who supports right to choose

[gadgetlady 4]

Technically it's not beating independently, but with the help of the mother/host's body...

The mother is not contributing to its beating, but simply providing an atmosphere for it to continue beating.

[rodriguezequal 3]

Yes and without the mother the beating stops.

[gadgetlady 4]

Yes and without the mother the beating stops.

Yes, of course, but not simultaneously, because they are separate heartbeats. If the baby is advanced enough, he or she can sometimes be saved via c-section if the mother dies.

[rodriguezequal 3]

Yes and the fetus can be removed so the mother's heart will continue to beat...well that is as long as abortion is legal...

[gadgetlady 4]

Yes and the fetus can be removed so the mother's heart will continue to beat.

But when the baby is removed forcibly through abortion, his or her heart always stops and he or she always dies (except in the case of late-term abortions where one of the "complications" is that the baby is born alive). The goal should be for both to remain alive, don't you think?

[rodriguezequal 3]

In a perfect world....maybe, but this world is far from perfect! However, if the doctors know that the birth of the baby will kill the mother, then it should be okay too just let the captain go down with the ship?

[gadgetlady 4]

In a perfect world....maybe, but this world is far from perfect!

Of course it's not perfect, but that doesn't mean we should deliberately do wrong things.

However, if the doctors know that the birth of the baby will kill the mother, then it should be okay too just let the captain go down with the ship?

I have always said, every pro-lifer I know has always said, and all pro-life laws drafted have said that there should be an exception in the case of the mother's physical life being in danger should she carry the baby to term.

You do know that even according to Planned Parenthood's own statistics, the vast majority of abortions are performed for reasons other than the physical health of the mother or the baby?

The fact is that 93% of abortions are performed for social reasons (quite simply, the baby is unplanned or inconvenient).

[rodriguezequal 3]

Of course not, but to me an abortion is not wrong so therefore it would not be deliberately doing wrong. I just want to say...well ask I guess...is there a statistic for how many people actually tell the truth when asked a question for a survey...?

[gadgetlady 4]

Of course not, but to me an abortion is not wrong so therefore it would not be deliberately doing wrong.

But you said in a perfect world it'd be best to preserve the life of both mother and baby. So if the world were perfect and both could survive, aren't you then saying that because one (the baby) has to die, that's imperfect? And if imperfect, isn't there something wrong with it?

I just want to say...well ask I guess...is there a statistic for how many people actually tell the truth when asked a question for a survey...?

They're Guttmacher Institute (Planned Parenthood) statistics. And I would think if people were going to lie, they'd lie in favor of saying it was a health issue (for mother or baby) or incest or rape -- just to assuage their conscience.

Yes, surveys can easily be skewed, especially if the questions aren't worded properly (interestingly, the poll at the top of this thread is a prime example of a poorly worded question and poorly worded answer-options). But these statistics are pretty consistent throughout all studies, regardless of which side sponsored the study.

[pattygreen 5]

Yes and without the mother the beating stops.

and a one month old infant without his mother, the beating stops. What's the difference???!!!

[pattygreen 5]

I'm pretty sure I referred to a fertilized egg as a blob of tissue and I stand by that. Just because there are cells that can grow and develop into a person, does not mean that they are any more than a blob of tissue at the point of conception.

You see, I do not believe that a fertilized egg has all the rights and privileges of and in fact, IS, a human being. It merely has the potential to be a human being. It is composed of human tissue but that does not mean that it is an actual person. Lots of things must happen correctly and in a timely fashion for a fertilized egg for it to develop into a person.

An egg still in a woman's reproductive organs also has the potential to be a person, but it isn't a person, not yet.

Not until a sperm meets it.

Neither are all those millions of sperm that are sometimes deposited where they don't belong.

Not until it meets the egg.

Sure, they too are human tissue, but they aren't a person. So to give all the protection that one gives an actual person to a blob of human tissue or a fertilized egg or a single egg or a single sperm, is wrong.

To a single sperm or egg, no. But to a fertilized egg, yes. For now we have a human life that is no longer a blob of tissue like a sperm or an egg seperately.

God didn't say anywhere, anytime, anything that would lead us to believe what pattygreen said: "Just remember that we will all be held accountable for the lives we have destroyed that weren't ours to destroy."

He did say we will ALL be held accountable for the sins we commit. And taking the life of another human being is a sin. You put 2 and 2 together.

Because I do not believe that God has given us free reign to decide which people ARE ours to destroy.

You don't own any people. So, NONE are yours.

Bible thumpers believe that God has given them the right to pluck out an eye if someone puts their eye out.

Not true. Bible believers are taught by Jesus to turn the other cheek, and to give more than is asked of them. We don't believe God gave us the right to get even, for 'Revenge is mine says the Lord'.

They justify war and other atrocities like America's attack on Iraq because they've decided that God has told them it is their right to make that decision - who to kill? - call a fundamentalist Christian - they'll tell you.

