Subtlety is too subtle for me: To be clear, I'm attacking Radley's cavalier and off-the-cuff slander of a group as a whole with unsupported (even by anecdote, as you point out) examples. I better understand your philosophical point about the conflict a pro-choicer might have when trying to support the right to choose, even if it's done for what we might consider reprehensible reasons. I'll play devil's advocate, nonetheless. If the expectant parent doesn't want to have a baby because "science" shows the parent-to-be that it will be gay, afflicted with MS, or blonde, why would we try to stop that person? As I said before, we don't look behind the choice now, so why would it matter in the future? Is the fact that you don't think you can afford a baby (or because you're afraid your parents will disown you) a better reason not to have one than because you are adverse to little tow-heads running around? I just like to keep it to the personal level - and there's no explaining a person's taste. I don't think the government should fund anything with respect to abortions - well, anymore than they fund any "elective" healthcare.