who supports right to choose

[gadgetlady 4]

We all know that 396 is an idiot! We know that! I did word it wrong but regardless. My point in this exercise is to see how many would sit on which side of the fence. I really only wanted 2 categories pro life or pro choice. But I knew that someone would complain that there were not enough choices so I put the third one in. And at the end of the 3rd choice I should have put ect. Like rape,baby dying, AND SO ON. But for me I choose pro life, becuase I belive that all things are to be. and there is never any guarentee that a mother or child will die. Even if the dr. says 95% chance of death there is still a chance. And truly when we are talking about abortion, it is only a small % of people that thier life is in danger. So 250000 abortions a year for me is to much carnage to to start being afraid of offending poor little morjon Because I voted pro life (which is what it truly is PRO LIFE!)

Thank you for your clarification, 396power. I don't think you're an idiot. One has to be educated in poll-taking to set up a proper poll -- people get it wrong all the time -- even in the media.

I assumed your third choice was rape, fetal deformity, etc., which is why I voted the way I did. I guess I assumed right. I think everyone else did, too -- as I'm confident people don't believe a mother should be required to die to save the life of her child (even though some would choose to).

BTW, there are over 1.5 million abortions in the US alone every year, much more than 250,000. There were over 4,000 today alone.

[gadgetlady 4]

You ask the question, "why should the question of human life ever be left up to another's judgment." That question obviously includes within it the assumption that a dividing embryo is human life.

You indicated previously that the question was human life. Specifically, you said "the question of human life is a matter of concience, not science." My response is that if whether or not it's a human life is a matter of personal choice, than one person's judgment is determining whether it is human life.

People have different answers to that question. It is a matter of conscience.

Two mothers are pregnant. If one decides what she is carrying is human life and the other decides it isn't, are they both right? How is that possible? How can one's personal decision determine humanity. Isn't humanity an issue outside of personal feelings? Isn't it a matter of science? Just because people disagree doesn't mean they're all right. Some people agreed with Hitler --were they right?

[BJean 16]

For anti-choice people (who call themselves "pro-life") who have stated that they believe that abortion should be legal if it is to preserve the life of the mother, I ask you who is going to make the determination that the mother's life is in enough danger for her to obtain an abortion?

We can't agree on whether an embryo during the first stages of fertilization is a full-fledged human being with its' own rights, so how in the world are we going to agree on which women are seriously in life-threatening situations during their pregnancy? Anti-choice people don't want a woman and her doctor in control of the choice of whether she should have an abortion now and they would not want to allow the "life threatening" determination to be made by the woman and her doctor either.

To say that you are pro-abortion when the life of the mother is threatened, is a cop out unless you can tell me exactly which cases are to be accepted as truly life-threatening. Because I assure you, if the law made abortion illegal again with that exception, the fundamentalist Christians who have fought so hard to take a woman's choice away, will also fight just as hard to control what they decide constitutes a "threat" to a pregnant woman's life.

[gadgetlady 4]

I'm not going to split hairs with the pro-abortion people (who call themselves "pro-choice"). If a woman will die if she carries the baby to term, then her life is threatened. If she is in danger of being ridiculed by her classmates or in danger of being sad because she didn't want a baby, then her life is not in danger.

I guarantee you, if the law made abortion illegal again with that exception, I would stop trying to change the law. I would also stop fighting if the law made abortion illegal again with the exception of rape. Eliminating 99.5 to 99.99999%% of all abortions would make me quite happy. May I remind you, there was no such thing as a pro-life movement when abortion was illegal but with those exceptions.

[BJean 16]

Aw com'on. It's been said over and over that no one can be sure that a baby who is in utero and deemed to be badly deformed, will not be able to live a worthwhile and productive life, and therefore late term abortions should never be legal.

In that vein, how can you be absolutely certain that a woman's life will end if she continues with a life threatening pregnancy? There are no guarantees in medicine, only diagnoses. Very few diagnoses in medicine are 100% accurate, 100% of the time. Therefore there will be arguments about whether a woman is truly going to lose her life if she continues a life-threatening pregnancy. There will need to be some definition and the rules will always be challenged with regard to that definition. I can't see it happening any other way given all of the arguments on the table right now. Besides, when abortion was illegal except in extreme cases of a woman's life being at stake, there actually were some public debates about certain cases where women's lives were deemed to be threatened and outsiders (not the family or doctor) tried to intervene. I didn't just pluck this concept out of mid-air.

By the way, I do not mind you calling me pro-abortion. I certainly am that. I'm also pro-choice. I don't deny they go hand in hand. Anti-abortionists don't like to be called anti-abortionists, or anti-choice. They like to be known as pro-life. Is that not true?

[BJean 16]

It's late. I meant to say that I didn't just pluck this concept out of THIN AIR.

[marjon9 6]

Two mothers are pregnant. If one decides what she is carrying is human life and the other decides it isn't, are they both right? How is that possible? How can one's personal decision determine humanity. Isn't humanity an issue outside of personal feelings? Isn't it a matter of science? Just because people disagree doesn't mean they're all right. Some people agreed with Hitler --were they right?

