who supports right to choose

[gadgetlady 4]

I'm pretty sure that when a women is pregnant they use the term mother to be...not mother

Terminology isn't always accurate. Interestingly, a woman who's carrying another person's baby is called a "surrogate mother", not a "surrogate mother-to-be".

Mother is defined as a woman who conceives, gives birth to, or raises and nurtures a child.

yes you did answer your own question when you asked it you said, but I know you answer will be....

The answer I knew was whether a mother has a right to kill her child 3 months after birth. Not "by what criteria do we determine precisely when a baby has a right to live and not be killed by someone else?"

[rodriguezequal 3]

While your definition is nice...the definition from Webster: Mother

Says a woman who has given birth.

The Merriam-Webster: Mother - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Says A female parent.

Another source gives definitions from 5 sources: and none of them says a pregnant woman or a woman who conceives...

Remember that places like freedictionary and wikipedia can have definitions from anyone....anyone can post on those sites...

[rodriguezequal 3]

Then when does the baby cease to be the property of the mother? Does the mother have the right to kill her child 3 months after birth if she can't handle having a baby? I know your answer to that will be obviously no, so I'm asking the question: by what criteria do we determine precisely when a baby has a right to live and not be killed by someone else? You previously indicated that this happens once the baby is born, but now what you're saying is that it doesn't matter if the baby can be physically separated from her body with no affect on her; she still has the right to kill the baby. So my question is when does her baby's right to live begin and her right to kill him or her end? Given the scenario above, it can't be "separation from the mother" -- then when is it?

See above where you answered questions based on what you thought I would say...that is answering your own questions...

[gadgetlady 4]

While your definition is nice...the definition from Webster: Mother

Says a woman who has given birth.

The Merriam-Webster: Mother - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Says A female parent.

Another source gives definitions from 5 sources: and none of them says a pregnant woman or a woman who conceives...

Remember that places like freedictionary and wikipedia can have definitions from anyone....anyone can post on those sites...

mother - Dictionary definition and pronunciation - Yahoo! Education

mother: Definition, Synonyms from Answers.com

Lots of entries have several definitions. I wasn't looking at wikipedia or freedictionary.

[gadgetlady 4]

See above where you answered questions based on what you thought I would say...that is answering your own questions...

Not at all. What I didn't understand -- and still don't -- is why separation from the mother through labor and delivery produces a human being with the right to live, while separation from the mother through a surgical procedure designed to alleviate the mother from any obligation of being pregnant or having a child, doesn't.

[rodriguezequal 3]

Yes however, the ones I posted are from real dictionaries...not website dictionaries. Anyone can post anything online that is all I am saying!

[rodriguezequal 3]

You don't have to understand it...it is my belief. I'm not asking you to understand what I think is right...I think it is the choice of the woman as an individual not the government and everyone else...the purpose of an abortion is to terminate the pregnancy not birth a child to be given to someone else

[BJean 16]

"Out there"? This hypothetical scenario is "out there"? This is a fine example of the utterly bizzare notions that anti-choice people love to bring into any discussion or debate.

I believe their motive is to plant seeds of guilt within women.

Good Lord woman! Will you stop at nothing? You don't seem to believe that you can go too far in your Quest to take women's rights away.

You keep saying that you don't want to take women's rights away and now you're suggesting a scenario where the government actually invades a woman's physical body.

You also keep saying that because I believe that the government should have no power over women's reproductive organs, pregnant or unpregnant, that I advocate abortion during the entire 9 months of pregnancy. The fact is not that I advocate abortion at all. I advocate women having the right to make their own decisions on this emotion laden question. There is no reason to draw lines or conjure up specific dates where a fetus is viable. It is irrelevant to me. It is none of yours or the governments business what a woman decides to do when she has become pregnant when she did not plan it and when she cannot safely have a child.

That is my opinion and the reason why I participte so strongly on this thread. I know that your opinion is that at the point of conception, when an abortion occurs or D & C occurs or spontaneous physical abortion caused by nature occurs, that it is killing a baby. I just couldn't disagree in any stronger terms than I am disagreeing right now.

THIS IS NOT A MATTER FOR YOU OR THE GOVERNMENT TO DECIDE!

THIS IS A MATTER BETWEEN A WOMAN AND HER CONSCIENCE; A WOMAN AND HER HUSBAND; A WOMAN AND HER DOCTOR; A WOMAN AND HER GOD.

PASSING A LAW THAT WILL ALLOW OUTSIDERS TO CONTROL THE QUESTION OF BIRTH OR ABORTION WILL NOT WORK!

IT DID NOT WORK. IT WILL NOT WORK. IT IS FOLLY. WOMEN ARE THE DECIDERS. AND THEY ARE THE ONLY ULTIMATE DECIDERS WHEN IT COMES TO BIRTH OR ABORTION. IT JUST DOESN'T WORK ANY OTHER WAY.

