If it were up to you, what laws would you create?

[gadgetlady 4]

In most states, abortion is only legal during the first 3 months.

You just don't know your facts. Roe v Wade and it's partner decision Doe v Bolton guaranteed abortion be legal through all nine months of pregnancy for any reason. Most people think it's only legal through three months because the Roe decision deliniates three trimesters and sets guidelines for each. But the Doe decision states that abortion must be legal for all nine months of pregnancy if the mother's health, including her emotional health, as determined by one doctor (including the abortionist) is endangered. In other words, if I'm 8 1/2 months pregnant and I want an abortion, all I have to do is tell the abortionist I can't emotionally handle having a baby and it's legal to do an abortion.

While it is not esasy to find an abortionist to do an abortion at 8 1/2 months, they're out there.

Furthermore, why can everyone accept abortion at 3 months but not at 7? Does it tickle your conscience because at 7 months the "fetus" LOOKS more like a "baby"?

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Get out and see the life that welfare moms with unwanted children live. Expericence the rage and hurt that those unwanted children feel. Then come back and preach against abortion as an option.

It is easier to condemn abortion, make the women have the unwanted children who many times become the convicts that are on deathrow who don't deserve to live.

Makes perfect sense to me.:rant:

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Furthermore, why can everyone accept abortion at 3 months but not at 7? Does it tickle your conscience because at 7 months the "fetus" LOOKS more like a "baby"?

Nothing to do with conscience. At 7 months a fetus can be delivered (though it is better to wait the 9 months) and be kept alive with some help. At 7 months, some fetuses can be delivered and make it on their own. Sometimes even at 5 months, babies can survive through intensive care.

However, though allowing the mother to die might seem to some as a poor excuse to allow a fetus to be aborted, it makes sense to many others. And since I am not a woman, I will not tell any woman how valuable her health is.

I wonder if the women who complained that male doctors where too quick to remove their breasts (when lumpectomies had the same survival rates) for breast cancer because they were males, will now accept 5 men in Black Robes telling them what to do with their bodies (if President BuSh's judges pass their first litmus test). As a man, I will leave it up to the women to decide their own fate. I will never have an abortion, my wife will never have one and I hope none of my grandchildren will, but if any are raped, or are stupid enough to get pregnant at 14, I will not stand in the way and force a child to raise a child.

[Morsaille 4]

It is easier to condemn abortion, make the women have the unwanted children who many times become the convicts that are on death row who don't deserve to live.

Makes perfect sense to me.:rant:

I think we may have found the missing link here... If these unloved children had had the education, nutrition, and nurturing that their "wanted" counterparts were raised with then there would be no argument on either issue.

Outlaw abortion, but adopt those precious fetuses when they are born.

Before you read the inflammatory gunk at the bottom. I am pro-choice only because I do not believe anyone has the knowledge or experience to choose for anyone other than themselves. I would never have one. If one day I have to eat those words due to rape or tragic circumstances I can not imagine from where I sit now, I would be... well no one has the right to eliminate a safe medical means to an end.

I wonder if the number of self induced hemorrhages or babies born with mother induced deformities has been reduced because of legal abortion?

not serious! for arguments sake only!

Or better yet, abort all fetuses if the parents fail to graduate from "parenting 101"

It may completely eliminate crime, deviant behavior, mental illness, homelessness, and will significantly reduce unemployment. Why don't we "weed out" the genetically weaker while we are at it? It will mean a major tax cut!

not serious! for arguments sake only!

[gadgetlady 4]

I am a Christian and I believe that God is a very intelligent entity. I doubt if he would install a precious soul at every mating of a human sperm with a human egg. I think God would wait until he knows that the embryo was actually going to become a baby (by being born).

I hesitate to get into this because I don't believe abortion is a religious matter, but since you claim to be a Christian, when Jesus was a "fetus" in Mary's womb, you're saying it would have been perfectly fine for Mary to abort Him? That Jesus only became Christ when he took his first breath of air? That prior to that he was just a blob of tissue?

Or perhaps that since God knew the embryo that would grow into the adult Jesus Christ was going to actually become a "baby" (by being born), that Jesus alone was fully Jesus both in the womb and out? Or perhaps only the babies that are predestined to be born have souls, and those that are predestined to be aborted don't?

This is quite a slippery slope, determining whether or not abortion is acceptable by assigning your own personal belief as to whether and when the baby has a soul.

