gadgetlady

I completely understand that opinion; it seems particularly unfair for a woman to have to carry a child of rape. I would be quite happy were abortion banned but for situations of rape and incest (I wouldn't agree with the exceptions, but I would support such a law and would probably stop being vocal on the matter at that point). I understand that opinion, but what losingjusme said in her original post was "if the life is not viable, _I_ am not the one to decide that" -- and my question was if she is not one to decide that (if she believes it to be a personal and private matter with her doctor), then who is? (I have to reiterate again that I feel distinctly uncomfortable dissecting losingjusme's post without her input.) Now that I can speak to from experience. Mothers facing unplanned pregnancies are often scared, just plain terrified, and will often grasp at anything to get out of the situation. I have sat with these women on numerous occasions, women who have made the choice to abort and women who have made the choice not to, and they often feel rushed and pressured and scared and ambivalent. They can easily rush into, or be pushed into, a decision that they will later regret. They look for reassurance from abortion clinic works who may lie to them about fetal development or the complications of abortion. I am not saying all clinic workers do this, but the reports of this happening are too frequent to be ignored. The abortion industry regularly fights proposed laws requiring a waiting period and/or informed consent in the way of factual presentation of fetal development or the requirement that mothers are shown their ultrasounds prior to aborting. I was recently talking to a woman who told me a story about how she had been trying to get pregnant for years, went into a clinic for a pregnancy test (this was many, many years ago when test results were not quick), and while she was waiting for the results, was brought in for counseling. She was asked if she was rich, did she know how much a baby would cost, and she was literally made to doubt her own decision to keep a baby that she was 100% planned. You have to remember that pregnancy is one of the most hormonal and emotional times of a woman's life. Do some mothers enter an abortion clinic 100% sure of their decision, unemotional and determined? Of course they do. But it is a misrepresentation of the facts to imply that all of them do. You can get more information about this at: Silent No More Awareness Campaign. I just randomly picked two testimonials which you can read at BABY CORY DESERVED MORE REPRESENTATION and Barb, OH that speak to the issue of a woman's not understanding exactly what she's getting herself into. It is also very instructive to listen to the testimonies of former abortion clinics and clinic workers, because they were once the providers and now they are pro-life. It takes something to make that happen. You can get more information at Meet the Abortion Providers. I appreciate your taking the time to answer the questions. I hope my responses make sense and I hope you don't feel like I've raked you over the coals, as I am generally accused of doing.

I don't know. I don't see the left as being particular tolerant, understanding, or willing to compromise with Bush. Instead, I hear them calling him demeaning and degrading names and deriding his executive decisions. I also see the left calling McCain and Palin names, challenging Palin on facial expressions and colloquial terminology, and the like. And, to be fair, I see the right calling Obama some equally polarizing things. I do not think this will stop when the election is over, regardless of who wins. No, I don't think people want civil war and I don't know that I expect it to get that dramatic. More likely, I expect to see continued corruption, and general stagnation in politics because of the two sides being at war with each other. We need to allow the democrats to win -- so that we're not sunk as a democratic nation? That's rich.

Sorry for the novel, but I'm a bit tired of being portrayed as someone who was trying to deceitfully lure someone else into a trap just so I could say "gotcha!". Unless people are attacking me, my goal is to ask questions in the hopes of causing introspection.