As I have said many, many, many times before. I commend you for your work within the parameters of counseling, adoption as an option, support for unwed mothers and all that you do - EXCEPT - I do not believe that you should be trying to pass a law to make abortion illegal because it doesn't work. It has been proven. It will not prevent abortions. It will kill women.

Prevention of abortions could work if you use your passion for all of those unborn babies by helping women who are vulnerable and suffering as a result of becoming pregnant when they should not have become pregnant and do not want to be pregnant. Period.

[gamyj 0]

this is a debate that has been going on for years! Being hostile to one another to try and prove your point of view it rediculous. i have my views and no matter what amount of presuasion or anger or scripture is ever going to change my ideology on this particular subject. nor will it change anybody elses... do u really think that bitching on a post is going to make someone say "hummmm ive been wrong all along". Hell no! agree to disagree. the fact is that in the united states of america abortion is legal, so right now reguardless of anybodys feelings or thoughts woman have the legal right have to an abortion.

[BJean 16]

gamyj, the key sentence in your post is: "the fact is that in the united states of america abortion is legal, so right now reguardless of anybodys feelings or thoughts woman have the legal right have to an abortion."

The reason it is so important is because there is a very heavy-handed movement going on to try to change that fact and make abortion illegal. If you think it is a few folks who are making a little noise, you're wrong. They are ruthless and do not cut women any slack in any area of this debate. They do not believe that we can simply "agree to disagree." They believe that they are the only ones who are correct in this debate and they will not rest until they see to it that laws are passed to take away every American woman's right to choose. Including yours.

If we don't fight it, we will be the losers.

[gadgetlady 4]

Yes however, the ones I posted are from real dictionaries...not website dictionaries. Anyone can post anything online that is all I am saying!

Agreed. Wikipedia, for example, is a notoriously unreliable source.

That being said, there are often many definitions for words within any dictionary, written or online. Many of these sources, both written and online, point to "mother" meaning a woman who is pregnant.

[gadgetlady 4]

You don't have to understand it...it is my belief. I'm not asking you to understand what I think is right...I think it is the choice of the woman as an individual not the government and everyone else

Do you also think no one should interfere when a woman beats her child? That it's just her belief as an individual and not the government and no one else should get involved?

the purpose of an abortion is to terminate the pregnancy not birth a child to be given to someone else

The termination of pregnancy is childbirth. Abortion is the terminating of a child.

[rodriguezequal 3]

NONE of the dictionarys I read said a pregnant woman...not one...I have 3 at my home...none of them! Beating a child and having an abortion is different no matter how many simularities you think there are. The only people that will benefit or suffer from the decision of this is the woman wanting the abortion....not you guys that are trying to "protect" the unborn! Come on...it's like beating a dead dog....no matter how many times you kick it, it will never yelp in submission.

[rodriguezequal 3]

Oh and the definition or abortion is the termination of a pregnancy not of a child...

[gadgetlady 4]

"Out there"? This hypothetical scenario is "out there"? This is a fine example of the utterly bizzare notions that anti-choice people love to bring into any discussion or debate.

I believe their motive is to plant seeds of guilt within women.

No, BJean, despite all nefarious intent you ascribe to pro-lifers, our goal isn't to make women guilty. It's to open peoples' eyes and change their minds.

Good Lord woman! Will you stop at nothing? You don't seem to believe that you can go too far in your Quest to take women's rights away.

You keep saying that you don't want to take women's rights away and now you're suggesting a scenario where the government actually invades a woman's physical body.

The purpose of proposing the scenario is to point out the fact that abortion is not about a mother controlling her own body; it's about a mother being able to kill her child.

You also keep saying that because I believe that the government should have no power over women's reproductive organs, pregnant or unpregnant, that I advocate abortion during the entire 9 months of pregnancy. The fact is not that I advocate abortion at all. I advocate women having the right to make their own decisions on this emotion laden question

. . . through all 9 months of pregnancy.

There is no reason to draw lines or conjure up specific dates where a fetus is viable. It is irrelevant to me.

Because you believe it is wholly a mother's decision up until the moment of natural birth, regardless of pesky little things like viability.

PASSING A LAW THAT WILL ALLOW OUTSIDERS TO CONTROL THE QUESTION OF BIRTH OR ABORTION WILL NOT WORK!

When abortion is restricted or illegal, abortions go down. They don't cease to exist (all types of crime never cease to exist), but they are dramatically reduced.

Prevention of abortions could work if you use your passion for all of those unborn babies by helping women who are vulnerable and suffering as a result of becoming pregnant when they should not have become pregnant and do not want to be pregnant.

The movement isn't just about changing the law. It is about helping those who are pregnant when they don't want to be. If you think it isn't, you know nothing about the pro-life movement.