who supports right to choose

[marjon9 6]

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?

Your premise is mistaken. It does not matter which way the pendulum swings on this issue, it will never be my burden to prove why the state should leave me alone. It is always the states burden to prove that it has the right to force me to do something. Sometimes the state meets that burden, and gains the right to use force. That could happen in the abortion context. But if it gains the right to do that, it will be because society has determined that the state has met its burden to demonstrate that it has the right to use force. It will never bemy burden to prove that the state should leave me alone.

I have no way to "prove" to you that a dividing embryo that is a few weeks old is or is not "life." I'm not going to get involved in trying to do so. In my opinion, there is no correct or final answer to this question anyway. It is a personal decision between a person and his or her conscience. In my opinion, when discussing a dividing embryo that is a few weeks old, it is nobody's business what anyone else believes about whether or not that constitutes "life." You are the one who wants to impose your will on others and force them to live by your rules. You are the one with the burden to prove that you have a right to do so.

[gadgetlady 4]

Your premise is mistaken. It does not matter which way the pendulum swings on this issue, it will never be my burden to prove why the state should leave me alone. It is always the states burden to prove that it has the right to force me to do something. Sometimes the state meets that burden, and gains the right to use force. That could happen in the abortion context. But if it gains the right to do that, it will be because society has determined that the state has met its burden to demonstrate that it has the right to use force.

So you would also have been fine with the Dred Scott decision, that a black person is 3/5 of a person -- because it was a Supreme Court decision written into law and therefore must have been right at the time?

Let's chat again when Roe is overturned, then. Because it seems to me from what you're saying that you'll be just fine with that decision. If that's the case, then great! I'm glad to hear it.

In my opinion, when discussing a dividing embryo that is a few weeks old, it is nobody's business what anyone else believes about whether or not that constitutes "life."

It is, of course, the business of the "life" involved. And since no one is speaking for that life, I choose to do so.

[marjon9 6]

So you would also have been fine with the Dred Scott decision, that a black person is 3/5 of a person -- because it was a Supreme Court decision written into law and therefore must have been right at the time?

Let's chat again when Roe is overturned, then. Because it seems to me from what you're saying that you'll be just fine with that decision. If that's the case, then great! I'm glad to hear it.

It is, of course, the business of the "life" involved. And since no one is speaking for that life, I choose to do so.

There you go again with your argument that it is "life" because it is "life." That is a meaningless way of proving your case. You are not speaking up for "life." You are speaking up for something that, in your opinion, constitutes life. And I might say, you have not proven that in any way. So I totally disagree with you that you are standing up for "life." You don't get to win the argument by simply declaring yourself the winner. You have not in any way established that a dividing embryo constitues "life."

And, as for Dred Scott, or Roe v. Wade, it has nothing to do with whether I am "fine" with these decisions or any other. I accept the rule of law except in the extremely rare case where my conscience does not allow me to follow the law (as it would not, for example, if the Court said it was OK to draft me into the army).

If the Court overturns Roe v. Wade, I, personally would certainly accept that that is the law of the land. But I also know that it would do very little to stop abortions. As history makes crystal clear, all it would do is force women to have illegal abortions, forcing them to take extreme risks to their health. You'd be the big winner there, I guess. It hardly seems like much of a victory to me.

And if my wife decided she needed to get an abortion, I would find a way to make it happen, as safely as possible, without the slightest hesitation regarding the "legality" of the decision. Certain matters of conscience transcend the law. I'd be willing to pay the penalty if caught breaking the law.

But in any event, if Roe v. Wade is overruled, after you are done celebrating your great victory you will quickly see that nothing has changed except abortions are now vastly more risky for the women having them. A woman who decides to get one is not going to be stopped by this law, especially after the several decades of relative sanity that we have enjoyed on this issue. So, your great victory will be shallow, indeed.

[gadgetlady 4]

There you go again with your argument that it is "life" because it is "life." That is a meaningless way of proving your case. You are not speaking up for "life." You are speaking up for something that, in your opinion, constitutes life. And I might say, you have not proven that in any way. So I totally disagree with you that you are standing up for "life." You don't get to win the argument by simply declaring yourself the winner. You have not in any way established that a dividing embryo constitues "life."

What criterion would you like me to use to prove it? Because it sounds like you're saying "it can't be proven, therefore nothing you can say will prove it." I have certainly presented a lot of proof, but there is more. What would change your mind?

If the Court overturns Roe v. Wade, I, personally would certainly accept that that is the law of the land. But I also know that it would do very little to stop abortions. As history makes crystal clear, all it would do is force women to have illegal abortions, forcing them to take extreme risks to their health.

