who supports right to choose

[gadgetlady 4]

Many simply do not agree with you that a fetus at any stage is a "human life." Many believe it is not anything more than a "potential human life."

So, are you going to debate this issue? Or, are you simply going to argue, like usual, that "a fetus is a human life because a fetus is a human life."

Please define human life. Is it human? Is it alive? Please show me how it is not.

[gadgetlady 4]

gadget - I'm just as uptight about the dichotomy of your stance on it being unacceptable for never taking a human life if it is a baby, versus always taking a human life if it is a convicted killer. A life is a life, as you so often put it. If you believe there is no middle ground about taking a life when there is an "innocent" human being's life at stake, then you shouldn't believe that there is no middle ground when there is a "guilty" human being's life at stake.

I am against the death penalty. I didn't used to be. It was the pro-life movement that brought me there.

Of course I have children. How else would I know exactly how a pregnancy affects a woman? That's not something you can read about and fully appreciate or understand.

I didn't know for sure. My first reaction in reading your description of pregnancy and childbirth was either 1) this woman doesn't have kids, or 2) this woman is really bitter that she does. I knew those weren't necessarily true, but those were my first reactions.

That's why I could never, in a million years, give a child up for adoption. That is unfair to the extreme as far as I'm concerned. All you have to do is watch Oprah, Springer or a few of the other talk shows, or know someone who is adopted very intimately, to realize how much pain adoptees can experience when they learn that their mother gave them up for adoption. And can you blame them?

I believe placing a child for adoption is an incredible and loving sacrifice. I've been with women who have gone through it. And I know adoptees can have feelings of abandonment, etc. when they learn they were adopted. It's a visceral reaction and completely understood. But it would seem faced with the option of "adopted" or "dead", the former is better, wouldn't you think?

Adoption is not always a perfect answer to an unwanted pregnancy. It is fraught with emotional as well as, in some cases physical, unhealthy implications. To pass adoption off as the perfect answer to make abortion illegal, is wrong, wrong, wrong.

I never said adoption is a perfect answer to an unplanned pregnancy. I don't think there is ANY perfect answer to an unplanned pregnancy. It's a difficult, unfortunate, heart-wrenching situation for all involved. Perhaps you didn't read my earlier post. I have friends and I have counseled women who have been at every end of this decision: abortion, adoption, and delivery of the baby without adoption. I KNOW the problems and I KNOW the heartaches. It's not an easy situation and there is not an easy answer. But the taking of a human life doesn't solve the problem; it only creates a new one.

Have you ever wondered how a child feels when he learns his mother has had an abortion? "What makes me different from my brother or sister?" (because, as you know, the gender of the baby is sure when the abortion is performed) "Why did mom give me life and not my sibling?" "If circumstances were different when my mom got pregnant with me, would I be alive right now, either?" "Why did mom want ME and not my brother/sister? Why am I different?"

[marjon9 6]

Please define human life. Is it human? Is it alive? Please show me how it is not.

The point where human life begins is the very question at issue here. I could just as well say to you "please show me how it is human life."

And clearly it is not enough to say that it is "human" and it is "alive," so therefore it is "human life." A skin cell is "human" and "alive," that does not make it "human life." A dividing embryo that is months away from viability is "human life" to some people, and it is not "human life" to other people. It is not enough for you to simply say that it is human life because it is human life. That does not prove anything.

How is an embryo different from a skin cell? Good question. After all, they are both "human," and they are both "alive." So, what is the difference?

The difference is, the embryo has the potential to become a human baby. Now, in your mind, this potential to become a baby means that it already is a human baby. Other people disagree.

So, who gets to decide? Why do you get to be the one to force other people to accept your view of this very difficult, complex, personal decision?

[gadgetlady 4]

The point where human life begins is the very question at issue here. I could just as well say to you "please show me how it is human life."

No problem. The baby has it's own circulatory system (with a blood type often different from the mother's), it's own beating heart, it's own brain, two arms, two legs, all major organs including early sex organs, etc. I don't know any women that have four arms and four legs, two brains, two hearts, and, in the case of a male baby, male genitalia.

