who supports right to choose

[Carlene 12]

Uh, yeah, no. It's a human rights issue. There are religious people on both sides of the fence, and even if most of them hover at one side of the fence, it still isn't a religious issue. As noted above, just because MLK Jr was a preacher doesn't make civil rights a religious issue.

I am a Christian - a practicing Catholic, in fact - and I am one of the people who "hover" on the fence regarding the issue of abortion.

I must say, you ladies (Gadget and BJ, in particular) have presented very logical, very sound, very convincing arguments. I still don't feel entirely comfortable with either camp.

I detest abortion. I have seen the videos and the photos and I know they don't lie. I believe that life begins at conception and that abortion causes the death of a human being as surely as a bullet to the brain of any adult. But I still can't bring myself to jump on the anti-abortion bandwagon. Because I am not the one who has to live with the consequences. And I have seen the consequences.

I know women who had abortions and wish they had not, and women who didn't abort, but wish they had (or could have, legally). But most of the women I know who have had abortions do not regret their decision. They thought at the time, and still think, it was not necessarily the ideal choice, but that it was the best choice. They all have said they regret the circumstances, but not the abortion.

I know only two women who have had multiple abortions. One of them terminated two pregnancies because her husband did not want any more children (they had two sons). When she fell pregnant once more, she refused to abort the child, and they now have a daughter. (She had her tubes tied, incidentally, when this last baby was born.) Kim says that it makes her sad to think of the two babies she aborted, but if she had delivered either of them, she would never have had Abby, so she is content with her decision. I think you have to consider that there are subsequent children walking around who would never have been born if their mothers had not had abortions. Who am I to say that those people should not exist?

I am not in danger of becoming pregnant again (thank God), nor is my daughter or my three daughters-in-law. I do, however, have four granddaughters. One of them was conceived out of wedlock and her other grandparents urged their daughter to have a secret abortion, rather than risk friends/relatives reaction to an illicit pregnancy. Those people are fundamentalist Christians, and a prime example of how your opinions can change when an issue "comes home to roost", as my mother would say.

[marjon9 6]

I never asked bacause I frankly don't care. That you support the murder of unborn human beings is your stain.

That is just a monstrously ugly thing to say. According to your way thinking, the majority of the population of the United States is "stained." The fact is, intelligent, compassionate people have struggled over this issue for a very long time. Some agree with you, but most don't. You have every right to your point of view, but to cast all who disagree with you as "stained" is arrogant and ugly.

No one is going to listen to that kind of crap for very long. If you keep it up you'll be debating no one but yourself in a very short time.

[niecyrenee 2]

Just for the record....I voted pro life and no, I didn't misunderstand the poll. I knew exactly what I was voting for when I did it. I am pro life and I don't apoligize for that. I often hear people say if you were raped you would feel differently. Well, I was raped as a teenager by my mom's ex-husband and I still choose to be pro life. I had a lot of time to think about this after it happened while I waited to know whether I was pregnant or not and I never wavered on my opinion. If I was pregnant, I would not abort.

I often read the debates in R&R but choose to not post because I know that my opinion is vastly different from several others and I don't wish to debate it. I don't push my beliefs on anyone and I expect the same in return. Although I don't always agree, I do respect other people's opinions. I am a big enough person to know that other people feel just as strongly about their beliefs as I do about mine and I will not belittle them because of it.

[Daffodil 0]

gadget, are you nuts? Abortion isn't a religious issue? Egad. We're really having fun here tonight, aren't we?

The discussion of human life and its destruction through abortion is not "fun". To you this is a rhetorical exercise...to the unborn whose lives are exterminated before their natural birth, abortion iis their end. What I find fascinating is the equal moral equivalence you give to the practice of an abortion and to the women whose "feelings" are hurt by listening to the words of a pro-life individual. To you, "hate words" and the possibility that a woman will feel "bad" is morally equivalent to the act of stopping a person's development...indeed, you think hurting the "feelings" of a woman is WORSE than the act of destroying, exterminating, crushing the life of an unborn, gestating person. Well perhaps we should also be more concerned for a murderer's feelings than the victim he/she murdered? For the "feelings" of the rapist who in court is faced with the condemnation of his crime by the judge, rather than the wellbeing for the victim? Oh yes, I, a pro-life advocate who speaks of the immorality of destroying a human being, am worse than the people--abortionists, women who willingly kill the life inside of them--who commit this heinous act. Yes, my "speech" is morally worse than their actions. Unbelievable. This type of reasoning is what allows a Hitler.