Actually, history demonstrates that the numbers of women having abortions would be reduced dramatically. If you listen to former abortionist (just so we're clear here, I mean someone who used to perform abortions) Bernard Nathanson, a man who's role was critical in the decriminalization of abortion (he was one of the founders of NARAL), he says:

"We aroused enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000 but the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000. Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200 - 250 annually. The figure constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false figures took root in the consciousness of Americans convincing many that we needed to crack the abortion law. Another myth we fed to the public through the media was that legalizing abortion would only mean that the abortions taking place illegally would then be done legally. In fact, of course, abortion is now being used as a primary method of birth control in the U.S. and the annual number of abortions has increased by 1500% since legalization."

If you do a web search on him and read about how he and others falsified statistics and got the media on their side, you might find it interesting. You can read a brief summary at Confessions of an Ex-Abortionist (and no, I'm not Catholic and no, I don't think this is a religious issue -- this just happens to be where a good summary is).

[marjon9 6]

What criterion would you like me to use to prove it? Because it sounds like you're saying "it can't be proven, therefore nothing you can say will prove it." I have certainly presented a lot of proof, but there is more. What would change your mind?

Actually, history demonstrates that the numbers of women having abortions would be reduced dramatically. If you listen to former abortionist (just so we're clear here, I mean someone who used to perform abortions) Bernard Nathanson, a man who's role was critical in the decriminalization of abortion (he was one of the founders of NARAL), he says:

"We aroused enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000 but the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000. Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200 - 250 annually. The figure constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false figures took root in the consciousness of Americans convincing many that we needed to crack the abortion law. Another myth we fed to the public through the media was that legalizing abortion would only mean that the abortions taking place illegally would then be done legally. In fact, of course, abortion is now being used as a primary method of birth control in the U.S. and the annual number of abortions has increased by 1500% since legalization."

If you do a web search on him and read about how he and others falsified statistics and got the media on their side, you might find it interesting. You can read a brief summary at Confessions of an Ex-Abortionist (and no, I'm not Catholic and no, I don't think this is a religious issue -- this just happens to be where a good summary is).

Your pro-life propaganda about abortion is pretty much totally meaningless as far as I'm concerned. I have no doubt that you can find a limitless supply of pro-life people to say anything you want them to say. I don't have any expectation that such material represents reliable statistics or evidence.

And, as for what it would take for you to prove to me that a dividing embryo constitutes life, I am sorry I was unclear. There is definitely nothing you could ever do to prove that to me. In my opinion this is not a matter of science. We can all see the scientific evidence. We can all see what a fetus looks like at different stages. In my opinion each person needs to analyze that information and make a personal decision regarding what they believe constitutes "life." I don't believe that this is a matter that the state has any business being involved with at all. So, you would absolutely never be able to "prove" to me that a dividing embryo constitutes "life." That's the whole point.

And what that means to me is that pro-life side will never, ever be able to meet its burden of establishing that it has a right to tell other people what to do in this regard. I am totally closed-minded on that issue. I do not believe that anyone has a right to tell anyone else what to do when it comes to the early stages of a pregnancy, where you basically are talking about a dividing embryo that is months from viability. I don't think there is any "proof" you could offer that would ever lead me to the conclusion that you have a right to use the police power of the state to force other people to live by your moral code. Sorry if I was unclear about that.

[tanderson 3]

However, when abortion is illegal again (and I believe it will be),

...will NEVER happen in this country...

[anonemouse 1]

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).

That may be so, but you are ignoring the fact that it is not that way NOW. Right now, WE don't have to prove anything. The onus is on YOU. Just like in a criminal court case, the defendant doesn't have to prove that he or she is innocent. They are assumed innnocent until proven guilty by the prosecution. The onus is on the prosecution to prove their case. Right now, there is no consensus on exactly when human life begins. In order for you to essentially convict (for lack of a better term) someone of killing another human being when they are having an abortion, you have to prove that it was a human being.

[gadgetlady 4]

Your pro-life propaganda about abortion is pretty much totally meaningless as far as I'm concerned. I have no doubt that you can find a limitless supply of pro-life people to say anything you want them to say. I don't have any expectation that such material represents reliable statistics or evidence.

This is from a man who performed over 75,000 abortions personally. That certainly can't be considered pro-life propaganda. Certainly one should at least CONSIDER why he changed his position?

And, as for what it would take for you to prove to me that a dividing embryo constitutes life, I am sorry I was unclear. There is definitely nothing you could ever do to prove that to me.

So your challenging me to do so is disingenuous. You have a closed mind and nothing will convince you. I will, however, continue to post facts in the hopes that some people who are NOT closed-minded will consider them.

each person needs to analyze that information and make a personal decision regarding what they believe constitutes "life."

You could say the same thing about the child you're abusing, the wife you're beating, or the 3/5 of a black person. At some point, empirical scientific evidence needs to come into play to protect people.

Sorry if I was unclear about that.

Oh, you weren't unclear. I knew your challenge was a red herring. I just wanted to make sure everyone else knew.

[Alexandra 55]

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?