A skin cell is "human" and "alive," that does not make it "human life."

A skin cell doesn't have the features described above.

So, who gets to decide?

If I believe illegal immigrants are not valuable human life, do I get to kill them because, after all, that's my belief and who are you to say what I believe is wrong?

When another human life is involved, the state has the right to get involved. Life is not contingent on how other people define it. Life just IS. We can't depend on whether others believe us to be alive to determine whether we have the right to live or not. It's arbitrary and discriminatory.

[Alexandra 55]

Have you ever wondered how a child feels when he learns his mother has had an abortion? "What makes me different from my brother or sister?" (because, as you know, the gender of the baby is sure when the abortion is performed) "Why did mom give me life and not my sibling?" "If circumstances were different when my mom got pregnant with me, would I be alive right now, either?" "Why did mom want ME and not my brother/sister? Why am I different?"

Interestingly, my mother faced the very same situation that I faced when I chose to have an abortion at 22. She got pregnant with a man she was very involved with but not engaged to, while living in a town she knew she didn't want to stay in. You know the story, big-city girl spends postgrad year at small-town job, falls in love and gets pregnant, feels trapped, scared, pressured from every direction...how does it end?

In my mother's case it ended with an illegal abortion secretly obtained. When her job and the relationship ended she moved back to the city, and a few months later met my father. I am the product of a planned and very much wanted pregnancy and I'm glad my mother had the time to make her decisions the way SHE wanted to make them. I'm just sorry she had to break the law to retain control of her life.

When I first learned about her early relationship I used to fantasize about how my life might have been different had I been the baby from those parents instead of the ones I had. That's a fun mind exercise but utterly pointless, because -- of course -- I wouldn't have been ME. And never once did I question my existence or worth because of my mother's decision made a decade and a half before I was born.

My older daughter has recently been asking about my first marriage and why we didn't have any children. She asked if we'd ever gotten pregnant (she's a thinker, that one!) I told her the truth, that my ex had been a terrible choice for a husband and would have made a terrible father, and in any case I wasn't ready to BE a mother until I met the man who became HER father. I told her that I did get pregnant by mistake, but I had a medical procedure to make the baby stop developing so it wouldn't be born. I waited for her reaction, not sure what her 8 y.o. mind would make of this news.

She smiled wonderfully and told me how glad she is that she has the parents she has. And I was glad for the chance to start our discussion about how my daughter can have a family when SHE wants and is ready to have one, and not one second sooner.

[Alexandra 55]

No problem. The baby has it's own circulatory system (with a blood type often different from the mother's), it's own beating heart, it's own brain, two arms, two legs, all major organs including early sex organs, etc. I don't know any women that have four arms and four legs, two brains, two hearts, and, in the case of a male baby, male genitalia.

A skin cell doesn't have the features described above.

If I believe illegal immigrants are not valuable human life, do I get to kill them because, after all, that's my belief and who are you to say what I believe is wrong?

When another human life is involved, the state has the right to get involved. Life is not contingent on how other people define it. Life just IS. We can't depend on whether others believe us to be alive to determine whether we have the right to live or not. It's arbitrary and discriminatory.

If the life in question, fetus or illegal alien alike, is living INSIDE another human being, then I say the "host" gets to decide.

[marjon9 6]

No problem. The baby has it's own circulatory system (with a blood type often different from the mother's), it's own beating heart, it's own brain, two arms, two legs, all major organs including early sex organs, etc. I don't know any women that have four arms and four legs, two brains, two hearts, and, in the case of a male baby, male genitalia.

A skin cell doesn't have the features described above.

If I believe illegal immigrants are not valuable human life, do I get to kill them because, after all, that's my belief and who are you to say what I believe is wrong?

When another human life is involved, the state has the right to get involved. Life is not contingent on how other people define it. Life just IS. We can't depend on whether others believe us to be alive to determine whether we have the right to live or not. It's arbitrary and discriminatory.

Your arguments are more of the same, and they do not address the points I made at all. I'm wondering if you will ever actually address the points I make.

