who supports right to choose

[marjon9 6]

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.

Your arguments take several forms, but they amount to the same thing in every case. Your argument is simply this: "I'm right because I'm right because I'm right." I really don't understand that approach. By definition a person cannot win an argument by simply declaring victory without addressing the arguments of those on the other side.

You say in the quote above that some atheists are pro-life because of the "undeniable humanity of the unborn." What is the point of making such a statement? What does it prove? How do you expect that it will persuade anyone when you know that the majority of the people here do not agree that this "humanity" actually is "undeniable." In essence, this argument is the same as all your others: "I'm right because I'm right because I'm right."

It's the same with your oft-repeated slaverly argument. You say that there are parallels between abortion and slavery that all of us pro-choice advocates "refuse to see." You argue as follows: "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."

Your argument that slavery parallels abortion is correct ONLY if one STARTS with the premise that 4 cells in a womb equals "human life." Obviously you think it does, but the whole point is, the pro-choice advocates disagree with exactly that point. That is the exact point under debate. How do you think it helps your argument to simply declare over and over again "I'm right because I'm right because I'm right." What does that prove?

There can be no doubt that some people in this country once believed slaves were less than human. History has shown that these people were gravely wrong and their memories deserve to live in disgrace for all eternity. But just because that is true does not in any way "prove" that history will reach the same conclusion about pro-choice advocates. The change in the view toward slaves does not, in and of itself, somehow demonstrate that a similar change in view inevitably will occur with respect to abortion. Clearly the parallel exists ONLY if one STARTS with the premise that a group of 4 cells in a womb is "undeniably" "human life." But that is EXACTLY what the pro-choice advocates disagree with. So again, your "argument" really does nothing at all to prove anything. Your whole slavery argument is just another way for you to say, again and again, "I'm right because I'm right because I'm right."

You are an intelligent person, gadget, but you just don't seem to get this same basic point that I have made to you over and over. You can't win an argument by simply declaring yourself the winner and then telling everyone else that they just "refuse to see the truth." You have not done anything to demonstrate that your view is the truth. (And of course, you never will, because the abortion debate is not about one "truth," it is a matter of conscience that must be left to the individual to decide, not the state or the church.)

[green 6]

Hahahaha

Pers one: I am in a refugee camp in Darfur with my 3 undernourished children. Three of my children have already died, and my husband has disappeared. I am 22 years old, I have been raped, and now I am pregnant. There is no food here. We are starving. They say that the rich countries are sending us food but I don't believe it. I am starving. I don't think that I can survive this pregnancy. What will happen to my children? Who will look after them?

Pers two: I have never wanted to have children and it is for this reason that I have always been careful about my birth control practices. Ugh! I think that I might be pregnant........ WTF!

Pers three: I really love kids. I have always wanted to have a large family. My husband and I were scared shitless when I almost died while having my second kid. The doctors told me that I shouldn't have even tried to become pregnant again. The problem is that my husband and I have hostile blood types; one of us is a positive and one of us is a negative. I certainly can't ever have another child. This will kill me and the child. This is why I have had 2 abortions. If I lived in Canada or the United States I could have had my tubes tied but in France sterilisation is an illegal procedure. Abortion is legal and this is why I have had a couple of abortions but I have found these experiences to be heart-breaking.

Pers four: He told me that he loved me and that if I loved him I would do it. And besides, he said that nobody ever got pregnant on their first time. Shit! I am 14/15/16 years old. I haven't even finished school. What am I going to say to my parents?

Pers five: Where I live it is impossible to obtain birthcontrol. I sure do wish I could obtain an adequate supply of birth control pills or a diaphragm and a tube of anti-spermicide. It sure is easy to arrange for an abortion where I live and it sure is pretty much impossible for me to get my paws on birth control methods which work. Those women who have real freedom over their reproductive tracts are those women who live in the rich western countries. I feel frustrated and blocked and out of control of both my body and my life. And now I hear that wealthy western women are judging me...........! I think I hate you.

I find it interesting that none of you right to lifers have commented on the case studies which I have presented above, all of which are true. Indeed, I was pers two and I personally knew pers three while I was living in France. Sterilization was against the law in France: it was considered bodily mutilation.

And as for pers five, this is a profile of those women who lived behind the Iron Curtain in the Soviet countries. This culture was unusual in that education was made available to the masses and those individuals who were gifted were properly academically nurtured. At the same time, however, education was not a road out of poverty for these countries had chosen to ignore their own infrastructure and the needs of their people in order to spend all available money in the arms wars and the space race. It is for this reason that the norm was to see a well-educated couple of professionals sharing a one bedroom apartment with a set of parents and a child. Supplies of food and such manufactured goods as clothing were unreliable. Access to birth control methods, be it in the form of condoms or the pill, was pretty much impossible. However, under the Soviet system there were many well-educated people in all fields including the medical field. Abortions were easy to obtain, free, and safe. From the information which laurend has introduced on another thread it appears that this situation seems to still hold true in east Europe.

As for pers one, although I have placed her in a refugee camp in Darfur this woman can be found in any of those third world hell holes. This is a woman who has lost her husband somewhere along the way and who finds herself with a clutch of children to look after. They are all undernourished. This family is not in a safe place. She herself is pregnant, possibly because she has been raped, and she is aware that she is not sufficiently healthy to carry this pregnancy to term. She figures that both she and this child will likely die and then there will be no one to look after her children. She makes the obvious choice; she opts to save herself and the clutch of children which she already has.

