Thank God other people have said something. I didn’t want to be the first to react. I think that maybe Sharon doesn’t realize just how empty the word “safe” sounds to most of us when applied to “abortion.” Abortion kills the fetus and violently disrupts the natural pregnancy process. In other words, it injures the mother. Something that involves killing and injury isn’t particularly “safe.” The way I see it, always prefacing “abortion” with “safe” isn’t descriptive; it’s subversive. It’s attempt to a priori set certain boundaries to the discussion and compel us all to think a certain way about abortion that is at least amicable to the “yes” party. But the whole ethic and, dare I say it, metaphysic I subscribe to positively demands that I not use the word “safe” to describe “abortion,” any more than I think there is a “safe” way to practice bulemia.There’s also something inconsistent with how things turned out about saying that the sexual liberation of women was “threatening” to men. The language is saturated with the imagery of the oppressed women not only liberating themselves, but turning the very tables on their oppressors. However, that’s not how the reality rolls. “Intimidating” is the last word a typical man would use to describe a woman who satisfies his sexual desires without any expectation that he care about the spiritual, emotional, financial, or physical well-being of her and her offspring. Reproductive “control” (again, a term implying things about reproduction that I simply don’t believe) has not produced a generation of self-confident, free, self-governed women liberated from social demands and expectations. It created a generation of women who have to tart themselves up by 8 and start putting out by 13 in order to gain acceptance. Perhaps woman’s former role as home-maker and child-bearer was demeaning and enslaving, but the new role as spiritless sex-toy surely is not exalting. Shockingly, one cannot abolish social norms. One can only institute new ones.