who supports right to choose

[BJean 16]

Anti-choice is much more descriptive of the anti-abortion movement than pro-life. They are not all 100% in favor of making 100% of abortions illegal. So they are not all 100% pro-life when it comes to abortion. There are usually some qualifiers, like rape and incest. Maybe gross deformities. Maybe other conditions that haven't been mentioned here would be severe enough for those folks to agree that an abortion is necessary.

Pro-choice couldn't be much more accurate than it is in describing people who believe that women's reproductive choices should not be made for them by the government. At no time, ever, do they think it is appropriate for the government to intervene in women's lives with regard to them having or not having babies.

Pro-choice people may or may not believe that abortion is a good thing. They may even think that abortion is a very bad thing. But they all agree that the choice of whether or not to have an abortion is a right that women should have, whether they believe in it or not.

[rodriguezequal 3]

Well said as always!

[BJean 16]

You're too kind. It's a mutual admiration society with you and me.

[gadgetlady 4]

Anti-choice is much more descriptive of the anti-abortion movement than pro-life.

Using the word "choice" does not indicate what choice one is in favor or opposed to.

This isn't about government or personal decisions or anything else. It's about whether the thing growing in the womb is a human being. Here's a great website: Case For Life - Only One Issue. Excellent, excellent, excellent (did I say excellent?) presentation of the entire topic.

[gadgetlady 4]

Here's another fascinating discussion I just came across at Marxism and Abortion — The Forerunner (emphases mine):

“Human Life and Fetal Images,” an essay by Rebecca Albury, appeared in the Australian publication on August 10 of this year. Albury made the following statements about the teachings of Karl Marx and their relationship to the unborn:

• A Marxist believes that personality and human value are imparted by the external and economic environment, not by any inherent spiritual value, or even by biological processes.
  

• The fetus, according to a Marxist, becomes a person when he is judged as such by “someone of higher wisdom.” The humanity of the fetus depends upon how the mother perceives the “social relationship” that exists between them. If the mother desires to keep the baby, then she “fantasizes” it into becoming a human being. But, if she does not want the pregnancy, “it is something else entirely.” Her opinion of the fetus thereby denies it of personhood.
  

• “Biological processes,” says Albury, “do not carry automatic moral values as the Right to Life suggests … Human economic, social, and political relationships create moral values.”
  

• According to Albury, “Material conditions of life change, and so do moral values.” This means that, to a Marxist, the unborn baby may be a human being for a time, but may then become depersonified and rendered ‘pre-human,’ all because his or her mother began to think differently about him or her. She adds: “Certainly, many women experience mixed feelings; the fantasy baby may even appear for a while. Women can tell it goodbye forever.”
  

The issue is whether or not a mother should be able to legally decide whether her child lives or dies.

[pattygreen 5]

Using the word "choice" does not indicate what choice one is in favor or opposed to.

This isn't about government or personal decisions or anything else. It's about whether the thing growing in the womb is a human being. Here's a great website: Case For Life - Only One Issue. Excellent, excellent, excellent (did I say excellent?) presentation of the entire topic.

Awesome link! It said it perfectly. The issue IS "what is the unborn?" If prochoicers knew that the unborn was 'human', then they would HAVE to be against abortion. ALL abortions. Since they choose not to believe the biblical view on killing the unborn, then they need a scientific view to convince them. There are many scientists and doctors who say that life begins at conception. I saw many articles when I googled "life begins at conception".

Although, IMO, I tend to believe that those who are prochoice really don't care if it could be proven scientifically or not. They want to be able to do what they want to do if they so choose with their own bodies and don't care if another life seperate from theirs ends because of their decision.

Edited May 19, 2009 by pattygreen

[rodriguezequal 3]

When I typed "Life Begins at Conception" into google I got 559,000 results...however, when I typed "Life doesn't Begin at Conception" I get 6,150,000 results.

Inconsistancy in the “life begins at conception” argument

God's Conception Magic Act

Anyways...I just found the first one interesting and I really enjoyed the second one lol. You cannot force everyone to believe in your own religious mumbo jumbo...Not everyon shares your beliefs...not everyone is religious at all.

[pattygreen 5]

When I typed "Life Begins at Conception" into google I got 559,000 results...however, when I typed "Life doesn't Begin at Conception" I get 6,150,000 results.

Inconsistancy in the “life begins at conception” argument

God's Conception Magic Act

Anyways...I just found the first one interesting and I really enjoyed the second one lol. You cannot force everyone to believe in your own religious mumbo jumbo...Not everyon shares your beliefs...not everyone is religious at all.

So, there are opposing scientific stands on either side.

So, what you're saying is NOONE knows for sure.

Well then, if the prolifers are correct and life begins at conception, no harm done. OTOH, if prochoicers are correct and life doesn't begin until it enters through the canal, then.....WOW! think of all the harm done!

We prolifers have nothing to lose if we're wrong with our stand, You pro choicers are either allowing or murdering millions of human beings if you're wrong on your stand.

[gadgetlady 4]

You cannot force everyone to believe in your own religious mumbo jumbo...Not everyon shares your beliefs...not everyone is religious at all.

It has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with science. Some of the links I provide may have religious perspectives for those who are religious, but absent religion the reality is that human life begins at conception and when a mother aborts she is killing a human being.

[rodriguezequal 3]

the prolifers may have nothing to lose but what if abortions are made illegal then the women that get pregnant will have a lot to lose because of your beliefs. I didn't say that I share all the beliefs discussed in those articles...did I?

[rodriguezequal 3]

If that was the case and all science proved that then it would be considered murder by law and would be made illegal...which is not the case

[rodriguezequal 3]

I didn't say that your articles were based on religion. I was refering to something Patty said.

[gadgetlady 4]

If that was the case and all science proved that then it would be considered murder by law and would be made illegal...which is not the case

We're working on it. As science and technology catch up with nature and pregnancy, you see more and more people realizing the truth. Personhood laws are working their way through the system. Slavery used to be legal because people were convinced blacks were less than full human beings. The law eventually caught up, but sadly only after the atrocities were committed.

[rodriguezequal 3]

It wasn't just "blacks" that were slaves. Regardless of whether there is life within the womb or not shouldn't be the problem...it should be the womans choice whether she wants that life to grow into her child or not...not the government.

[gadgetlady 4]

it should be the womans choice whether she wants that life to grow into her child or not

That life is already her child.