who supports right to choose

[Carrie_C 9]

Here's a question that I'd love to hear an answer from -- from anyone.

If/when medical science advances to a stage where an unborn baby can be removed from the mother's body in a procedure as "easy" as abortion, and placed in another person's body or sustained with machines, how would you feel about requiring the preservation of the unborn's life (instead of destroying it through abortion)?

I know you think this question is "out there", but remember that doctors are in the process of working on an artificial placenta right now.

I don't think this question is out there. I work in the medical field and I know that it could be possible one day. I honestly don't know how I would feel about this. I actually think it would be a good idea, but I don't agree with making it a requirement and making abortion illegal. I think if it were possible, women should be given a choice about what they would want. One problem I have with it is, who is going to take care of all these babies that are "saved from abortion"? I know there are a lot of people who can't have kids who would want to adopt, but I honestly don't think there would be enough homes. The foster care system is already too full of unwanted children without homes. If you look at how many abortions are preformed each day, what if all of those fetuses were kept alive in machines. Look at how many that would be just in a day. So I don't know, what would happen to them all? And where would the money come from to sustain these babies in the machines? Who would pay for it?

[pattygreen 5]

you can't put a price on someones life, Carrie. Even if it cost millions to care for unwanted babies that would be born, it is worth it.

It all boils down to when the life begins in the womb. If it begins at conception, like most prolifers believe, then to abort is murder. If it doesn't, like prochoicers believe, then do what you want with the baby until it actually comes through the canal and breathes its first breath. But, if God is real and his word is true, then in the end, I can only hope that those who advocate for a womans choice pray for his mercy. The only comfort that I get from abortions (if you can call it comfort) is that all babies go to be with the Lord when they die, and are spared having to make the choice in life of believing in Jesus or not in order to make it to heaven. On the other hand, they are gypt out of the experience of life on earth.

[rodriguezequal 3]

What about the mother's life...does her life not matter? What if childbirth will kill her or severly damage her body....it's okay because the baby deserves to be born no matter what befalls the mother?

[BJean 16]

Yes rodriguez, you got it right. To the anti-choice folks, the mother is not important. They believe that she made the choice to have sex and once she's pregnant, she has no choice. Her problems and complications are secondary to their insistence that every woman must have the baby even if it kills her.

I have even read someone here say she gets what she deserves for choosing to have sex. Interesting, right?

Like every woman who becomes pregnant chose to have sex. Like babies should be the penalty for women's indiscretions.

Wow. The over-simplification of the real problems women face is mind boggling.

Carrie I am for scientific advancements too. But we sure need to get this right first.

[pattygreen 5]

Self defense is another thing. I believe that if a womans life is at stake, then that would be the ONLY time an abortion is acceptable. I don't know for sure what God would say about that one. He might say, "trust me." Because to God, your life is eternal and if you died from carrying a baby, you wouldn't really be dying as far as God is concerned, just carrying on with your life elsewhere. So, I'm not sure how he feels about abortion to save the mother.

[rodriguezequal 3]

I'm sorry if "god" doesn't see it as dying, but tell that to the woman's family.

[gadgetlady 4]

Yes rodriguez, you got it right. To the anti-choice folks, the mother is not important. They believe that she made the choice to have sex and once she's pregnant, she has no choice. Her problems and complications are secondary to their insistence that every woman must have the baby even if it kills her.

You are so, so, so incredibly wrong and so irresponsible for propagating such diatribe.

All pro-life laws in the past and all proposed pro-life laws have had an exception if carrying the pregnancy to term threatens the physical life of the mother. In that case, you are taking a life to save a life; self defense.

Furthermore, the mother is very important to pro-lifers. That's why in addition to trying to keep babies from being aborted, we also offer post-abortion counseling and many resources to mothers who choose life -- all of this is generally done for free, as opposed to the for-profit business of abortion.

Women deserve better than being told they have to kill their offspring to have successful lives.

[gadgetlady 4]

If you want to talk about stats, let's talk about the overpopulation of the planet. Let's talk about children dying from starvation and disease. Let's talk about some of the grim statistics in the United States of children having children.

Well, really, if you're concerned about overpopulation, you'd be better off killing the elderly, the diseased, the unproductive, and the disabled than perfectly healthy babies with the potential to be very productive members of society. Overpopulation is a rabbit trail.

It could get so bad that the government might decide to pass a law that bans children from having children and forces 12 or 13 year old girls to undergo abortions rather than giving birth to babies.