[marjon9 6]

If you want hate, bigotry, social injustice, name-calling and hatefulness to stop, then why don't you start with the least among us? I have no problem with religious freedom. What I have a problem with is people killing other people for their own convenience.

Gosh, I sure agree with you. There is nothing I hate worse than people killing other people for their own convenience. That is just about the worst thing anyone can do.

Fortunately, aborting a dividing embryo is not killing a human being. If it were, abortion would be a really bad thing.

[Daffodil 0]

Or maybe they will look back at it in anger and frustration as the begining of the age of their rights being taken away one by one.

Except with the millions and millions of extra people there might not be enough money left over to enjoy those things after being taxed to the bone to take care of all the extra "lives" that were "saved".

And to answer your question, yes I am pretty happy that my mother did not abort me. But then again I was very much planned and prepared for. I am also a healthy and happy 27 year old. Maybe if you could ask this question to someone who is extremely mentally retarded, disfigured to the point of daily agony and pain, or beaten and raped daily by a family member and maybe you would get a different answer.

Your argument is illogical. If you were to take the life of an person who is "extremely mentally retarded, disfigured to the point of daily agony and pain, or beaten and raped daily by a family member " you would be arrested and tried for murder. Why? Because society values not only "perfectly healthy 27 year olds" but the ill, the infirm, the not-so-perfect among us. If abortion is good because it saves society from spending money taking care of the millions who would live, rather than die due to abortion, why then not start euthanizing those who are not productive members, the ill, the elderly, the mentally retarded, the physcially handicapped? Doesn't the government spend trillions on their care? Who gets to decide who lives and who dies? In abortion, the innocent life cannot choose---he or she depends on the mother...and the more that mothers choose convenience over the life of a child, the more children will die. Statistics show overwhelmingly that abortions due to rape, fetal maldevelopment or "to save the life of the mother" are infintessimal compared to abortions done because of inconvenience.

__________________

[Daffodil 0]

That is just a monstrously ugly thing to say. According to your way thinking, the majority of the population of the United States is "stained." The fact is, intelligent, compassionate people have struggled over this issue for a very long time. Some agree with you, but most don't. You have every right to your point of view, but to cast all who disagree with you as "stained" is arrogant and ugly.

No one is going to listen to that kind of crap for very long. If you keep it up you'll be debating no one but yourself in a very short time.

If you think that any action is your right, who is anybody to tell you not to do it? If it feels good, do it, huh? You narcisstic person. Yes, society has a right to make laws and tell you it is NOT right to kill. You think those cells are not life? If allowed to gestate 9 months there would be a baby born...a baby comprised of a whole lotta cells....not a potao, not an iPod, not a coup de ville...but a baby. A baby which is afforded protection the millisecond he or she comes out of the birth canal, but not before. That's what screwed up. Your moral relativism is shameful and someday compassionate people will make your "death choice" ILLEGAL again. Go ahead, watch Gadgetgirl's video of an abortion and tell us a child was not murdered. I'll bet you cannot.

[Daffodil 0]

I am a Christian - a practicing Catholic, in fact - and I am one of the people who "hover" on the fence regarding the issue of abortion.

I must say, you ladies (Gadget and BJ, in particular) have presented very logical, very sound, very convincing arguments. I still don't feel entirely comfortable with either camp.

I detest abortion. I have seen the videos and the photos and I know they don't lie. I believe that life begins at conception and that abortion causes the death of a human being as surely as a bullet to the brain of any adult. But I still can't bring myself to jump on the anti-abortion bandwagon. Because I am not the one who has to live with the consequences. And I have seen the consequences.

I know women who had abortions and wish they had not, and women who didn't abort, but wish they had (or could have, legally). But most of the women I know who have had abortions do not regret their decision. They thought at the time, and still think, it was not necessarily the ideal choice, but that it was the best choice. They all have said they regret the circumstances, but not the abortion.

