While I appreciate Joe from Butler's criticism of those who seek to restrict reproductive rights while not promoting adoption and other activities themselves, this type of argument cedes the moral high ground to the anti-abortionists. By granting the premise that abortion may be "preventable" if only our adoption/childcare infrastructure were different, the rights of women become expendable. Reproductive rights are sacrosanct and no amount of social infrastructure can nullify a woman's right to her own body.

Contrary to Greg from Butler, I think that Catholics supporting President Obama's candidacy is a good sign that thawing of their opposition to reproductive freedom is occurring, hopefully leading to further expansion of abortion rights (e.g. repeal of the ban on "partial-birth" abortion).

Elizabeth asks about the recent case in which a medical abortion resulted in the birth of a live infant, who was subsequently killed. I agree with Elizabeth that, in this case, infanticide clearly (if the news reports are accurate) occurred and that the clinic workers who participated in this event should be prosecuted. While a fetus is clearly alive, it is only the individuation that occurs at birth that confers rights. This case is a clear illustration of where the appeal to rights is correct.

Lastly, to answer Marcy's argument, I do not believe that engaging in sexual intercourse amounts to consenting to have a child. The fact remains that a fetus, though clearly alive, has no rights. Furthermore, there can be no concept of "permission" between two entities when one (i.e. the sperm) has no consciousness, consequently Marcy's scenario of an "agreement" between sperm and a woman is invalid.