Scare tactics much?

Just because you can state that fewer abortions will happen if it is illegal is not justification for passing a law to take this very personal and sometimes gut-wrenching decision out of the hands of the people who are personally involved.

The justification has nothing to do with the quantity of abortions performed. It has everything to do with protecting innocent human lives.

I'm pretty sure that you have told us that you are not in favor of capital punishment and that you do not oppose gun control. But for many people involved in the so-called "pro life" movement, it makes that term "pro-life" a misnomer and bogus to the core.

As a matter of fact, right now there are right wing nuts who are jumping up and down and screaming about how President Obama is going to take their guns away when in fact, he has not made a move to do so and it isn't even something that he has been talking about.

Another topic for another day, but I do oppose gun control. It's another one of those pesky personal-freedom issues, kind of like the right to not have someone else kill you.

[gadgetlady 4]

I don't think this question is out there. I work in the medical field and I know that it could be possible one day. I honestly don't know how I would feel about this. I actually think it would be a good idea, but I don't agree with making it a requirement and making abortion illegal. I think if it were possible, women should be given a choice about what they would want. One problem I have with it is, who is going to take care of all these babies that are "saved from abortion"? I know there are a lot of people who can't have kids who would want to adopt, but I honestly don't think there would be enough homes. The foster care system is already too full of unwanted children without homes. If you look at how many abortions are preformed each day, what if all of those fetuses were kept alive in machines. Look at how many that would be just in a day. So I don't know, what would happen to them all? And where would the money come from to sustain these babies in the machines? Who would pay for it?

Carrie, the foster care system is overloaded not because of newborns in the system, but rather older kids. I am quite confident that there would be plenty of people to adopt and care for the unplanned babies.

But the reason I posted the scenario wasn't to debate the particulars of a hypothetical, but to try to get to the heart of motive: is the desire of a pregnant mother seeking abortion to be "unpregnant" or is it her desire to kill the baby? And I think everyone who's tackled the issue has answered that it's her desire to kill the baby. It's very telling, really -- because the argument has thus far been that it's a woman's body and she has the right to do what she wants with her body. But now, when I propose the hypothetical that her body doesn't have to be involved at all, now all of a sudden the issue is really that she in effect owns the baby, and regardless of the fact that it's a life that can be preserved, she alone has the right to decide whether the baby should die or not.

[Carrie_C 9]

Carrie, the foster care system is overloaded not because of newborns in the system, but rather older kids. I am quite confident that there would be plenty of people to adopt and care for the unplanned babies./quote]

Yes, there are a lot of older kids in foster care, but there are also a lot of babies. I know because my mother is a foster parent. She has a 9 month old little girl right now. She has had her since she was 3 months old. She has also had many other babies. One of the reasons there are so many older kids in the system is because they were unwanted when they were born. I don't believe for a minute that every baby that wouldn't be aborted would be adopted. There would be way too many. I know that's not what you were getting at, but it is an interesting question for a lot of reasons.

[rodriguezequal 3]

I don't think I would call it a desire...

[gadgetlady 4]

Yes, there are a lot of older kids in foster care, but there are also a lot of babies. I know because my mother is a foster parent. She has a 9 month old little girl right now. She has had her since she was 3 months old. She has also had many other babies. One of the reasons there are so many older kids in the system is because they were unwanted when they were born. I don't believe for a minute that every baby that wouldn't be aborted would be adopted. There would be way too many.

My sense on the foster care system -- and I will readily admit I'm not an expert on the subject -- is that the babies that are "in the system" aren't available for adoption, but rather their parents aren't willing to give them up yet. Potential adoptive parents want a baby who is "free and clear" to be theirs; what they don't want is a legal hassle for several years, and that's the status of the babies in the system. I have several friends who have babies through foster care and, based on their experiences and what their case workers have told them about babies and general availability, this seems to be the case -- at least here in CA. One of my friends had to go through a nightmare legal situation to get adoptive custody of their daughter, and the other adopted a baby out of the system and was told by the social worker (they had to do a foster-care home study even though they didn't get the baby through foster care) that available newborns are snapped up immediately.

[gadgetlady 4]

I don't think I would call it a desire...

Perhaps "goal" is a better word.

[rodriguezequal 3]

not when there are so many newborns that there isn't enough homes to take them in...which is what would happen if babies that were going to be aborted are instead born.

[rodriguezequal 3]

The goal is to terminate the pregnancy...