I know only two women who have had multiple abortions. One of them terminated two pregnancies because her husband did not want any more children (they had two sons). When she fell pregnant once more, she refused to abort the child, and they now have a daughter. (She had her tubes tied, incidentally, when this last baby was born.) Kim says that it makes her sad to think of the two babies she aborted, but if she had delivered either of them, she would never have had Abby, so she is content with her decision. I think you have to consider that there are subsequent children walking around who would never have been born if their mothers had not had abortions. Who am I to say that those people should not exist?

I am not in danger of becoming pregnant again (thank God), nor is my daughter or my three daughters-in-law. I do, however, have four granddaughters. One of them was conceived out of wedlock and her other grandparents urged their daughter to have a secret abortion, rather than risk friends/relatives reaction to an illicit pregnancy. Those people are fundamentalist Christians, and a prime example of how your opinions can change when an issue "comes home to roost", as my mother would say.

I'm sorry, but to rationalize the killing of two of your babies because their death afforded you another child, in this case a daughter, is so evil that it is hard to describe. Hey--how about a poor woman killing her toddlers because she can't afford them, but now childless she can afford college, and makes better money and finally decide she has the money to have another child and raise the child with a better standard of living? So it is justified that she eliminated the two toddlers because NOW she has a beautiful little girl. How evil. Yes, evil. Oh no ! I just made her feel bad about her action, just judged the morality of her actions ! How dare I do that? She's an American, thank you ,and no one should be allowed to tell her that her action was wrong! After all, it's all relative, right? Nothing I want to do should be illegal because I have a RIGHT to do it. And please don't make me "feel bad" about my choices. How very monstrous. Man, very sad.

[Daffodil 0]

I'm sorry to astonish you, but there is a key difference between all your examples and the example of abortion. People disagree about whether a dividing embryo is human life. That's the whole issue. You cannot simply assume that abortion is taking a life. That is the very issue in dispute. You have every right to believe what you want, but it is a hollow technique of argument to simply assume that you are correct and declare yourself the winner.

Many intelligent, compassionate people do not agree that an embryo consisting of 4 cells equals "human life." So that is why your comparison to slavery is completely off the mark. Slavery involves fully formed human beings who are walking the earth. Abortion involves a clump of cells that many people do not consider to be "human life."

That is the problem with having these debates about abortion. The pro-life camp always wants to assume that they are correct about the exact issue in dispute. There is no way to have a debate about abortion if every argument you make carries with it an assumption that is precisely what the other side does not assume.

I have absolutely no doubt that you sincerely believe that a dividing embryo with 4 cells equals a human life. I fully respect the sincerity of your belief. I know that you sincerely believe that abortion is taking a life and that it is an "evil" act. But I disagree with you. So now what do we do? Why do you get to decide? Why do you get to make laws that force me to live by your rules?

That is a question I keep asking gadget and, of course, she keeps refusing to answer. And that is the only question that matters to me. I don't have any need to change your mind. I just have a need to stop you from forcing me to live by your rules.

So can you please give me an answer to this question? If you believe an abortion is the killing of a human life, and if I disagree with you, why do you get to be the one to decide, and set the rules, about how I live my life? (I wonder if anyone will answer this time. Probably not).

Mark,

Your words: "I just have a need to stop you from forcing me to live by your rules", "and if I disagree with you, why do you get to be the one to decide, and set the rules, about how I live my life"?

I believe that rape is wrong, murder is wrong, extortion is wrong. EVEN IF YOU THINK THEY'RE RIGHT, I, AND SOCIETY, THINK THEY ARE WRONG AND WILL PUNISH THOSE WHO COMMIT THEM. It's not all about you, Mark. Civil society does not hinge on making sure anybody who wants to do anything should be allowed to. We live by the rule of law. If you wish to live in a society where there are no laws ( laws being "someone telling you what to do"), then you need to live somewhere on an island, all alone. It is ridiculous and childish to make the comments you have made.