Losingjusme indicated that she could never have an abortion, and she told her doctors that it didn't matter what the results of her various chromosomal tests were, that she would not abort. What she said was, "if the life is not viable, _I_ am not the one to decide that." Here are the questions I asked, with #1 being the one that people won't often answer (#2 was specific to losingjusme's situation): Two separate questions: 1) why do you think you could never have an abortion?, and 2) if you are not the one to decide if the life is viable or not, as the mother of that life, then who is? And if it's someone other than you who should be making that decision for you, the mother, why is it OK for other mothers to decide to end that life? And you know what? I'm going to tell you why I ask these questions -- just so no one can accuse me of "loading my ammunition and getting ready to fire." The reason I ask women who say they could never have an abortion themselves but think other women should be able to is to get them to think about the reasons they couldn't do it. There are numerous reasons women say this, but one of them can be because they understand the unborn baby to be a human life and they don't think it's their right to take that life. Surprisingly, however, even though they will identify the baby as a human life, they still hold that it is ok for others to undertake actions to end that life. This, to me, is akin to the argument of, "I don't believe in slavery but if someone else wants to own a slave that's OK with me." Sometimes (certainly not always) it is as easy as pointing out this juxtaposition of beliefs that will cause someone to change their mind on the matter. Contrary to what everyone's been screaming at me recently, I don't try to browbeat people into agreeing with me. That doesn't mean that I don't try to make my point or draw them into my way of thinking, through logical and factual information, but I believe I do it in a very level-headed manner. I know those who are rabidly pro-abortion don't see it that way, but so be it. Now, if someone's saying I'm "in favor of suppressing women" or some such other nonsense, I tend to respond back in kind (perhaps to my detriment). I have been involved in the pro-life movement for many years, and I have seen both women and men change their minds on the issue simply by being shown the stages of fetal development. I debated a California State Assemblywoman at a university many years ago, and when I was done a woman approached the desk and said she came in "pro-choice" but, after hearing the facts about what goes on in the womb, wanted to know how to volunteer to help stop abortion. It happens. I do not believe that everyone will react this way. But I do believe that there are a lot of preconceptions that go along with how people view the issue of abortion in this country, and that some people will change their minds when they are asked some pretty basic questions. So there you have it. I like to challenge people to think about their beliefs; I know from biology that human life begins at conception, I believe very strongly that life at every stage is an inalienable right, and I also believe that regardless of the social and often heartbreaking reasons that mothers seek abortions, there is no justification for taking another human life despite one's circumstances.

BTW, Carrie, your belief is not an uncommon one. What states have been successful in is banning a particular abortion procedure, partial-birth abortion, the banning of which has led a lot of people to reach the mistaken conclusion that that meant all late-term abortions were banned.

The "right" to late-term abortions for any reason was guaranteed in the companion case to Roe v Wade, Doe v Bolton. States do try to limit late-term abortions, but are generally unsuccessful (some challenges to late-term abortion bans are still working their way "up the ranks" of the court system). There are very few abortionists that will perform late-term abortions (because they are particularly gruesome and one "complication" is that the babies are sometimes born alive), but they are legal. Some people reach the improper conclusion that late-term abortions are illegal because their local abortion clinic doesn't perform them. But that is due to a combination of other causes (the abortionist, the medical technology in that facility, etc.) more than it is a legal issue.

What is rude about asking you to clarify why you believe late-term abortions are perfectly acceptable? MY nastiness? When you repeatedly talk about how all pro-lifers want to do is suppress and control women? Give me a break. I understand and have compassion for women who are pregnant and don't want to be. I just don't believe that telling them to kill their offspring helps them in any way. Women deserve better. Portraying me as uncompassionate isn't warranted; you have no idea how I speak with mothers facing unplanned pregnancies. BJean, I have a little news for you. While you may consider me harsh, my fellow pro-lifers feel the same way about you; they consider you shrill. The majority of the American public agrees with neither of us. They don't believe abortion should be illegal in all cases, and nor do they believe that abortion-on-demand should be legal through all nine months of pregnancy for any reason. So portraying me as out-of-touch just as easily applies to you.

That is not the case; very few people have answered the question I asked. In fact, I can think of only one. Other questions have been addressed, yes, and discussions have been plentiful, but I was asking one particular person why she felt a particular way. Her answers may be very different from what yours would be, as her opinions on this matter do differ from yours in other nuanced ways.

I would have liked to dialogue with her about it; why is that so bad? She is entitled to her opinion, just as I am entitled to mine. I don't believe "everyone" is wrong, but I do believe there are people who use flawed logic -- on both sides of the issue.

You said, "If someone invents a contraption that will replace a woman's womb, God forbid, then the argument could change." My question was, then, do you support a ban on late-term abortions, because there is, precisely, a "contraption" that will allow the baby to live outside of the mother's womb? Why is it different because the baby spent 20 weeks or so in the mother's womb prior to viability? If the baby can survive outside the womb without the mother, and your argument is that a mother shouldn't have to be inconvenienced with a baby growing inside of her if she doesn't want to, why should she be allowed to kill the baby if she can simply be "un-inconvenienced" by having the baby removed from her womb alive?

I do not support killing disabled people regardless of whether they might die later or might have a less-than-perfect life. I do support a woman being allowed to abort should carrying the baby to term physically threaten her life. The is the only circumstance in which I support abortion, because it is the physical taking of one life to preserve the physical life of another. That being said, if a baby is viable, there is no reason he or she has to be killed to be removed from the mother's uterus. The procedure for late-term abortion is that the baby is killed and delivered, or partially delivered and killed along the way. It is just as easy for the baby to be delivered alive. Finally, virtually all late-term abortions are not due to a threat to the mother's physical life. And an Alan Guttmacher (a pro-abortion group) study in 2002 found that only 2% of late-term abortions were due to a diagnosis of a fetal problem.

