who supports right to choose

[gadgetlady 4]

it is not the body and life of everyone else...it is the body and the life of the woman carrying the embryo/fetus.

It is two bodies: the body of the mother and the body of the baby. No woman has two circulatory systems, two separate and distinct sets of DNA, two heartbeats, four arms, four legs, and, in the case of a mother carrying a boy, male genitalia. These are basic facts. To argue about the value of the baby is one thing, but to argue that the baby is the mother's body is ignoring elementary school biology.

[BJean 16]

We understand your insistence that abortion is killing. However we disagree with you and the law is on our side. And the law has been written according to the Constitution of the United States.

For you interject yourself in a woman's life and insist that she may not make her own choice when it comes to her reproductive organs, you are absolutely abridging her rights and her freedom. What you want is, by definition, anti-choice. To deny that is insincere.

It is understandable that you wish to intervene since you believe that abortion is killing.

It is also understandable to most people that it is entirely wrong to equate killing children, abusing toddlers, maiming one's spouse or owning a slave with terminating an unwanted, unplanned, unhealthy and dangerous pregnancy.

[gadgetlady 4]

the law is on our side. And the law has been written according to the Constitution of the United States.

Most jurists and constitutional scholars, even those who are vehemently in favor of abortion, agree that Roe and Doe were poorly decided. Nevertheless, what we're aiming for is for the law to once again be on our side. When that happens, will your argument remain the same -- whatever the law says, goes? Or will you claim, like we are, that there is such a thing as an unjust law?

For you interject yourself in a woman's life and insist that she may not make her own choice when it comes to her reproductive organs, you are absolutely abridging her rights and her freedom. What you want is, by definition, anti-choice. To deny that is insincere.

The baby is not a woman's reproductive organs. The baby resides in the mother's reproductive organs, but he or she is not defined as the mother's reproductive organs. Babies do not spontaneously generate in a mother's body (thus being her organ), nor are they present in utero (we don't grow new organs or expand the contents of our organs after we've been around 15 or 20 years). Babies are entities separate from the mother, and in their own right.

Once a second person is present, there's a whole new set of rights to take into consideration. If the choice is to deprive another human being of his or her right to life, then yes, I am wholly against that choice. I don't think that should ever be a legal choice in any circumstance anyway. So if the choice is whether or not to kill another person, call me anti-choice until the cows come home. Personally, I think it's disingenuous to pretend the choice is something other than that.

[BJean 16]

The thing anti-choice folks can't change and can't make go away, no matter how hard they argue that a baby is a separate entity, is that a fertilized egg cannot survive without a mother's heart, circulatory system, reproductive organs, ability to process nutrition, etc., etc., etc.

The embryo or fertilized egg, has no individual rights separate from its' mother. It is not a separate entity. It is a part of its' host mother. It does not become a separate entity until it is a separate entity. To be a separate individual person, it must be a separate and individual person. Until a baby can live and breathe on its' own, the host mother has the sole responsibility for its' growth and survival.

The government has no right to incarcerate women, put them on watch for 24/7, and force them to procreate.

[gadgetlady 4]

The government has no right to incarcerate women, put them on watch for 24/7, and force them to procreate.

Nobody's trying to force anyone to procreate (in fact, there are some people I'd rather see not procreate!). Once the mother is pregnant, she has already procreated. Her only "choice" at that point is to bear a live baby or not. She will still have a baby, because that baby has been created and already exists. Hiding from that scientific fact does nothing to help women.

[Carrie_C 9]

So gadget, if you don't think a fertilized egg has a soul, when does one have a soul?

[rodriguezequal 3]

The fetus is a part of the mother. They share blood for heavens sakes. A family has a right to pull the plug on another family member if they have no brain waves...Why is that okay?

[BJean 16]

To procreate means to produce (young); to beget (offspring).

The act of fertilizing an egg is conception, which by definition is the beginning of a process or chain of events. You don't procreate or beget an offspring until you've actually produced an actual offspring.

A fertilized egg does not denote having procreated (produced) an offspring.

And btw, an "embryo" is the human organism after the first 3 months of conception and thereafter it is considered a fetus. Initially it is a fertilized egg which must become implanted in the proper place (not the tubes, for instance) and goes through a process of development until it is considered an embryo and then later a fetus.

All this is for some people purely academic and argument about whether the fertilized egg is a separate entity seems to be an attempt to convince people that abortion in the first trimester is murder. As far as most pro-choice people are concerned however, that is balderdash. Balderdash being nonsense or senseless talk or writing. :crying:

Edited March 27, 2009 by BJean

[BJean 16]

Good points Carrie and rodriguez.

[gadgetlady 4]

So gadget, if you don't think a fertilized egg has a soul, when does one have a soul?

I don't think the issue of when -- or if -- someone has a soul should enter the discussion of abortion because it's a religious viewpoint and is not the basis for valuing human life.

[gadgetlady 4]

The fetus is a part of the mother. They share blood for heavens sakes.

Actually, they don't share blood. The baby has his or her own circulatory system and quite often has a different blood type from the mother. That's because the baby is a separate person with his or her own body, own DNA, and own blood.

[gadgetlady 4]

To procreate means to produce (young); to beget (offspring).

When a sperm and an egg join, they produce an offspring. Sometimes that offspring doesn't make it to birth, or adolescence, or adulthood, but that doesn't make it any less an offspring.

You don't procreate or beget an offspring until you've actually produced an actual offspring.

Just because you haven't held the baby in your arms yet doesn't mean he or she hasn't been "produced". You don't produce a baby through labor and delivery. You simply deliver what has already been produced.

And btw, an "embryo" is the human organism after the first 3 months of conception and thereafter it is considered a fetus.

Um, no. An embryo is the term used to define a human being in the pre-fetal stage of development, up to 8 weeks. After that time, the human being's stage is called fetal, or he or she is called a fetus. Prior to the embryonic stage, the term is zygote.

Of course, these are all just stages. Prior to senior citizen, we are adults. It's just a name, not a different organism.

All this is for some people purely academic and argument about whether the fertilized egg is a separate entity seems to be an attempt to convince people that abortion in the first trimester is murder.

Since when are we only talking first trimester? You've said over and over that abortion should be legal through all 9 months of pregnancy.

[rodriguezequal 3]

Without the nutients being giving to the baby through the mothers body. It would not survive...

[gadgetlady 4]

Without the nutients being giving to the baby through the mothers body. It would not survive...

Well yes, of course. We all need nutrients to survive. The method of delivery for a pre-born baby is from the mother, as often is the method of delivery for a post-born baby (through nursing). That doesn't mean the baby is part of the mother's body. It just means the mother is feeding the baby.

[rodriguezequal 3]

The baby is attached to the mothers body.