gadgetlady

Sure, if it floats your boat. But since everyone seems to get to choose their own label these days, I choose pro-life :purplebananna:

I don't know the details of her adoption.

Take any other word besides abortion and substitute it in there and the analogy applies. Just because someone thinks that a person should have the right to join a union doesn't mean they are for unions . . . it should just be an option. Yet we call them pro-union. Just because someone thinks that a person should have the right to own a gun doesn't mean they are for guns . . . it should just be an option. Yet we call them pro-gun. And so on and so forth. When we are pro- or anti- the choice to do SOMETHING, we identify the thing that we are in favor of or opposed to. Except in the case of abortion, where the abortion movement is hiding behind the word choice. Everything we do is a choice. We choose what to wear in the morning, we choose what to eat, who to talk to, what to drive, where to work, etc. We are not generally afraid of identifying any of these choices by name. So I am pro-choice for every single decision a person can make in their life that doesn't cause another person's life to end or otherwise impact the personal rights of another person. Imagine if I said I was pro-choice and what I meant was I am in favor of people choosing arson? It's quite confusing. But if I said I was pro-arson, you'd know exactly what I meant.

I've never used the term anti-life. Pro-abortion is the appropriate title because it labels the "it" that the person in favor of is in favor of. "Pro-choice" does not identify the choice that the person is in favor of. Are they in favor of the choice to own guns? The choice to do drugs? The choice to prostitute themselves? The choice to own slaves? The choice to join a union? No, they're pro-abortion-choice. So I call them what they are, pro-abortion. It's really interesting when a whole movement shies away from the very thing they're endorsing. Makes you wonder why. As to what people call me, I've heard and continue to hear every name in the book.

She wrote a book called "Won by Love". I haven't read it yet, and I don't know if she found the baby or not. She did also work, for a time, in an abortion clinic.

Yes. I remember years ago when she first revealed her identity. The pro-abortion movement grabbed onto her, so thrilled that they had found this "hero" of their movement. The thrust her up on the stage and stuck a microphone under her nose, and she said something along the lines of, "I just want to find my baby" (she never did have an abortion, but placed the baby for adoption). You could see the pro-abortion side cringing, trying to get the microphone away from her. She is now fully pro-life and it is her full-time ministry. She was with the 80-year-old Catholic priest who was arrested at Notre Dame, a Catholic institution, over the weekend. Here's an interesting juxtaposition of photos: http://www.voicescarryblog.com/515/

I didn't say 100%. I said dramatically less likely. Making sure the rape exception has no hitches isn't my concern, because I don't want the exception in there in the first place. However, since the knowledge of the pregnancy occurs several weeks (at least) after intercourse, my guess is that a woman wouldn't go around reporting every instance of consensual sex as a rape just in case she became pregnant. Yes, there are a lot of pro-lifers who want it 100% illegal -- including me -- but you'd be surprised at how many would be just fine with the exceptions, though. However, the people from both camps would rejoice at reducing the numbers by 98-99%. They rejoiced when partial-birth abortion was banned, so I'm quite sure they'd be awfully happy with 98-99% of abortions being illegal.

My guess would be a judge would look for a paper-trail on the rape, but I don't know because I've never studied the exceptions for rape pre-Roe. Interestingly, with the case of Norma McCorvey, Jane Roe of Roe v Wade (who is now pro-life), the case was brought alleging she was raped. It was later revealed that that was a lie. Again, it's not my preference that laws be enacted that have an exception for rape, but I would happily take wiping out 98-99% of abortions. An interesting story relating to the Gallup (and now new Opinion Dynamics poll confirming the Gallup results) in Time magazine (Understanding America's Shift on Abortion - TIME) has the following quote: "People under 30 are more opposed to abortion than those who are older, perhaps because their first baby pictures were often taken in utero." Statistics also bear out that when a mother sees her ultrasound or hears the baby's heartbeat, she is dramatically less likely to abort.

I didn't say it was okay to kill a baby conceived after rape or incest. I said "I'll take it". In other words, a law that would ban all abortions except for cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother (the common exceptions that were in many states prior to Roe) would be a heck of a lot better than what we have now! It doesn't mean I would change my views about whether or not those abortions were acceptable; it simply means I would be awfully happy with at least reducing which abortions are legal by 98-99%.

Laws that are pro-life but for the exceptions of rape, incest, and life of the mother? I'll take it.

Interesting Gallup poll results released today: More Americans “Pro-Life” Than “Pro-Choice” for First Time

Glad to hear it. If I can help with any resources or to be an ear, let me know.

Yes, but it's ok to take some time to mourn. In fact, it's a good thing. I may get slammed for saying this, but I want to put it out there in case you hadn't considered it. This experience may be bringing back memories of your abortion, and you may be mixing up and/or compounding the emotions from both. You might want to seek some counseling to sort everything out.

I'm so sorry.

I'm sorry for not being more compassionate. Your loss is still raw to you, and it seems Patty had just noticed it as well and it was in her head. It wasn't in mine, and for that I'm sorry. I know you have legitimate questions -- it's natural -- and I gave you a quick answer without thinking about where you were emotionally. And now we're back on that tack, discussing it philosophically, and I know you're still hurting. I will keep answering if you want to keep discussing it.