My argument about abortion is strictly factual, based on biology. The claim that a woman should be able to do whatever she wants with her own body is ridiculous. Firstly, the baby is NOT her body. If a woman is pregnant with a male child and the baby IS her body, she not only has 4 arms, 4 legs, and two heads, but she also has male genitalia. The baby is a wholly separate organism, with its own circulatory system, heart, brain, etc. Secondly, a woman can NOT do whatever she wants with her own body. If a woman walks into a hospital and says, "This is my body. Please remove my arm," not only will they not do it, but if she persists they will likely commit her to a mental institution. People don't just randomly remove healthy parts of "their" body.

As to social ills ("nobody takes care of these unwanted children when they're born", "these unwanted children become criminals", "these unwanted children are often abused", etc.), firstly there is absolutely no correlation between unwanted pregnancies and unwanted children. Pregnancy is the most emotional time of a woman's life, and the time when she is most emotionally vulnerable. Nine months of having a baby growing in a womb very often changes. Statisticly, there is absolutely no link between unwanted pregnancies and abuse. It's just a fact. Secondly, abortion is the ultimate form of child abuse. It is the often brutal dismemberment of a baby for the purpose of convenience. Again, we don't solve social problems by killing people. If we did, we might as well just gather together and mass-murder all homeless and hungry people. That would solve the problem of homelessness and hunger, wouldn't it? Because that's what you're advocating. Kill the babies before they're born because if you don't, they might be abused. They might be born into a non-nuclear family and turn into criminals. They might be hungry. Better to allow them to be killed then let them live and possibly have to suffer that. Perhaps we should just wait and see if they're hungry or abused or end up in prison and kill them then?

[gadgetlady 4]

If everyone who is so appalled by the choice is so sure that the women who do choose it are going to hell --- do not pass go, do not collect $200 dollars

Sorry, but I don't believe that. I believe that women who choose abortion suffer their own private hell for the rest of their lives. They do so quietly, in the privacy of their own minds, because it's something that never leaves you. Spend some time with post-abortive women and you'll see. They're either angry and defensive or completely broken.

why aren't we looking at tougher penalties for men who create unwanted pregnancies? So far, conception occurs with egg AND sperm! Wow! Really you say?! Then why is it that the females are the ones punished----legally and morally?

I don't know that I like the term "tougher penalties", but I'm right there with you in the theory. It's hypocritical that pregnant, unmarried women are pointed at while the men are often considered as just having "sown their wild oats". Furthermore, what a dichotomy that if a woman wants an abortion the father of the baby has no say in it, but if the father wants an abortion and the woman chooses to have the baby, he has no say in it either (i.e. is forced to pay child support).

Bottom line is this, I could care less what anyone else decides to do with their own body as long as they don't tread on me. They will have to live with their life choices and decisions, as I will with mine. I love my fellow humans enough to respect their right to FREE WILL.

Again, I agree with you. The distinction is that the baby is NOT their own body!!! That's where I draw the line. I am very much a libertarian in many issues. But when you're talking about another separate, distinct human being, I don't believe it's OK to kill them for one's convenience.

[gadgetlady 4]

Nothing to do with conscience. At 7 months a fetus can be delivered (though it is better to wait the 9 months) and be kept alive with some help. At 7 months, some fetuses can be delivered and make it on their own. Sometimes even at 5 months, babies can survive through intensive care.

So as medical techonology improves, "life" begins earlier and earlier? 50 years ago, when medical technology wasn't advanced enough to save a baby at 4.5 to 5 months, babies didn't deserve the right to live? It used to be that a baby wasn't a baby until it had grown for 9 months in its mother's womb, but that slowly became 8 months and then 7 months and then 6 months and then 5 months and now sometimes even less than that? So a baby that was 6 months gestation in 1900 wasn't a baby but in 2000 it is? How arbitrary and discriminatory!

Why, then, if a baby can survive at 5 months, is abortion legal through 9? Why are we arguing about the legality of DnX, also known as partial birth abortion, whereby the baby is partially delivered, feet-first, fully alive, and then stabbed at the base of the skull to have their brains sucked out so they abortionist can avoid the "dreaded consequence" of an aborted baby being born alive? Have you ever heard of Gianna Jessen? She was a botched abortion and she survived. Should her mom have had the right to kill her as an infant because that was her intention all along that she not be born?