Taking your hypothetical, let's assume for a moment that you are right about everything you said. You have two women who are pregnant and one decides she is carrying a life and one decides she is not. Let's say that humanity is an issue outside personal feelings, and that the existence of life is a matter of science. Let's assume all of that is true. I'll go even further and say that one of the women is definitely wrong and one of the women is definitely right.

I have a couple of simple questions for you (I wonder if you'll actually answer them): Why are you the one who gets to decide which woman is right? Why do you get to pass laws forcing your view on the woman who disagrees with you? Will you actually answer those questions? I doubt it, but we'll see.

I hope you don't try to answer these questions by saying, "Oh. look at the video with the little hands, the little feet, how could it not be life." That is a totally meaningless answer that does not answer the question. Other people may look at the same video and conclude that it is not life as that term is defined for them. I'm not asking you for your own, personal, emotional response to a video, or a list of the stages a fetus goes through, and what week the blood starts pumping, etc. None of those things "prove" that the woman is carrying a life. You may consider those things to be proof, but others do not.

Remember, I'm granting that you are correct about everything you set forth in your hypothetical. Two pregnant women, one thinks she is carrying a life, one does not. The answer to that question is not based on personal feelings, there is a scientific answer to the question, and one of the women is definitely wrong.

So I ask you again, why do you get be the one to decide which woman is right? Why do you get to make laws that force the one who disagrees with you to live by your moral code.

I rather doubt that you will give honest answers that actually address the specific questions I am asking, but I guess it's worth a shot.

[Daffodil 0]

I personally would never consider having an abortion, however, who am I to impose my personal beliefs on someone else? And, until I have walked in their shoes, how can I say the choice they made is right or wrong?

OK then. Let's substitute slavery for abortion: I would never enslave a human being, but who am I to judge if someone else CHOOSES to? The truth is that as soon as the egg and the sperm unite to form a unique PERSON-to-be, stopping the natural development is murder. If it is immoral to kill the developing human being at a certain point, say, 7 months gestation, then how can it be any less evil to stop it at day 30, or 90 or 120? I'm sorry, you ladies who have chosen to stop your child's beating heart----it is an evil act. I wish nothing but mercy and kindness & I am compassionate for the suffering you feel, but I believe it is immoral and should be illegal. Hopefully a sensible and humane Supreme Court will deem it so.

[gadgetlady 4]

I don't have a problem being called anti-abortion. I am anti-abortion.

As to medical diagnoses, I am not going to split hairs. That's for doctors and judges to decide, whenever necessary.

[BJean 16]

Wait a minute Mark. Maybe I'm not understanding your post. But if it is determined that Science tells us when a fertilized egg becomes a living, breathing human being with all the rights of every other human being, how can you ask someone who gets to decide which of the women in that hypothetical situation above, is right? Hasn't science already made that decision for them? Or maybe the decision shouldn't be based on science at all.

Btw, some people might see certain images of an early fertilized egg's progression as looking like a fish. But no one suggests that it is proof that a human fertilized embryo is definitely a fish (or a maybe a frog when full term.) So all this discussion of clumps of cells and what they look like in early stages isn't a convincing argument that proves exactly when a human being is a life that is due all the consideration and rights that every human being is entitled to have.

For many women facing the decision of abortion, the decision hinges not on whether the fertilized egg is a POTENTIAL life or a COMPLETE life at that point. A child is much too important to produce just because it is a fertilized egg. A child means everything to most women. It is a living, breathing, thinking, learning, caring human being. A child should not be brought into the world just because someone believes that a woman should be forced to give birth to a it anymore than a woman should be forced to abort a child because of overpopulation (or for any other reason.)

[Daffodil 0]

Taking your hypothetical, let's assume for a moment that you are right about everything you said. You have two women who are pregnant and one decides she is carrying a life and one decides she is not. Let's say that humanity is an issue outside personal feelings, and that the existence of life is a matter of science. Let's assume all of that is true. I'll go even further and say that one of the women is definitely wrong and one of the women is definitely right.

I have a couple of simple questions for you (I wonder if you'll actually answer them): Why are you the one who gets to decide which woman is right? Why do you get to pass laws forcing your view on the woman who disagrees with you? Will you actually answer those questions? I doubt it, but we'll see.

I hope you don't try to answer these questions by saying, "Oh. look at the video with the little hands, the little feet, how could it not be life." That is a totally meaningless answer that does not answer the question. Other people may look at the same video and conclude that it is not life as that term is defined for them. I'm not asking you for your own, personal, emotional response to a video, or a list of the stages a fetus goes through, and what week the blood starts pumping, etc. None of those things "prove" that the woman is carrying a life. You may consider those things to be proof, but others do not.

Remember, I'm granting that you are correct about everything you set forth in your hypothetical. Two pregnant women, one thinks she is carrying a life, one does not. The answer to that question is not based on personal feelings, there is a scientific answer to the question, and one of the women is definitely wrong.