[marjon9 6]

If you think that any action is your right, who is anybody to tell you not to do it? If it feels good, do it, huh? You narcisstic person. Yes, society has a right to make laws and tell you it is NOT right to kill. You think those cells are not life? If allowed to gestate 9 months there would be a baby born...a baby comprised of a whole lotta cells....not a potao, not an iPod, not a coup de ville...but a baby. A baby which is afforded protection the millisecond he or she comes out of the birth canal, but not before. That's what screwed up. Your moral relativism is shameful and someday compassionate people will make your "death choice" ILLEGAL again. Go ahead, watch Gadgetgirl's video of an abortion and tell us a child was not murdered. I'll bet you cannot.

You don't accomplish anything when you put words in the mouth of your opponent and then argue that those words are wrong. That is meaningless exercise. I never said "if I think any action is right, do it" or "if it feels good, do it." I never said anything like that. And I am against "murder" every single bit as much as you are. I simply disagee that abortion is murder. You refuse to address that issue. You just keep repeating over and over again that "abortion is murder because .... well ... because it just IS !!!" But that's not an intelligent argument. It is also not a valid argument to say "look at gadgetlady's video and that will "prove" that abortion is killing a human being." That is not a valid argument. It "proves" nothing. All it means is that YOU see a murder when you look at that video. It does not prove that abortion is murder.

I know YOU think abortion is killing a human being. I know that YOU believe that anyone who thinks otherwise is evil and shameful. But just because you think that does not make it true. Many, many people -- in fact the majority in the United States -- disagree with you.

So again, my question is: since intelligent, compassionate people have thought about this issue at great length, and there is profound disagreement on the answer to the question, why do YOU get to be the one to decide the rights of all others? Why?

And, to be honest, what is even more curious to me is, why no pro-life person will even answer that question. What are you afraid of?

If you do answer, I fully expect that your answer will be "We get to decide because abortion is clearly, and obviously murder." But that is not a valid answer. All you are doing is assuming that you are correct and declaring yourself the winner. That's not how a debate goes. Someday, in order to carry the day, you are going to need to say something more than "Abortion is murder because... well ... because it just IS !!!"

I have no need to change your views. I respect your views. But I do not believe that you have the right to create laws and use the police power of the state to force all others to live by your moral code. And I hold that view notwithstanding the fact that you really, really, really, really really think abortion is murder.

[Daffodil 0]

Just for the record....I voted pro life and no, I didn't misunderstand the poll. I knew exactly what I was voting for when I did it. I am pro life and I don't apoligize for that. I often hear people say if you were raped you would feel differently. Well, I was raped as a teenager by my mom's ex-husband and I still choose to be pro life. I had a lot of time to think about this after it happened while I waited to know whether I was pregnant or not and I never wavered on my opinion. If I was pregnant, I would not abort.

I often read the debates in R&R but choose to not post because I know that my opinion is vastly different from several others and I don't wish to debate it. I don't push my beliefs on anyone and I expect the same in return. Although I don't always agree, I do respect other people's opinions. I am a big enough person to know that other people feel just as strongly about their beliefs as I do about mine and I will not belittle them because of it.

You sound like a nice person, but this "I won't belittle people because of their choices" stuff is wrong. Would you say the same to a murderer, a rapist, a car thief? Of course you wouldn't ! YOU would condemn their actions! Abortion is murder, only the victim cannot scream, cannot kick and scratch and fight for his or her life. But neither can a baby, a toddler, but we consider the murder of those helpless creatures a crime. The truth of it is women abort almost exclusively because the child is inconvenient at that given point in their lives. They look for a way to rationalize the extinction of their baby's life and goodness knows they don't have to look very far....try this forum. All kinds of people will tell them..hey, it's a clump of cells. But that clump of cells is a living, developing being who will be a PERSON if allowed to. Why have juries convicted people of 2 murders when the victim was pregnant? Because they sanely recognized the two lives.

[Carlene 12]

I'm sorry, but to rationalize the killing of two of your babies because their death afforded you another child, in this case a daughter, is so evil that it is hard to describe. Hey--how about a poor woman killing her toddlers because she can't afford them, but now childless she can afford college, and makes better money and finally decide she has the money to have another child and raise the child with a better standard of living? .