However, though allowing the mother to die might seem to some as a poor excuse to allow a fetus to be aborted, it makes sense to many others.

Not quite sure what you mean here. Do you mean that if a woman will physically die if she carries a pregnancy to full term, then she should be allowed to abort? If so, I agree with you. That is the taking of one life to save another. But that's not the abortion debate. The argument is whether it's OK to abort for personal convenience.

As a man, I will leave it up to the women to decide their own fate. I will never have an abortion, my wife will never have one and I hope none of my grandchildren will, but if any are raped, or are stupid enough to get pregnant at 14, I will not stand in the way and force a child to raise a child.

Interesting. "As a man, I will leave it up to women. But MY WIFE will never have one!" Hmmm. If it's not such a bad thing, if it's just a blob of tissue, just a fetus, not a baby, why would you CARE if your wife had one? Why would you hope none of your grandchildren would have one? If it's a neutral act, why are so many people who are in support of it saying they'd never do it and think it should be limited?

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

"As a man, I will leave it up to women. But MY WIFE will never have one!" Hmmm. If it's not such a bad thing, if it's just a blob of tissue, just a fetus, not a baby, why would you CARE if your wife had one? Why would you hope none of your grandchildren would have one? If it's a neutral act, why are so many people who are in support of it saying they'd never do it and think it should be limited?

My wife has never had an abortion, is 59 years and will never again get pregnant.

I hope that my grandchildren will never have to make that decision that is so emotionally draining. As I said in an earlier reply: "if it were up to me, there would never have to be another abortion."

Let me repeat myself about one other issue that keeps coming up. A fetus is not a baby. A fetus is a potential baby. To say "killing a baby", clouds the issue. In fact it hides the issue.

[FunnyDuddies 6]

I am a Christian and I believe that God is a very intelligent entity. I doubt if he would install a precious soul at every mating of a human sperm with a human egg. I think God would wait until he knows that the embryo was actually going to become a baby (by being born).

I find it very interesting that as a christian you would even HINT to professing to know the mind of God. And as a christian...here's a thought. Better safe than sorry!! None of us know!! None of us REALLY know. Doctors don't know, lobbyists don't know, the 14 year old that got knocked up by her boyfriend doesn't know, and no one on this board knows. ONLY GOD KNOWS! So is it murder to abort a baby? Wouldn't it just be smart to play it on the safe side, have the baby, and give it to a family that wants a child of their own? There really are plenty of those out there. Why is it that whenever the abortion debate is brought up it is nothing but people bitching about the "carriers" potential death, or the rape of a woman. These make up for less than 1% of all abortion situations. The majority of what makes up all abortion cases are 14-17 year olds who got pregnant screwing around when they shouldn't have been. And we have removed all consequences of that. Shoot, solve the AIDS crisis and I realy shouldn't have a problem with dressing my daughter up like a slut and sending her out on her first date at the age of 12. I mean come on. Lets look at the real picture here. Abortion is used by stupid little girls who make stupid mistakes because they are not taught to take responsibility for their actions. I know. I was one of them. And Gagetlady is correct. I am broken from it. I pray about it every day of my life. You know when it hit me the hardest. When I was pregnant with my daughter. During my first pregnancy I heard all the bullshit about it not being a human, not being alive, not having a soul. I bought into it. Then I was pregnant with my daughter. And at 5 months I could feel her inside of me. Responding to my emotions, what I ate, what music was playing in the car, what I read to her before I went to sleep. And it killed me to know that I destoyed a child of mine. I killed my own child.

Now lets get back to the whole murder idea and this "keep your laws off my body" notion. This human being, this person maybe attached to you, but the heart beats on a different scale, it eats and digests seperately. Clinically and scientifically that means it is a seperate entity. That means that it is not really "your body" but instead a second body living within your body. Now that this is established, and we do not know the mind of God or when a life truly begins, why do we as a society feel it is perfectly alright to support the possible murder of young children? We all cringe at the notion of someone killing a child after it is born. It is horrific. It is nightly news and people are in shock. But it is not wrong for us to take a life just as innocent because of where it resides? And 99% of the time it is for inconvinience sake. So that we can still go out on a firday night. So we can not take time off from school before adopting the kid out and then continuing our education. So we can keep from having that embarassing conversation with the parents about how you just couldn't keep it in your pants cause Jimmy is the most popular guy in school. Here's mine. So you wouldn't be forcing your boyfriend to propose to you because when he did it, by golly you wanted it to be from the heart. Not out of obligation. Boy was I stupid. I actually killed my own kid so that I could be sure my husband proposed to me for all the right reasons.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

I hesitate to get into this because I don't believe abortion is a religious matter, but since you claim to be a Christian, when Jesus was a "fetus" in Mary's womb, you're saying it would have been perfectly fine for Mary to abort Him? That Jesus only became Christ when he took his first breath of air? That prior to that he was just a blob of tissue?