I don't actually think the argument about choice is about what is a human life and what isn't. That question presumes that if something meets a definition of human life it automatically earns the protection afforded to all other human lives. And that's just not the case.

The questions related to reproductive choice are about whether a developing fetus' own interests--to the extent that it can be said to have any at all, which is completely arguable--OUTWEIGH those of its mother. And THAT is a question that goes far beyond any dictionary definition of "human life." Painful as the truth may be, human lives DO have relative value; always have, always will. (We'll have to wrestle with this fact more and more as we learn how much it costs to sustain near-vegetative people in their "lives." But that's another discussion.)

The modern, civilized state steps in to make sure that society treats its citizens fairly, and as we've seen the definitions of "citizen," "person," and "adult" are Fluid and can change over time. Though the concept of "human rights" is a fairly recent one, now we say every human has them--even to the extent of adding minority groups to a growing list of those worthy of protection. Pro-lifers might say sure, and the list will grow to include the unborn as well, just wait. But preserving one group's rights by destroying those of another is not the way this process works, and it's women whose rights matter more in this discussion. Yes, MORE than those of the unborn. Why? Because only when we are separated from the women who incubated us can our human rights can take their place as equally important to those of our mothers. Before that our "rights" are relatively nonexistent, because they can't be exercised without profoundly affecting those of someone else. The way any decision related to an unborn baby affects its mother makes it a very different being than any other entity in the rights discussion.

Now, before anyone jumps on this as a defense of abortion in the late third trimester, I'd argue to leave that to medical ethics to control rather than laws. Once a fetus reaches a point of reliable viability, a doctor who is approached to terminate the pregnancy should indeed counsel towards delivery and adoption (or whatever). I am fully in favor of education and enforcement of medical ethics rules in this direction. Women and doctors who are determined to break the law or rules of ethics will do so no matter what happens. But laws don't allow for special situations in the same way that codes of ethics do, so many women and doctors who shouldn't be there will end up on the wrong side of the law. And that's why passing laws about this is the wrong way to go.

We might all find that gadgetlady's list of milestones reached by developing fetuses could make us think twice about having an abortion ourselves past a certain point. It's important information for all potential parents to have. But where that point would be for each of us hinges a great deal on the mother's personal situation. Just because abortion may be emotionally wrenching to onlookers doesn't mean that anyone has the right to force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.

[BJean 16]

Dr. Nate's credibility flies right out the window when he cites statistics about the number of llegal abortions that were performed before abortion bacame legal. That's a load of B.S. used to skew the numbers to suit his politics.

[gadgetlady 4]

Dr. Nate's credibility flies right out the window when he cites statistics about the number of llegal abortions that were performed before abortion bacame legal. That's a load of B.S. used to skew the numbers to suit his politics.

So he was credible when he was in favor of abortion, but now that he's pro-life he can't be trusted?

[BJean 16]

gadget, you're a tricky one, aren't you! I never said he had credibility - EVER - he seems like some kind of quack to me. But then I don't share his bouncy ball politics, so there you go. My point was that his abortion stats just don't hold up so none of his stuff can be trusted as fact either. You gotta watch folks on both sides of the fence. That's one reason why I don't post a bunch of science or statistics - unless I've seen the full studies. And frankly that's not why I come here. RnR is a place to post opinions, rants and raves. It sure ain't science.

[gadgetlady 4]

gadget, you're a tricky one, aren't you! I never said he had credibility - EVER - he seems like some kind of quack to me. But then I don't share his bouncy ball politics, so there you go.

You might want to read up on Bernard Nathanson if you don't think he has any credibility. He was one of the founding members of NARAL and he performed over 75,000 abortions in New York. He was an athiest when he became pro-life. He is considered one of the fathers of the modern "pro-choice" movement (of course, he's been disowned now), being the co-founder and first president of NARAL. He knows of what he speaks.

[BJean 16]

Sorry, I'm just not interested in reading the writings of a former atheist abortionist who performed 75,000 abortions and who has found religion and so now you've decided he is brilliant and knows of what he speaks. I think he's using his history to manipulate people and numbers and that just doesn't interest me.

[gadgetlady 4]

Sorry, I'm just not interested in reading the writings of a former atheist abortionist who performed 75,000 abortions and who has found religion and so now you've decided he is brilliant and knows of what he speaks. I think he's using his history to manipulate people and numbers and that just doesn't interest me.

I found him compelling when I heard him speak 20 years ago and he was an athiest. His religion is of no interest to me. I'm not surprised you don't want to hear what he says, though. I'm sure you wouldn't care to listen to anyone who used to perform abortions, owned an abortion clinic, or worked in one, and is now pro-life. I personally think they have some very compelling and intriguing stories. I'd be happy to read all about anyone you can find who used to be pro-life and then changed sides (there aren't many, though, except for politicians who find it politically expedient -- wonder why?).