I don't think you can just lay that "evil" blanket on top of every woman who has ever terminated a pregnancy, without knowing them or their circumstances. It's just not rational. Besides, when you hear something like this after the fact, what do you suggest - that we beat these women over the head with the bloody bodies of aborted babies? If it's long over and done with, why not just be a little compassionate? You can't change what has already happened.

As for the second scenario - the poor woman who kills her toddlers because she can't afford them - a woman near where I lived hanged herself and her 3 daughters last week (a 4th survived) because she was desperate and poor. Is she less "evil" because she took her own life, along with theirs? People from all over the world have offered all kinds of help and support to the surviving child. Donations poured in to bury the young mother and her little girls. Where were all these people BEFORE this tragedy?

Desperate people do desperate things. Often those are not things they want to do...they just don't see any viable option.

[lisah25 3]

I'm not going to split hairs with the pro-abortion people (who call themselves "pro-choice").

I beg to disagree. I am indeed pro-choice, but in no way am I pro-abortion. They are very different things.

[Daffodil 0]

You don't accomplish anything when you put words in the mouth of your opponent and then argue that those words are wrong. That is meaningless exercise. I never said "if I think any action is right, do it" or "if it feels good, do it." I never said anything like that. And I am against "murder" every single bit as much as you are. I simply disagee that abortion is murder. You refuse to address that issue. You just keep repeating over and over again that "abortion is murder because .... well ... because it just IS !!!" But that's not an intelligent argument. It is also not a valid argument to say "look at gadgetlady's video and that will "prove" that abortion is killing a human being." That is not a valid argument. It "proves" nothing. All it means is that YOU see a murder when you look at that video. It does not prove that abortion is murder.

I know YOU think abortion is killing a human being. I know that YOU believe that anyone who thinks otherwise is evil and shameful. But just because you think that does not make it true. Many, many people -- in fact the majority in the United States -- disagree with you.

So again, my question is: since intelligent, compassionate people have thought about this issue at great length, and there is profound disagreement on the answer to the question, why do YOU get to be the one to decide the rights of all others? Why?

And, to be honest, what is even more curious to me is, why no pro-life person will even answer that question. What are you afraid of?

If you do answer, I fully expect that your answer will be "We get to decide because abortion is clearly, and obviously murder." But that is not a valid answer. All you are doing is assuming that you are correct and declaring yourself the winner. That's not how a debate goes. Someday, in order to carry the day, you are going to need to say something more than "Abortion is murder because... well ... because it just IS !!!"

I have no need to change your views. I respect your views. But I do not believe that you have the right to create laws and use the police power of the state to force all others to live by your moral code. And I hold that view notwithstanding the fact that you really, really, really, really really think abortion is murder.

OK, then YOU have no right to make laws at all against anything because I may "disagree" that the action constitutes a crime. So we should live in a lawless society. That's the logical conclusion to your argument. The Taliban doesn't allow women to vote, to hold jobs, to walk the streets alone...hey, they believe in their actions, but in this country we believe it is a crime to keep women from voting. So the real answer to your whole point is: As a society we legislate, we adjudicate. Times change, mores change. As a society we decide what is right and wrong at any given time in history. Yes, we tell each other what to do. My work is to change the law I find reprehensible--that allowing abortion. I have no problem telling you that it should be criminal, as society tells us that murder, rqae, extortion, child abuse is criminal. If I don't like something being criminal, I'll vote for those who share my point of view. But please don't say "Don't make me live by your rules". I want you to live by my rules just as you want me to live by yours, or you would instead be preaching anarchy.

[Carlene 12]

The truth of it is women abort almost exclusively because the child is inconvenient at that given point in their lives.

Actually, I have never met anyone who terminated a pregnancy for the sake of convenience, and I met many women when I was doing social work who had had abortions. Unless, of course, you consider "convenience" to include: no support system, no job/money, no place to live, etc.

On the other hand, I would like to say that my oldest son is adopted and his birth mother was married, but not to his father. Her husband was in Vietnam when she got pregnant with Tommy. Abortion was illegal at the time, or she would most certainly have killed my child before he became my child. Knowing that just makes my blood run cold. And it makes me glad that abortion was not an option for her, as selfish as that may sound.