Pro-this, pro-that: We can debate this when you're returned and refreshed. However, I wish to continue to quibble over two of Radley's points. One, whether the pro-choice crowd is pro-abortion. I still think that is unfair. Yes, the pro-choice people want abortions to occur for those that want them, but that does not mean they desire everyone to have one. I think the pro-choice platform is emminently reasonable: leave it up to the individual who got herself into this mess (if you'll excuse the tone). It's like that Simpson's episode where the two aliens take over Clinton and Dole, and then go out on the campaign trail with platforms such as these:

-Citizen Kang (as Clinton): "We must move forward not backward, upward, not downward, and always twirling twirling whirling towards freedom."

-Citizen Kotos (as Dole): "Abortions for all"
-Crowd: "Booooo!""
-Citizen Kotos: "No abortions for anyone."
-Crowd: "Boooo!"
-Citizen Kotos: "Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others."
-Crowd: "Yayyyyy!"

Secondly, by imposing these litmus tests over why you want to have an abortion (child is gay, for example), all you do is add more layers of regulation onto the morass that we already have. The only distinction that makes any sense is when the pregnancy is caused by rape (I'm not sure how anyone can be against an abortion, if the mother chooses one, at that point). Either you can have them, or you can't. The more "middle ground" one imposes, the less meaning either side has.