Yesterday was January 22nd. That used to be a day I called…  the day after my son’s birthday.  Now it’s a day I call…  crazy, name calling, missing the point, I’m so sick of the sanctimonious finger pointing by everybody…day.

Some people prefer Pro-Life Day but it seems to me that Anti-Legal Abortion Day, would be more accurate. The marches and signs and endless columns written in (mostly) religious papers and magazines all seem to be focused on abortion. For instance, I’ve yet to see a picture of a rally marcher holding a sign that says,  I’m Pro-Life! Stop Drone Assassinations!, or I’m Pro-Life! All people deserve to be paid a living wage! , or any of a hundred other pro-life messages that don’t have a thing to do with abortion.

So, can we at least agree – January 22nd is really Anti-abortion Day?

So here’s my first thing:

There is no evidence that making all abortions illegal cuts down on the number of abortion procedures. There is ample evidence that when all abortion is illegal or even severely restricted, the number of women who die during an abortion procedure increases dramatically.  Guttmacher Institute:Facts on Induced Abortion Worldwide

No safe abortion procedures available equals more dead women.

Now, I know that’s blunt. But if you’re going to stick a sign in my face that says, Abortion kills children!, I’m assuming the level of discourse is not going to be very nuanced so, Illegal abortions kill women!

So here’s my second thing:

If “the government”, be it local, state or federal, is the proper arbiter of women’s reproductive issues (and yes, determining whether or not a woman carries a pregnancy to term is a reproductive issue); then what is to prevent the government from determining that no woman should be allowed to carry more than one pregnancy to term?

Why then, would the government not be the proper arbiter in determining whether or not a “defective” fetus, such as a Down’s Syndrome fetus should be allowed to continue or be aborted?

Perhaps the government might determine that a man over the age of forty should not impregnate a woman because his sperm might be inferior.

Here’s my third thing and I’m going to keep as simple as the previous…things:

A woman is a human person – I know, I know but sometimes it’s best to just make sure we are on the same page…

As such, she has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as to personally make moral decisions.  No government should ever be allowed to take away that right.

So what’s the Inconvenient Truth?

Women’s lives are as sacred as any other. Just that. You either start any conversation about reproductive rights and abortion there, or you really can’t have a discussion at all. So – there’s my starting point. Let’s have a conversation –