It is simply not true that a dividing embryo that is months away from viability has all the human features you describe above (beating heart, brain, etc). As you know, pro-life people believe that life begins at the moment of conception, long before there is any heart or brain. So, your argument is completely irrelevant. We are not discussing late term abortion here.

So, I ask again, what is it that makes a dividing embryo "human life"? The only answer is that it has the potential to become human life. But is it human life now? That's the whole question. Again, you cannot prove that it is human life by simply declaring that it is.

And your argument about illegal aliens is ridiculous. Again, you are trying to win your argument by assuming the very point that is in dispute. Of course you can't kill illegal aliens or anyone else because you don't think that their form of "human life" is as valuable as another. But we are not talking here about "human life." We are talking about a dividing embryo. I know you think that a dividing embryo is human life, but other people disagree. That is the whole dispute.

And your argument that the state has the right to get involved where "human life" is concerned, is another example of your refusal to actually discuss the issue. The issue here is, whether or not an embryo actually is "human life." I know you think it is, but others disagree. It is totally irrelevant to argue that the state has the right to intervene when "human life" is at stake. No one disagrees with that. But that proves nothing about whether or not an embyo actually is "human life."

Gadget, you seem like a bright person. Do you really not understand the point here? Or are you just afraid to look at it. Are you going to actually discuss this issue? Or not.

When an embryo is in its early stages, long before it has a heart or brain, is it "human life"? And if so, why? As you know, other people disagree that this is human life. Why do you get to decide?

Are you going to tell me that you get to decide because, in the case of "human life," the state gets to intervene? Are you really going to do that again? Or are you going to actually discuss the issue. The issue is, when an embryo is in the early stages, is it human life? And if so, why? And since many people disagree, why do you get to decide?

[Band-aided 0]

I'm with Susannah on this one! Things happen to people and sometimes choices have to be made that are not nice or happy ones. I have never had an abortion but, say my little girl was raped and fell pregnant then I would almost certainly consider it. The world is made up of different people with differnt views on things. I don't go to church never have never will. I believe in something, I don't put a name to it, just believe it's nice to be nice to people and i bring my children up to give respect to others and what they belive in, to treat people how they would like to be treated themselves. If you want t call it God, Ala, Budda or whatever thats fine by me,. Hey why don't we all just try to get along and stop judging people for things that we have no business with. If your on this site your probably overweight, I am, I know what it's like to be judged I certainly don't want to do that to anyone else! Lecture over!

[shrinkingamy 0]

"What gets me is when people speak out so hatefully against someone who made a decision that is perfectly legal in our country."

I didn't get very far into reading all of the responses, but this statement stood out for me. Legality does not equal morality for all people, and the statement this was in response to ("Until I walk in the shoes of a killer") is not said out of hatred.

I don't hate anyone who makes a choice in their own life. However, I disagree with many of the decisions/choices make that may be perfectly legal. It's gut-wrenching for me to know that a baby's life is cut short or more simply put, a baby is killed when a woman exercises her legal right to abortion. It's sad and very upsetting when a law is in effect that completely disregards my own personal morals and ethical values.

There truly are pro-life advocates that are not speaking their thoughts and opinions out of hatred. It's very often out of care, love, and a deep sadness for the lost lives and painful deaths that are a result of a "legal" activity.

[gadgetlady 4]

It is simply not true that a dividing embryo that is months away from viability has all the human features you describe above (beating heart, brain, etc). As you know, pro-life people believe that life begins at the moment of conception, long before there is any heart or brain. So, your argument is completely irrelevant. We are not discussing late term abortion here.

I know we're not, and I'm not an idiot. The baby has a beating heart usually before the mother knows she's pregnant, so in fact the argument is NOT completely irrelevant.

