who supports right to choose

[gadgetlady 4]

Slaves were viable adults who were capable of making life choices on their own, they were able to breath and take care of themselves but weren't given a chance.

 

I thought you said some slaves were children (in fact, you did, and, in fact, infants were often taken from their mothers). Is the only thing that defines life the ability to breathe and take care of oneself? Because if that's the case, there are a heck of a lot of people on oxygen for assisted breathing who, I guess, are actually dead or not worthy of living.

 

It is my belief that life begins at birth and not conception.

 

So legal abortion through 9 months of pregnancy for any reason at all. That's lovely.

 

I guess women are sub-human in pro-lifers eyes. If "WE" as Americans cannot assure fetus' an equal quality of life after birth, then why should you or I have a say in her terminating the pregnancy.

 

Everyone deserves equal "quality of life" after birth to be granted the right to life? Women aren't sub-human at all. Women are incredible, and have been sold a bill of goods that they can't be effective, productive members of society with children.

 

We have thousands of kids in the foster care system awaiting adoptions because their parents and families couldn't take care of them.

 

Why, pray tell, do so many people leave the US to adopt foreign babies? I know the answer -- I'm just wondering if you do.

[L8BloomR 1]

In the late 1970's my DH and I tried to adopt because we didn't think we could have any more children. Because we had 1 child already, we were turned down by every American agency we tried because there was such a shortage of babies/small children available. The only way they would even consider taking our name was if we would consider a much older, handicapped child and I am ashamed to say that we did not think we were capable at that time of taking on that kind of responsibility, so we did not pursue the issue beyond that...and eventually we did have another child of our own. I bring this up because I can still remember how shocked I was to hear that there were so few babies available for adoption, so few years after abortion became legal. I knew/know of many women who would love to adopt, but there are very few available babies. Just to be clear, I am not saying I think "available babies" is a good thing...obviously it would be ideal for every baby to be wanted and raised by their birth-mother and for there to be no unwanted children, but I think our society has become so used to thinking in terms of "millions of unwanted children" that we haven't looked to see how few there may actually be, at least in this country. I would hope that should a woman not be able to keep her unborn child, the knowledge that there are many, many waiting families wanting to love and raise her child should give her a more comforting option than abortion.

[BJean 16]

Just because there is a shortage of "available babies" for adoption, that is not a justifiable reason for women to be legally bound to go through an accidental, unwanted pregnancy to full term!!!! That is completely ludicrous.

 

Just because some women are in the unfortunate position of being unable to bear children, doesn't mean that other fertile, capable women who find themselves in the unfortunate position of having an unwanted pregnancy, should be legally bound to bear children for those who can't!

 

If you believe that every fertilized egg is a living, breathing human being and you can't stand the idea of any fertilized egg being destroyed, that's one thing. But to compare abortion to slavery, and to say that because there aren't enough abandoned babies in this country that abortion should be illegal, just says that you are extremely desperate for reasons why you think it's your job to be the pregnancy police.

 

And there is absolutely no arguing that a fertilized egg cannot survive without its' host mother.

 

Furthermore, even once a baby can survive outside the womb but it is found that there is a life in jeopardy, it should still be a decision between the mother, doctor and the sperm doner (and their God), whether an abortion is warranted or not. A MEDICAL DECISION OF THIS MAGNITUDE SHOULD NEVER BE DECIDED BY ANY OTHER BIASED GROUP OF PEOPLE, OR ELECTED GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS OR SUPREME COURT JUSTICES.

[BJean 16]

L8BloomR: Please do not think that my above post was directed at you. You have made the noble statement that if women learn that there are many couples who want babies in this country and that there is a shortage of available babies, that it could give them a comfortable alternative to abortion.

 

However that is very different from making it legally mandatory for women to bear unwanted children so that women who can't have them will have a bunch of babies to choose from.

[gadgetlady 4]

Just because there is a shortage of "available babies" for adoption, that is not a justifiable reason for women to be legally bound to go through an accidental, unwanted pregnancy to full term!!!! That is completely ludicrous.

 

Just because some women are in the unfortunate position of being unable to bear children, doesn't mean that other fertile, capable women who find themselves in the unfortunate position of having an unwanted pregnancy, should be legally bound to bear children for those who can't!

 

If you believe that every fertilized egg is a living, breathing human being and you can't stand the idea of any fertilized egg being destroyed, that's one thing. But to compare abortion to slavery, and to say that because there aren't enough abandoned babies in this country that abortion should be illegal, just says that you are extremely desperate for reasons why you think it's your job to be the pregnancy police.

 

You are going a bit off the deep end here. I never suggested that women should be forcibly impregnated because other women were infertile. I also never said that abortion should be illegal because there aren't enough "abandoned" babies in this country. It's precisely the opposite. I was responding to a claim that abortion should remain legal because there are too many unwanted children out there.

 

My sole reason for wanting abortion to be illegal is because it kills a human being. Abortion stops a beating heart. Amen. Period. The end. The other arguments are tangential and I don't bring them up; I only respond to them. For you to turn around and say my arguments are weak when all I'm doing is replying to objections raised by your side is ridiculous.

