Tara,

Thanks for responding. I too am an animal rights and anti-war activist in Chicago. But, and I guess this where we agree to disagree, I feel that until the fetus is born, it's the woman's body and the woman's choice. I also agree that information should be made available to women on both sides. However, programs that are heavily government funded, things like abstinence only education, tend to be one sided, full of myths, and it can be argued, actually end up getting more young women pregnant.

"I just try to offer information on the unborn so they can decide for themselves. The abortionists don't care about the women and girls health."

How do you offer the information? And what information are you offering? To say that "abortionists" (a seemingly derogatory term) don't care about the women and their health is, in my opinion (everyone's got one), disingenuous.

“They only care about $$$$. Unplanned pregnancies buy his Lexus and house in the Northwest suburbs. This is the reality of the abortion business.”

So you would rather remove the option to have an abortion completely because you seem to think that some doctor in the suburbs is getting rich off of women’s, in your book, wrong or poor choices?

What about all the business that are specifically for new mothers? I mean hell the diaper industry alone is making millions I would assume. Capitalism is bad. And people do make money off of others. But the $$ argument is a weak in my book. It can go both ways.

“I do not want to endanger the lives of anyone.”

I don’t either. But removing the option, assuming this is your feeling, could cause equal or greater suffering, especially to mothers who are not ready to be mothers and babies who have irresponsible mothers, or to women who don’t want to be mothers and attempt unsafe procedures where their life could become endangered.