Here are some facts for you:

• Day 1 – fertilization: all human chromosomes are present; unique human life begins

• Day 6 – embryo begins implanting in the uterus

• Day 22 – heart begins to beat with the child’s own blood, often a different type than the mother’s

• Week 5 – eyes, legs, hands begin to develop

• Week 6 – brain waves detectable; mouth, lips present; fingernails forming

• Week 7 – eyelids, toes form; nose distinct, baby kicking and swimming

• Week 8 – every organ in place; bones begin to replace cartilage, fingerprints begin to form;

• Weeks 9 and 10 - teeth begin to form, fingernails develop; baby can turn head, frown

• Week 11 – baby can grasp objects placed in hand; all organ systems functioning; the baby has fingerprints, a skeletal structure, nerves, and circulation

• Week 12 – the baby has all of the part necessary to experience pain, including the nerves, spinal cord and thalamus; the baby is nearing the end of the first trimester

• Week 17 - baby can have dream (REM) sleep

These are all occurring PRIOR to viability, PRIOR to late-term abortions. Most abortions are performed between weeks 8 and 12. At that point, this entity is no longer "a dividing embryo".

And your argument that the state has the right to get involved where "human life" is concerned, is another example of your refusal to actually discuss the issue. The issue here is, whether or not an embryo actually is "human life."

That is, absolutely, the crux of the issue. So you tell me why this thing with a beating heart and often all major organs prior to the abortion is NOT a human life?

Do you really not understand the point here? Or are you just afraid to look at it. Are you going to actually discuss this issue? Or not.

It is what I have been discussing all along, but you refuse to acknowledge it. I understand the question. The only question at hand is whether the developing baby is a human life. The only question at hand is whether the developing baby is a human life. The only question at hand is whether the developing baby is a human life. Did I say it enough times for you? It isn't the first time I've said it. Please tell me how it is not a human life.

[marjon9 6]

I know we're not, and I'm not an idiot. The baby has a beating heart usually before the mother knows she's pregnant, so in fact the argument is NOT completely irrelevant.

Here are some facts for you:

• Day 1 – fertilization: all human chromosomes are present; unique human life begins

• Day 6 – embryo begins implanting in the uterus

• Day 22 – heart begins to beat with the child’s own blood, often a different type than the mother’s

• Week 5 – eyes, legs, hands begin to develop

• Week 6 – brain waves detectable; mouth, lips present; fingernails forming

• Week 7 – eyelids, toes form; nose distinct, baby kicking and swimming

• Week 8 – every organ in place; bones begin to replace cartilage, fingerprints begin to form;

• Weeks 9 and 10 - teeth begin to form, fingernails develop; baby can turn head, frown

• Week 11 – baby can grasp objects placed in hand; all organ systems functioning; the baby has fingerprints, a skeletal structure, nerves, and circulation

• Week 12 – the baby has all of the part necessary to experience pain, including the nerves, spinal cord and thalamus; the baby is nearing the end of the first trimester

• Week 17 - baby can have dream (REM) sleep

These are all occurring PRIOR to viability, PRIOR to late-term abortions. Most abortions are performed between weeks 8 and 12. At that point, this entity is no longer "a dividing embryo".

That is, absolutely, the crux of the issue. So you tell me why this thing with a beating heart and often all major organs prior to the abortion is NOT a human life?

It is what I have been discussing all along, but you refuse to acknowledge it. I understand the question. The only question at hand is whether the developing baby is a human life. The only question at hand is whether the developing baby is a human life. The only question at hand is whether the developing baby is a human life. Did I say it enough times for you? It isn't the first time I've said it. Please tell me how it is not a human life.

OK, so you are not going to answer the questions and discuss the issues. I will just accept that.

The one additional point I will make is that you are the one who wants to use the power of the state to force your views on others. In my opinion that puts the burden on you to prove that a dividing embryo in the first few weeks after conception is "human life." If you want to use the police power of the state to force me to live by your rules, prove your case.

In contrast, I am not attempting to force you to do anything. In my world, you are free to do what makes sense to you. If you don't want to have an abortion, by all means, don't have one. Believe what you want, I'm not trying to force you to do anything. I don't need to prove anything.

[gadgetlady 4]

OK, so you are not going to answer the questions and discuss the issues. I will just accept that.

:faint: Didn't you just say the question is what makes it a human life? Didn't I answer that? And didn't I ask YOU to tell me why it isn't?

OK, so you are not going to answer the questions and discuss the issues. I will just accept that.

[gadgetlady 4]

The one additional point I will make is that you are the one who wants to use the power of the state to force your views on others.