War is what gave you the freedom to talk about what you're talking about right now and many other freedoms too numerous to mention here, in this country. Some times people need to fight for their rights and freedoms. There is nothing sinful about war. If your neighbor came to you with a gun in his hand and demanded that you give him your property and then threatened to kill you and your family, would you hand it to him, or fight him for it. That's what 'war' is all about only on a larger scale. Whole countries instead of just your property. I suppose instead of war, you would just 'give' our country away to those who want to take it by force. You know, for the sake of keeping the peace. Taking life in war is never easy, but needs to be done in defense of oneself.

They'll decide if a murderer should be put to death.

Murderer's do not deserve to live. If it has been proven without a shadow of a doubt that they did it, and if there is a confession, why should the victim go without his or her life and the murderer continue to live. Then the victim's family pays through their tax dollars to SUPPORT the murderer with 3 square meals a day, a warm bed, recreation, medical care, and so on.

They'll decide which country's people we should go kill. They'll tell us that every woman in the world who has been impregnated must go through the development of a baby.

We believe life begins at conception, so yes, thou shalt not murder.

They'll decide for all of us exactly what the Bible says and who said it.

No one needs to decide what the bible says, it's right there in black and white print.

That is one reason why they have jumped on a bandwagon together and have decided that this debate about women's choice is THEIRS to make.

To pro lifers, the abortion issue is the same as this.....Let's hypothetically say that in this country the law stated that "After giving birth to a newborn, parents would have 3 months time to decide if they want to keep the baby or not. Any time before the 3 months were up, you could euthanize it." It's the parents 'choice'. Would you fight to defend those babies, because they can't defend themselves? That is why the pro lifers have 'jumped on the bandwagon' as you call it. We feel that the unborn baby is JUST like that 2 month old baby in the scenerio. What don't you get about the depth of our plight?

Frankly, this is why so many people voted against the Republicans. The fundamentalist Christian right wing has taken over the Republican party. They are hell bent on taking away women's rights to choose. It is the number one item on their agenda. They've set themselves up as judge and jury and the purveyors of all things right and good, while most of us know (if we're brave enough to say it) what they preach is single-minded poppycock.

If they don't see the light and temper their insistence on making these kinds of choices for everyone else, they will get fewer and fewer votes. I predict that the right wing faction will spin off and try to create a 3rd party - and that is what I think they should do. Because many of the Republican values are far more moderate and in sync with mainstream Americans.

You would be surprised to know exactly how many people in this country are believers in God and feel that righteousness is the way to go. It's those who want to go against God's rules that have a louder voice.

Most people want to live and let live. Most people want the freedom to choose personal issues and their own religious or spiritual beliefs. And isn't THAT what America is all about?

God allowed this country to be found. And the founding fathers set this country up to have religious 'CHRISTIAN' freedom. They weren't talking about freedom to worship Allah or Satan, or the Moon God. But they were talking about Jesus. The one true God. The founding fathers, when writing the declaration of independance, wrote that "all are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable rights." they were refering to the christian God "Jesus". The song is "God Bless America, Land that I love". That's the christian God. (Not the moslem God or mother earth, etc.) In Abraham Lincoln's quote, "In regard to this great book, I have but to say it is the best gift God has given to man." He is talking about the 'Christian' bible, and it is the bible every president takes his oath upon. In this country, we allow all different religions to dwell here, but this is a 'Christian' Nation and an english speaking nation. So, go ahead and believe what you want to believe, but don't try to take the Christian God, Jesus, and his bible out of the picture. (Blessed is the Nation whose God is the Lord. Psalm 33:12)and (Righteousness exalteth a Nation, but sin is a reproach to any people. Proverbs 14:34)

Sorry folks, it's Monday and I'm baaack.

..........................see replys above................

Edited April 7, 2009 by pattygreen

[rodriguezequal 3]

But you said in a perfect world it'd be best to preserve the life of both mother and baby.QUOTE]

I did not say that in a perfect world it's be best to preserve both lives. I said that in a perfect world it would be nice if no one did anything wrong delibrately...then I said however I do not see abortion as wrong.

[rodriguezequal 3]

and a one month old infant without his mother, the beating stops. What's the difference???!!!

Because the 1 month old infant has been born. The beating of it's heart is on it's own and is strong enough to beat without the incubation of the mother's body. A 1 month old baby has had a heartbeat, unassisted for 1 month...it is a baby that has been born...

[rodriguezequal 3]

Sure the "founders" of this country wanted it to be set up for their religion, but the natives that lived here before were not Christian...what about them? To people who do not believe in your "God" none of that Bible talk means anything.

[BJean 16]

Thank you Laptastic!

I greatly admire rodriguezequal's strength and fortitude to stand by her beliefs in spite of being badgered with the anti-choice rethoric.

I don't mean to be offensive by calling it the "anti-choice" movement, rather than the "right-to-life" movement. I just cannot, in good faith, agree that the anti-choice people are actually people who care about everyone's right-to-life. I know that's what they claim, but it is an extremely transparent claim. It is offensive to a lot of people who believe that women are smart enough and good enough to make the proper decision when it involves their reproductive organs.