If there were a group of people talking about limiting the physical freedom of African-Americans, I’m sure you’d say they were racist. Antis want to limit the physical freedom of women. Hence, they are misogynistic.

Don’t be fooled by their rhetoric. It’s all very nice that they claim to want to help pregnant women, blah blah blah, but they want to do it under their own strict conditions, not to serve the needs of the women. Fighting against availability of birth control gives the game away. By trying to remove access to the one thing that can reduce abortion rates most effectively, they show that their real desire is to punish women for having sex. Forcing them to go through with an unwanted pregnancy is a continuation of the punishment. Shame, guilt, and control over women-those are the goals of the anti-choice movement. And all you have to do is look and listen to understand this. They don’t hide it.

Furthermore, why exactly do you think that people define a fetus as a human life with moral weight? Because I really doubt that most people who believe that derived it from first principles, and it’s certainly not a settled question from a philosophical point of view. “Personhood” isn’t a philosophically well-defined term, and depending on how an individual defines it, abortion might not be philosophically difficult. I would argue, in fact, that people who believe that fetuses are human lives with moral weight start out with the thought that abortion is morally problematic and then proceed from there, rather than the other way around, to come to what seems like a very counterintuitive conclusion: that an entity without homeostasis and without consciousness or self-awareness constitutes a person of at least equal value to an adult, and whose needs trump the needs of that adult. That doesn’t mean that people who reach that conclusion are all misogynists per se, but rather that the environment in which they’re operating is a misogynistic one.

Two smaller points:
-In framing your utopia, you say that the abortion rate would fall significantly — you don’t say that it would fall to zero. That doesn’t serve the agenda of people who are anti-choice. People who are anti-choice, by definition, want a world in which no one has the choice to have an abortion.
-We would all like for there to be less shame associated with single motherhood, premarital sex, etc., and more support available for single mothers, and better education about and availability of contraception. In fact, all those things are major goals of feminism, and many of us consider them to be part of striving for true reproductive freedom. It’s the social conservatives (which encompasses the anti-choice movement) that don’t agree with that, not us.

I appreciate your polite and reasoned reply, but to assert that the abortion issue is necessary, inherently, and always a huge moral quandary? That isn’t so. And I don’t say that because I’ve “blinded” myself to its realities, but because I base my reasoning on people’s lived experiences and concern for their well-being. Fetuses are not people. Women are.

I am shocked that Kari, Mischiefmanager, and other commenters are so comfortable polarizing opposing sides of the abortion debate, and casting all pro-lifers as misogynistic white men. I know politics are easier and more satisfying when issues are black and white. But, you’re blinding yourself to the moral complexity inherent in abortion.
Yes, controlling women is a major element of the abortion debate. But (call me crazy) I think there are genuinely compassionate right-wingers (race and gender aside) who empathize with pregnant women, and STILL argue that human life is sacred, and are therefore against abortion. Being pro-life is not synonymous with being anti-feminist. No matter how passionately feminist you may be, abortion remains philosophically problematic because two lives, not one, are involved. There are feminists who will debate abortion and reach the conclusion that morally, it is wrong. Or at least, we cannot say definitely that it is morally right or morally inconsequential.
And I do think a “common ground” is possible. I hope to one day live in a culture that respects women and their autonomy, and I hope that in such a society extramarital pregnancy (and by extension, the free expression of female sexuality), will lose its stigma. In this mythical future society, the abortion rate may very well fall significantly, which serves the agenda of pro-lifers and feminists alike.
I maintain that there are many woman who terminate their pregnancies out of shame for their situation. Eliminate the shame, provide genuine sustainable social support for these woman, and they may very well make a free and independent choice to continue their pregnancies. Also, if your personal moral code includes the belief that human life is inherently sacred, than isn’t it logical to make an effort to lower abortion rates? Isn’t it truly “pro-choice” to craft a society where women who are heartbroken by abortion can choose another alternative?
I’m not pro-life. I think it is vital for abortion to remain legal. Outlawing the procedure will only force countless women into physically, emotionally, and financially dangerous circumstances. But I’m frustrated by the simplistic, self-congratulating comments that followed this entry.

There is no difference between new and old antis. They all want to stop women from controlling our bodies. A little perfumed language can’t cover the reek of sexism.

Baraqiel, I don’t agree that they want to restrict sex. Where would the maids and pool boys come from if we didn’t allow the peons to reproduce? Not only that, they need soldiers for their culture war. The people who vote against their own interests so that rights can be denied to women and gays, so that gun laws can be attacked, so that Christianity can be made the state religion-they need to procreate and produce more good little robots for the cause.

At the end of the day it’s not about reducing the number of abortions, or access to contraception, or adoption; it’s about control. If it weren’t about control, there would be no arguments about any of these things. Free contraception for all men and women, emotional and financial support for women who choose to become mothers, or who choose to pursue adoption, and absolute access for women who choose abortion.

But then the women would be in control, and ya’ll know, we can’t have that!