.

My personal thought is that all of the money spent to fight abortion would be much more effectively spent on prevention education and conselling. Yes, conselling. Be it from parents, teachers, etc. Unwanted pregnancy for the most part is preventable.

The whole Alito thing seems very orchestrated. My hope is that there is a big backlash to all this.

Don't worry. I am still pro-choice.

Actually, I'm willing to accept that people of good conscience can disagree on this topic. I'm virulently pro-choice but I can respect someone who isn't, so long as it's a thought-out and logical viewpoint rather than about punishing women for having sex. I won't ever agree with her/him, but I can respect her/him. (I want a gender-neutral 3rd person singular pronoun, damnit.)

What upsets me the most is the confirmation process. We knew he was likely to be anti-choice but somehow the process has come to nominees disingenuously declaring that they've never so much as considered a landmark, touch-stone legal decision that's still being argued 30-odd years later. That's true for both sides of the debate. I just don't see how a confirmation process can have any meaning if none is exchanged during questioning.

I really do believe that the time has come for those who want to safeguard a right to unfettered medical care - as well as things like privacy of one's phone and e-mail conversations and whom one wishes to marry - to push for an amendment stating it. Not that I for a minute believe the right to privacy isn't implicit in the 4th and 9th amendments but it seems that "strict constructionism" means "it has to say it in precisely those words if I don't personally agree with the issue."

how sad and serious an affair abortion really is

Any unwanted pregnancy, however it happens, signals a failure to me. Be that education, instilling self-respect, crime prevention, putting someone innocent in jail for rape and leaving a rapist on the street, WHATEVER the reason...it seems to me that an unwanted pregnancy is the end result of a number of other failures.

I've always bought Franklin's(?) maxim: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I agree that the place to attack this problem, if one is serious, is at the source rather than the end.

My hope is that there is a big backlash to all this.

I have given up hope for any such thing. The Repugs have made no secret that this was their agenda and the people continue to vote for them. I'm used to feeling as if I come from another planet when it comes to politics.

No, I suspect the first time many judgmental people will feel the bite will be someone they know and love dies from a botched abortion. And they didn't even know she was pregnant or in trouble.

I hate the abortion issue, and not only because I know it's the only issue my mother looks at when voting. I hate it because it sometimes feels that those who are very anti-choice think that anyone who is pro-choice is morally corrupt.

Uh, no. This simply isn't true. I firmly believe every woman has the right to choose what is best for her, and for the unborn child. Because sometimes giving birth really isn't the best choice. It's an individual (or couple) decision and falls under that pesky thing that the God so many call upon deemed "free will."

That notwithstanding, I find it really hard to swallow that the US Government doesn't have more pertinent issues which are relevant to far more people. Like, oh, the environment, as one example...

very anti-choice think that anyone who is pro-choice is morally corrupt

I think this is partially due to liberals abandoning morals to the religious right. This could be just me talking, but when you have the foundational belief that it is wrong to impose your own morality on others, it feels wrong to frame a debate in terms of morals. Many people conflate being moral with believing in God so I guess it's inevitable to think a different morality is evil or corrupt.

I was one of those polled in exit polls in the 2004 elections. I answered questions about whom I voted for, what issues determined my vote, and categorized my reasons for voting as I did. "Morals" was an option on the list but I didn't check it. Thinking further on it I did vote my morals: I believe that it is morally wrong to tell other people what they may do with their bodies. Allowing one side to declare itself in moral terms without offering an opposing morality leads, I think, to a perception that the answering viewpoint does so because it lacks morals.

Like, oh, the environment, as one example...

Yes, well, I believe the Bush Admin has made it clear that it has focused on the environment. There is no such thing as global warming. Coal is good. Oil is better. I have no doubt that we'd be burning Guantanamo detainees as renewable resources for torch-light if they thought some namby-pamby world court of opinion wouldn't demand that we cease and desist.

Not, yanno, that I'm bitter about the admin or anything...