So I ask you again, why do you get be the one to decide which woman is right? Why do you get to make laws that force the one who disagrees with you to live by your moral code.

I rather doubt that you will give honest answers that actually address the specific questions I am asking, but I guess it's worth a shot.

OK. If I believe that taking someone's life, say a 35 year old man, is justified...who are you, and society, to tell me I am wrong? It is my choice to do this, right? And if I consume illegal drugs, why should there be laws which allow my arrest? Hey, if I purchase child pornography on the net---who are you, or any law enforcement personnel, to tell me I am breaking a law. SEE-IN ALL THOSE CASES THERE IS SOMEONE WHO IS HURT...THE 35 YEAR OLD MAN, THE PERSON KILLED BY ME WHEN I AM HIGH AND RAM MY CAR INTO THEM, THE CHILDREN WHO ARE EXPLOITED IN MAKING THE DISGUSTING PORN AND IN ABORTION, THE LIFE WHICH IS SNUFFED OUT, THE LIFE WHICH HAS NO PROTECTION AGAINST DESTRUCTION. ABORTION IS MURDER. ABORTION IS MURDER. CALL IT WHATEVER SOUNDS LESS ONEROUS--PRO-CHOICE--HAH. PRO-MURDER. BLOOD-CHILLING, BUT TRUE.

[BJean 16]

Daffodil: To force a woman to give birth to a child because of someone else's belief system is very much like slavery. Nice of you to point this out. But I am not sure why you're so quick to condemn a woman to slavery and to do your bidding, with no consideration for her beliefs or her life in this country that we call the home of the free.

I think that slavery in any form should be against the law. I hope that the Supreme Court keeps this in mind when considering outlawing abortions.

[BJean 16]

Oh gross, you believe in pornography and killing 35 year old men? You're too much!!!

I'm waiting for you to mention the words blood, killing, murder a few more times. It'll make it so much more true. Bring on the bloody videos, get as graphic as you wish. Death, destruction, murdered babies lying in the streets. Whores killing babies. Whores using abortion for birth control. Death, destruction, blood, murder. Wow. Deep thoughts....

[Daffodil 0]

Taking your hypothetical, let's assume for a moment that you are right about everything you said. You have two women who are pregnant and one decides she is carrying a life and one decides she is not. Let's say that humanity is an issue outside personal feelings, and that the existence of life is a matter of science. Let's assume all of that is true. I'll go even further and say that one of the women is definitely wrong and one of the women is definitely right.

I have a couple of simple questions for you (I wonder if you'll actually answer them): Why are you the one who gets to decide which woman is right? Why do you get to pass laws forcing your view on the woman who disagrees with you? Will you actually answer those questions? I doubt it, but we'll see.

I hope you don't try to answer these questions by saying, "Oh. look at the video with the little hands, the little feet, how could it not be life." That is a totally meaningless answer that does not answer the question. Other people may look at the same video and conclude that it is not life as that term is defined for them. I'm not asking you for your own, personal, emotional response to a video, or a list of the stages a fetus goes through, and what week the blood starts pumping, etc. None of those things "prove" that the woman is carrying a life. You may consider those things to be proof, but others do not.

Remember, I'm granting that you are correct about everything you set forth in your hypothetical. Two pregnant women, one thinks she is carrying a life, one does not. The answer to that question is not based on personal feelings, there is a scientific answer to the question, and one of the women is definitely wrong.

So I ask you again, why do you get be the one to decide which woman is right? Why do you get to make laws that force the one who disagrees with you to live by your moral code.

I rather doubt that you will give honest answers that actually address the specific questions I am asking, but I guess it's worth a shot.

I am astonished by your view of moral relativity. In your view, NO act is inherently evil..after all, if it isn't evil to me, why should anyone make a law against what I want to do? Rape, murder, car theft, prostitution, drug dealing, child porn...hey, I don't think it's wrong so WHO ARE YOU TO STOP ME? No, dear, cooler heads have decided there ARE actions which are universally wrong and morally reprehensible & we codify those beliefs in a little something called "laws". Laws change...at one time in this country it was legal to enslave another person...imagine ! It was legal to disregard women's right to vote and own property. Segregation was legal. But we evolve and right those wrongs. But hey, ANY law is wrong, in your view. If it feels good to me, whatever the consequence is to any body else, including a developing human being---yes, human being !, then I should have a RIGHT to do it and not be judged by anyone else's moral code. You scare me.

[Daffodil 0]

Oh gross, you believe in pornography and killing 35 year old men? You're too much!!!

I'm waiting for you to mention the words blood, killing, murder a few more times. It'll make it so much more true. Bring on the bloody videos, get as graphic as you wish. Death, destruction, murdered babies lying in the streets. Whores killing babies. Whores using abortion for birth control. Death, destruction, blood, murder. Wow. Deep thoughts....

It is murder, and there is blood involved. If the state gives a condemned prisoner a lethal injection and sops his heart until he is dead, you can call it an execution, but it is state-sanctioned murder. How is an abortion different, in a practical sense?