]

The state forces its views on others all the time. Do you abuse your children, or your wife for that matter? In the privacy of your own home with no one around? It's your right, after all. Why should the state force you to stop doing what others believe is wrong but you believe is acceptable?

Now you will say this is a ridiculous argument, I'm sure. But when the government said a black person is only 3/5 of a person and therefore could be owned as a slave and treated accordingly, laws were created based on that decision. People said, "If you don't believe in slavery, don't own slaves." That was a discriminitory decision but it was the law of the land until it was overturned.

Again, and again, and again: the crux of the issue is whether the unborn is a human life. Prove your point as to why it is not.

[marjon9 6]

]

The state forces its views on others all the time. Do you abuse your children, or your wife for that matter? In the privacy of your own home with no one around? It's your right, after all. Why should the state force you to stop doing what others believe is wrong but you believe is acceptable?

Now you will say this is a ridiculous argument, I'm sure. But when the government said a black person is only 3/5 of a person and therefore could be owned as a slave and treated accordingly, laws were created based on that decision. People said, "If you don't believe in slavery, don't own slaves." That was a discriminitory decision but it was the law of the land until it was overturned.

Again, and again, and again: the crux of the issue is whether the unborn is a human life. Prove your point as to why it is not.

It's true that the state forces its views on others all the time. That is absolutely true. But when the state seeks to assert its police power to force me to do something, it has to say why. Citizens do not have to go around constantly proving why the state should leave them alone. A person who wants to walk down the street does not need to petition the state in advance to demonstrate why the state should not stop the person from walking down the street. In contrast, if the state wants to use its police power to stop me from walking down the street, it must show why it has the right to do so.

As applied here, the only possible justification you could have for forcing other people to live as you want them to is if you are able to prove that a dividing fetus is "human life." The burden is on you to justify your use of police power. Not the other way around. You have not proved your case. And it is completely irrelevant for you to turn around and say to me, OK, prove a dividing embryo is not life. I don't have to do that, or claim to be able to do that.

Your whole argument is based on the premise that a dividing embryo equals human life. My whole argument is based on the premise that NO ONE KNOWS if a dividing embryo is human life. I make no claim to know that it is or is not. You are the one making the claims here, not me. I have no idea whether a dividing embryo is life or not. My argument is, since no one knows, you have not proven your case. And therefore you have no right to invoke the police power of the state to force me to live life by your rules.

You can make the argument, if you want to, that since no one knows, why not err on the side of life. What if it is life, and all that. That is an argument that makes sense to some people. Feel free to make that argument and try to convince as many people as you can to go your way on that. But just because, in your opinion, we should "err" on the side of life, that does not justify the use of police power to force other people to live by the moral code that makes sense to you.

You have often repeated this story about how the state uses its power all the time to force people to do certain things. But that is a totally irrelevant argument in this context. No one is suggesting that the state lacks that power to do that.

But the state can only do that once it has established that it has a right to do so. That has not happened here. Therefore, it is totally irrelevant that the state, in many other circumstances where it has justified its actions, has the right to use the police power.

[gadgetlady 4]

Your whole argument is based on the premise that a dividing embryo equals human life. My whole argument is based on the premise that NO ONE KNOWS if a dividing embryo is human life. I make no claim to know that it is or is not. You are the one making the claims here, not me. I have no idea whether a dividing embryo is life or not. My argument is, since no one knows, you have not proven your case. And therefore you have no right to invoke the police power of the state to force me to live life by your rules.

You are absolutely right that this is currently the case. However, when abortion is illegal again (and I believe it will be), the burden will then be on YOU to prove the developing baby is NOT a human life (that is, if you want to join the fight to make it legal again). Since you have admitted you don't know whether it is or not, why don't you flesh out some arguments in favor or opposed? Because it seems to me that since you have acknowledged that this is the crux of the matter, you should be able to form an opinion on it.

Let me help you get started: How would one determine whether the unborn is a human life? How does one define human? How does one define life? What criterion should be used to make the determination? How does one define when life ceases and how can these criterion be applied to the beginning of life?