 

And I will again point out why I compare abortion to slavery: slavery was legally allowed because the slaves were defined as less than a full human being. Abortion is legally allowed for the same reason. The other facet of similarity is that one person is given the ability to claim legal dominion over the other. If a slavemaster killed his slaves, it was no one's business but his own. The parallels are there; you just refuse to look at them.

[green 6]

The funniest thing about this thread is the hypocrisy. There are documented cases of pro-lifer's getting abortions. People who like you will undoubtly say, they werent TRUE pro-lifers. Well...apparently they were, until the situation came to them.

Read this: "The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion" - When the Anti-Choice Choose

I just finishing reading this. It is an interesting read. Thanks.

[gadgetlady 4]

L8BloomR: Please do not think that my above post was directed at you. You have made the noble statement that if women learn that there are many couples who want babies in this country and that there is a shortage of available babies, that it could give them a comfortable alternative to abortion.

LOL! No, it's only me who's being ignoble. Apparently for responding to the false claim that unwanted children are globbing up the foster care system and should be killed instead.

[BJean 16]

All of my comments were absolutely not directed at you, gadget. The African American comment was, of course. That's a point where we will just have to agree to disagree. I believe it is an extremely far-out and inflammatory position and it is pretty much meaningless as it relates to my arguments. I absolutely do not refuse to look at the "parallels" that you would like to think are important and relevant - I have looked at them for what they are.

As for the rest, I was speaking to a point that someone else made. Getting personal may be the best way for you to make your point, however, it isn't my style. Besides, we've gone there before and you and I both know that you are not going to win me over to your "arguments" nor am I going to win you over to mine. C'est la vie. Did I say that right, green? You know your French better than I.

[gadgetlady 4]

I was speaking to a point that someone else made. Getting personal may be the best way for you to make your point, however, it isn't my style.

If you say so. Can't imagine who, though, because no one else was saying anything about it but me. I must be paranoid. After all, there's no reason to think you were getting personal when only two people addressed an issue and you informed one of them that your response wasn't directed at her.

[GenaO 0]

Susannah

Thank you for dsaying exactly what I was thinking

[BJean 16]

Gadget: you injected the phrase that, "...women should be forcibly impregnated", to make it sound like I was arguing that point. I was not.

My argument related to the issue of legally forcing a pregnant woman to carry a baby to term that she does not want and cannot provide for physically or emotionally, so that infertile women can have more babies to choose from, for adoption. That is quite different from forcibly impregnating women. But if you'd like to change the argument, let's go!

Actually it seems like I shouldn't spend time arguing with you since you often seem to change opposing arguments to sound like something they aren't. It's all a part of the spin that anti-abortion proponents like to toss out to make abortion seem like the worst thing in the world for women in general and the nation as a whole. In fact, it is not. It can be a very good thing. It can be a life-saving thing. It can be an extremely simple, quick procedure that can be the best possible decision for a woman and her mate who absolutely cannot deal with an accidental, unwanted pregnancy. That is true no matter how much you like to demonize it.

But all of those arguments take a back seat to the argument that I believe is the most important of all. That is, the government should have no power to compel, by law, that a woman be forced to make a medical decision, one way or another, with regard to her body. The government is not God. We are not God.

It seems that you believe that our perfect God intends and is responsible for millions of women being impregnated every day. I just absolutely do not believe that. I believe that human nature causes sperms and eggs to unite, and I believe that human nature is not perfect.

[gadgetlady 4]

the government should have no power to compel, by law, that a woman be forced to make a medical decision, one way or another, with regard to her body.

The government makes decisions about our body all the time. Go into a doctor's office and ask them to remove a perfectly healthy limb. Good luck with that. And your perfectly healthy limb is a part of you that actually has your own DNA (which, as you know, the baby is not -- he or she has her own DNA, bloodstream, heart, limbs, nervous system, etc.).

It seems that you believe that our perfect God intends and is responsible for millions of women being impregnated every day.

God is responsible for unintended pregnancies? I'm not sure I get where you're going here. Is he also responsible for the ensuing abortions?

In any case, that issue aside, my sole argument on this issue is that regardless of social situations or heartbreaking circumstances, it is never OK to kill another person for one's own convenience.

[BJean 16]

So you are arguing that since the government is too intrusive already, that it's okay that they go even further? Huh?

No I didn't suggest that God specifically creates unintended pregnancies - I figure you believe he creates ALL of them. Am I wrong about that?

[gadgetlady 4]

I don't believe abortion is a religious issue. It's a human rights issue. There are athiests who are pro-life -- simply based on the undeniable humanity of the unborn.

[gadgetlady 4]

So you are arguing that since the government is too intrusive already, that it's okay that they go even further? Huh?

Actually, I believe one of the few purposes of government is to protect people from having their rights and lives trampled by others. So as stupid as the act may be, I believe people SHOULD have the right to willingly cut their limbs off. Where I draw the line is when one person's rights infringe on another's. And since abortion stops the beating heart of another human being, the government thus has the right to intervene. And before you go off and say I think women are therefore being forced into mandatory childbirth, I don't have a problem with sterilization and birth control -- precisely because they do not interfere with the life of anyone but the person doing them.