It's different because it isn't a deliberate act by ib human being to take the life of another human being. "Just because it's natural makes it ok?" -- well, I don't know about the characterization of "ok", but the simple fact is you can't prevent a natural death (barring medical technologies that can assist in the extension of life). Just because it's natural makes a stroke ok? Just because it's natural makes cancer ok? It's "ok" in the sense that there's nothing you can do about it, but that doesn't lessen the pain. Again, all human beings die. If you believe in God, then you believe He either causes their death or allows them to die -- but nevertheless, all of them die. They shouldn't die at the sole will of another human being, though, because it is not our purvue to determine for another person when they live and when they die. We don't own other people and we don't have the legitimate right to kill them.

That was beautifully written, Patty. In retrospect, what I said was a bit calloused and for that, rodriguezequal, I'm sorry.

One is a forced death and the other is a "natural" death. Abortion is the deliberate killing of one human being by another. All people eventually die, so their death is either "natural", i.e. by God, or "unnatural", i.e. by man - whether by accident or deliberate. To ask why God allows people to die is another question all together. But to say that because some unborn children die by natural causes, therefore it is acceptable to kill them unnaturally is the same as saying because all people die eventually it is acceptable to kill them whenever we want. Hence the shooting your neighbor analogy.

Why isn't it OK for a man to shoot his neighbor but it's OK for God to "kill" him with a heart attack?

You do if you're citing statistics inaccurately. LOL! You're the one who was talking about birth control failure rates, and I pointed out that "failure rates" as understood statistically include non-use. I had no motive other than proper understanding of the facts. All I'm saying is that when you are talking about statistics for anything, you need to know and disclose what exactly those numbers mean. As I said earlier, it's like including the incidence of (consensual) statutory rape in with rape statistics -- it artificially inflates the numbers, making what most people consider "true" rape numbers seem higher than they are. Am I involved in a conspiracy to discount rape? Or to devalue what the victims go through? Of course not -- I am simply pointing out the truth about what the numbers represent. Same with birth control failure rates.

Awesome -- thank you! Once you have the info LMK. I'm going to be out of town for a while starting next weekend, so if I don't respond it doesn't mean I've forgotten about it!

As usual, because the statistics say something you don't like, it's my fault. I'm not a statistician and I didn't perform any of these studies. I'm simply translating what the studies were actually documenting. Bottom line, when you look at the statistics for condom failure, those numbers include non-use as a facet of "failure". I'm sorry if you don't like it, but that's what the numbers are documenting! You can go commission your own study to determine what percentage of teenaged boys can't figure out how to put a condom on correctly if you want, but it's just plain wrong to take the existing statistics and say the indicate something they don't.

Just FYI, I re-researched contraceptive failure statistics, and my memory served me right. Contraceptive "failure rates" are indicated by the number of pregnancies occurring over a year for which the parties reported using the given method of contraception. The rate absolutely does take into consideration non-use of the method. In other words, if you were part of a study group with condoms being your birth-control method and you run out of them, don't use them one time, and get pregnant, it would statistically be considered "condom failure". Taking a sub-section of a group will change the "failure rate". For example, mature people in a committed relationship will have a higher efficacy rate for any given contraception than will, for example, teenagers. It's not because the teens don't know how to use the contraception, but rather that they are not consistent with its use.

I'm sorry you've both experienced and witnessed things like that. I don't much care for pro-lifers who give the group a bad name. It's easy to get angry, but that does nothing to help the cause. On the flip side, I've seen some pretty awful things from the pro-abortion side as well, but I know it's not universal. rordiguezequal, I know it's a weird request, but the next time you're driving by there I would really appreciate it if you would stop and ask the name of the organization the protesters are with. I totally understand if you're uncomfortable doing that, but if you are up for it I'd like to know who it is.

{sigh} I'm only responding because of the misstatements posted. I can't think of a time when I've done that. I have always tried to deal with everyone and everything, especially as it regards this issue, very honestly. You've made no secret of the fact that you are not a fan of Bush. You didn't say those exact words but you characterized what he did as devious and bad for the country. I don't think that's out of line at all based on previous posts on this thread and others about how much you think Bush has been bad for this country and about how you disagree with his politics. That's not mischaracterizing anything. I've asked many a question that hasn't been answered on this board. It's pretty normal and not devious or deceptive at all. 3442 was a post by CarrieC I don't see anything out of context there at all. So if I did do so, it wasn't "obviously intentionally to make [my] point". 3470 was spot on, a quote directly from you. Just because you don't agree with someone or they have good arguments doesn't mean they don't play fair. It's obvious you and I have diametrically opposed points of view on just about everything. If you don't like what I have to say, just ignore me! I often ignore what you have to say (obviously not all the time). That's quite a backhanded compliment. It's absolutely incredible that everything you don't like on this thread is my fault. Are you saying the website I posted has no relevance? Because I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, but if you are, it is quite relevant. The organization that goes into most of the schools and presents the sex ed program, Planned Parenthood, hosts that website. If you don't like their approach, talk to them -- not to me.