Or perhaps that since God knew the embryo that would grow into the adult Jesus Christ was going to actually become a "baby" (by being born), that Jesus alone was fully Jesus both in the womb and out? Or perhaps only the babies that are predestined to be born have souls, and those that are predestined to be aborted don't?

This is quite a slippery slope, determining whether or not abortion is acceptable by assigning your own personal belief as to whether and when the baby has a soul.

My argument about abortion is strictly factual, based on biology. The claim that a woman should be able to do whatever she wants with her own body is ridiculous. Firstly, the baby is NOT her body. If a woman is pregnant with a male child and the baby IS her body, she not only has 4 arms, 4 legs, and two heads, but she also has male genitalia. The baby is a wholly separate organism, with its own circulatory system, heart, brain, etc. Secondly, a woman can NOT do whatever she wants with her own body. If a woman walks into a hospital and says, "This is my body. Please remove my arm," not only will they not do it, but if she persists they will likely commit her to a mental institution. People don't just randomly remove healthy parts of "their" body.

As to social ills ("nobody takes care of these unwanted children when they're born", "these unwanted children become criminals", "these unwanted children are often abused", etc.), firstly there is absolutely no correlation between unwanted pregnancies and unwanted children. Pregnancy is the most emotional time of a woman's life, and the time when she is most emotionally vulnerable. Nine months of having a baby growing in a womb very often changes. Statisticly, there is absolutely no link between unwanted pregnancies and abuse. It's just a fact. Secondly, abortion is the ultimate form of child abuse. It is the often brutal dismemberment of a baby for the purpose of convenience. Again, we don't solve social problems by killing people. If we did, we might as well just gather together and mass-murder all homeless and hungry people. That would solve the problem of homelessness and hunger, wouldn't it? Because that's what you're advocating. Kill the babies before they're born because if you don't, they might be abused. They might be born into a non-nuclear family and turn into criminals. They might be hungry. Better to allow them to be killed then let them live and possibly have to suffer that. Perhaps we should just wait and see if they're hungry or abused or end up in prison and kill them then?

The baby is not the woman's body. Because it is not a baby until it is born.

The fetus however is still part of the woman's body. Go in surgically and cut the umbilical cord and see how long the fetus survives.

[gadgetlady 4]

As I said in an earlier reply: "if it were up to me, there would never have to be another abortion."

Why would you want there to never have to be another abortion if it isn't a bad thing? Clearly you know something's wrong with it if you want there to never have to be another one. Why is it an emotionally draining issue?

Let me repeat myself about one other issue that keeps coming up. A fetus is not a baby. A fetus is a potential baby. To say "killing a baby", clouds the issue. In fact it hides the issue.

And an infant is a potential toddler. A toddler is a potential adolescent. An adolescent is a potential adult. We don't believe that infants are disposable because they're not yet teenagers. A fetus is a baby, a human being, with potential -- not a potential human being.

When have you ever said to a pregnant woman, "How's the fetus doing today?" Or when has a pregnant woman said, "My fetus is kicking me!" During an ultrasound, "What a beautiful image of the fetus"? I don't think so. Instead, the OB says, "Listen to the baby's heartbeat" and "The baby is developing well." We say, "That baby's getting big in there!" and "When is your baby due?" Can you in all honesty even think of saying to a pregnant woman, "Is the fetus a boy or a girl?" or "How's the fetus developing"? The only time we call the unborn baby a fetus is when we're discussing it medically or someone is trying to obfuscate the reality of abortion. "Fetus" means unborn baby! And yes, abortion is killing that baby.

[gadgetlady 4]

The baby is not the woman's body. Because it is not a baby until it is born.