It is implanted in, but it is not a part of. The baby is not the mother's reproductive organ.

You should forward this information on to the Secret Service, then. What they have heard, upon review of footage and tapes, is "tell him" or "tell them". But if you clearly heard "kill him", that's something the Secret Service would like to know about. Quite frankly, I think no matter who wins there will not be unity. Both opposing sides will be livid and dismayed and scared. We have a deep divide in philosophy among Americans, and because the philosophies are so diametrically opposed, I don't believe there is anyone who can unite them. How can someone who believes in socialism be expected to support a capitalist, and vice-versa? How can someone who is pro-life be expected to support someone who's pro-abortion, and vice-versa? How can someone who's anti-war be expected to support someone who believes war is a necessary evil, and vice-versa? The list can go on and on, but the bottom line is that there is very little middle ground between the two candidacies, and I don't think supporters of either will be happy should the opposition win. It is a sad state of affairs and I wish there were a solution, but unfortunately I don't think there is one :eek:

The reason being . . .? I'm happy to have the discussion via PM if someone doesn't want to get into it publicly. But when a statement is made, a question is asked about that, and the question is never answered, it leads me to believe that a reasonable and logical answer isn't available. I very firmly believe that to educate ourselves we need to be exposed to ideas and question our preconceptions, and someone who is unwilling to look at the other side of an issue for fear that their arguments might not stand up to scrutiny is doing themselves a disservice. That being said, I don't feel very good that this has all come down to what feels like an attack on losingjusme. That was absolutely never my intention when I asked the question. My intent, if the question wasn't answered, was not to come back to it again and again and again, and I would not have done so if others did not bring it up. It is well within her rights to just plain not answer the question.

But why, if there is a "contraption" that will replace the womb? If the mother's womb is not required to support the baby, as it is not in the case of late-term abortions, why then doesn't the argument change -- as you said it would above?

I was responding to the claim that the unborn baby is a part of the womb with an analogy. I am not equating the baby with a penis or a finger. I recently had an ultrasound to determine why I was having some physical problems. It was determined that I had a fibroid in my uterus and a cyst on my ovary. The fibroid was not determined to be part of my uterus and the cyst was not determined to be part of my ovary. They fibroid is in and the cyst is on. They are not part of. The claim that the unborn baby is part of the womb is not accurate. The unborn baby is not the mother's body but a separate (not separated, but separate) entity. Right back at 'cha.

I know you consider legitimate questions "baiting" and "propaganda". I consider them questions, and more specifically, questions that no one ever answers.

So I take it from this that you support a ban on late term abortions, abortions performed after the baby could survive outside the womb. There are roughly 20,000 of these abortions performed every year in the US.

I would hate to be judged for a mistake my child makes. No sex education method guarantees no pregnancies; if it did, given the explicit sex ed and free birth control currently available in all 50 states (or all 57, if you're Obama), we'd have zero unplanned pregnancies, instead of the ever-increasing annual numbers.

You can stick your finger in someone's mouth, but that doesn't make your finger part of their mouth. When a man and a woman have sex, his sex organ does not become part of her vagina, even for a short time. Yes, the unborn baby does reside in the mother's womb. He or she is not, however, part of that womb.

Nope. Because Bristol wasn't a product of "abstinence only" education (sex ed is taught in Alaska schools). Ergo, she was a product of sex education in schools and still became pregnant. FYI, as an aside, we don't know if she used birth control or not. All we know is she's pregnant. I, for one, don't think we should be judging her.

My goodness! She said something about it here, so I asked the question here. If she wants to, she can answer me in the other thread so this thread can remain "pure". Give me a break.

Yeah, very scary. I have no idea if it's true or false. I can only tell you that the Secret Service would take very seriously someone shouting out a death threat towards a Presidential candidate, and they say it's just flat out not true. My tendency, knowing what I know about the media, is to believe the Secret Service on this one.

Actually, I do not know the answer to the question I asked, because no one's ever answered it for me in a logical, consistent way (most people just say something along the lines of, "that's just what I believe" and/or "that's just how I feel" and leave it at that). I am not trying to be confrontational and accusatory and launch into a lecture. I am asking a question and trying to get an answer. In fact, I said twice in the original post that I am not trying to be confrontational.

Women should absolutely have a right to control their reproductive organs. A baby is not one of a woman's organs.