We could agree to call it a not-yet-decided word, yaltizana for example, and it would still be what it is: a human being with a wholly separate identity and biology, growing inside his mother's womb. You are so focused on the word baby and the word fetus -- they're just WORDS! What is the entity we are discussing? IT IS A HUMAN BEING!

The fetus however is still part of the woman's body. Go in surgically and cut the umbilical cord and see how long the fetus survives.

Don't feed an infant and see how long it survives. Don't provide food and hydration for a paraplegic and see how long they survive. Nourishment doesn't determine one's humanity.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

I find it very interesting that as a christian you would even HINT to professing to know the mind of God. And as a christian...here's a thought. Better safe than sorry!! None of us know!! None of us REALLY know. Doctors don't know, lobbyists don't know, the 14 year old that got knocked up by her boyfriend doesn't know, and no one on this board knows. ONLY GOD KNOWS! So is it murder to abort a baby? Wouldn't it just be smart to play it on the safe side, have the baby, and give it to a family that wants a child of their own? There really are plenty of those out there.

The amount of unadoptable children out there flies in the face of the statement "Wouldn't it just be smart to play it on the safe side, have the baby, and give it to a family that wants a child of their own? There really are plenty of those out there."

I don't see anyone on the anti-abortion picket lines offering checks to pay for the medical expenses of delivering a baby. And if anyone thinks it is cruel putting money ahead of life, tell that to a mother who can not afford to feed and cloth her newborn. Cutting welfare was an attack on children under the guise of strengthening morality. Cutting food-stamps was the next attack on children perpetrated by the party in congress who gets their votes from the anti-abortion forces. Too many anti-abortionists love every baby until it is born. Or should I say an anti-abortionist loves all babies, but not as much as he loves saving his tax dollars?

I have a right to my interpretation of God's ideas. I have heard religious arguments against abortion for years. None of those people have visited Heaven and come back with God's decision. My idea is as valid as anyone's.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

We could agree to call it a not-yet-decided word, yaltizana for example, and it would still be what it is: a human being with a wholly separate identity and biology, growing inside his mother's womb. You are so focused on the word baby and the word fetus -- they're just WORDS! What is the entity we are discussing? IT IS A HUMAN BEING!

It is not me who keeps saying things like "murdering babies" or "killing babies". When the anti-abortionists use words like abortion instead of emotionally charged (and inaccurate) words like "baby killing", then there will be no need to focus on the words. They brought about the focus.

Don't feed an infant and see how long it survives. Don't provide food and hydration for a paraplegic and see how long they survive. Nourishment doesn't determine one's humanity.

But in the case of the umbilical cord, there is no separation of mother and fetus. Hence the fetus is still part of the mother. The umbilical cord is as much a part of the mother as it is part of the fetus.

[gadgetlady 4]

I know. I was one of them. I am broken from it. I pray about it every day of my life. You know when it hit me the hardest. When I was pregnant with my daughter. During my first pregnancy I heard all the bullshit about it not being a human, not being alive, not having a soul. I bought into it. Then I was pregnant with my daughter. And at 5 months I could feel her inside of me. Responding to my emotions, what I ate, what music was playing in the car, what I read to her before I went to sleep. And it killed me to know that I destoyed a child of mine. I killed my own child.

. . .

Here's mine. So you wouldn't be forcing your boyfriend to propose to you because when he did it, by golly you wanted it to be from the heart. Not out of obligation. Boy was I stupid. I actually killed my own kid so that I could be sure my husband proposed to me for all the right reasons.

I'm so sorry for what you've been through :think. I hope you have been to some post-abortion counseling; there is a lot available. If you need some resources, feel free to PM me.

------------------------

For those of you who have never studied the statistics on the relationship between abortion and child abuse, you will find that the incidence of child abuse increases in families where there has been abortion, precisely because of what FuddyDuddies experienced: once parents realize, through the experience of carrying a baby to full term, that the baby they aborted was no different from the one the chose to allow to be born, they often lash out against the second child out of guilt.

Furthermore, if abortion cures child abuse because unwanted children are never born, why is there still child abuse? And why is it on the increase, rather than decreasing? Abortion dehumanizes children and teaches us that at at least some stage of life, people are disposable. Did you know that there are highly regarded scientists and physicians who advocate that a newborn should be assessed at birth to determine whether he is "up to standard" and, if he is not, he should be left to die (begging the question, of course of "whose standard")?