As for pers four, well, she seems like the one example who may well wish to let her pregnancy run its course. I am inclined to hope that she will set up some kind of open adoption for her child and then resume her own, pre-pregnancy life.

This is my own bias speaking. I like to see young women get themselves educated. I feel that this allows them to open themselves up to all which life can bring to them. I figure that experience and education will benefit them, and their children, too.

If, however, pers four decides to cut and run by opting for an abortion, well, I cannot blame her. We must remember that this individual is a very young and very immature girl. She has come to be trapped in this place through a combination of sweet talk and her own biology.

And her pregnancy would be an issue which would not be considered malignant or shameful in our agrarian past when boys and girls were considered to be marriagable when they were in their early to mid-teens.

Now life has changed. We have statuatory rape laws. And many of us are anxious to see our kids obtain at least one university degree before settling down with a signif other. In short, both the legal age and the requirements of maturity have changed considerably even though the biology has remained the same. This is why, even though I don't have children of my own, I would never teach children that abstinence is the only way. I would tell them everything, and I would suggest that abstinence is a good approach, and then I would armour them with the full array of birth control technology. And then if that scared little kiddy found herself pregnant I would present her with all the alternatives, including abortion.

[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

And, once again, I suggest you take the trouble to read this site which Robgoblin has provided. It really is fascinating reading. Enjoy.

[gadgetlady 4]

I have read the article, BTW. And I did comment on it.

As to the scenarios you provided, I do not deny that there are sometimes extremely difficult situations to contend with when there is an unplanned pregnancy. My contention is that killing someone is not the best solution to an extremely difficult situation.

[gadgetlady 4]

The point I'm trying to get to, marjon, is that the whole and entire argument is whether or not the unborn baby is indeed a human being. Nothing else matters. Slave owners thought they had the right to determine whether slaves were worthy of life or not. That is why there is a parallel. One person was deciding for another whether the other person was, indeed, a person.

Conscience shouldn't decide an issue of when life begins, because if it did then people could say it begins at age 3, or only if a person is white, or any other number of arbitrary considerations. Humanity isn't GRANTED to one person by another person; moms shouldn't get to decide for their kids when they have the right to live.

[BJean 16]

Well your last statement, gadget, is one that I disagree with. Humanity definitely is granted by other people. Without parents, humanity doesn't exist. Until a child is able to sustain life on its' own, it is NOT an individual human being. A fertilized egg in a petri dish is not a human being. We may not agree on when a person becomes a human being, but you can't disagree with the fact that a fertilized egg cannot exist outside the womb. I believe that until it is an individual, it is not an individual.

Once again though, I reiterate that it is not your job to decide whether or not a fertiflized egg in my body is an individual human being or even humanity in and of itself. This all has to do with nature and you're making it religious by putting your "beliefs" in the mix. (Although I understand that you disagree with that.)

As for slaves, you really don't understand why that is such a disgusting premise to put forth, do you? I know that you intend to shock people into believing there is a parallel, but what you're doing in this regard is really quite ugly as far as I'm concerned.

I'm glad I was out of the mix for a while because both Marjon and Green posted some fine observations. I will shut up again. This whole discussion has come full circle and I don't see that there is much to be gained by my participation.

If gadget keeps it up, she makes my arguments for me anyway. Thanks btw.

[L8BloomR 1]

I think all of us posting on this issue think we are "right" or else we wouldn't keep this thread going! The main difference between us is that some of us think human life begins at conception and needs to be protected---and others either don't think life begins then or else that the mother's wishes need to be protected. Both sides think their cause is noble, which is understandable since both believe they are standing up for the rights of others. Both sides can tell stories of hypocrisy about the other side and both can give examples of how their side was better for someone. I'm not sure where else we can take this thread!

I think I have added all I can to this discussion so I am going to bow out now. For me, it is sometimes just better to "agree to disagree", although I have really been impressed with some of the deep and insightful posts here. I feel like I have learned alot. And Gadgetlady, my hat is off to you. You have been alone in much of this battle yet you have been able to articulate your views with intelligence and depth. It can't have been easy---you have some great debaters here!

[marjon9 6]

Everyone is talking about bowing out of the discussion. That's a shame. It's true that most of us have said everything we have to say on the subject. Indeed, most of us said everything we have to say months ago. But that has not stopped us from inflicting physical punishment on deceased equines. Even though nothing much is new, it is still fun and educational to talk about it. I hope to see you all back here again for the next round. Hy O, Silver!!

[BJean 16]

Right on, Kemosabe!

[gadgetlady 4]

Well your last statement, gadget, is one that I disagree with. Humanity definitely is granted by other people. Without parents, humanity doesn't exist.

Humanity is "granted" in the sense that a sperm and an egg are required to create human life, but the existence of that humanity isn't granted when one person "speaks" or "thinks" another person exists. The humanity is granted by the act of fertilization, not by the arbitrary feelings of either parent that the child has suddenly become a child.

As I have pointed out previously, there are some very lauded and educated people who believe parents should have the right to "exterminate" their children within a month of birth if the children aren't up to the parents' standards. My argument is that one person's "standards" shouldn't have a say in whether another person lives.

[gadgetlady 4]

And Gadgetlady, my hat is off to you. You have been alone in much of this battle yet you have been able to articulate your views with intelligence and depth.

Thanks, L8BloomR. I will never stop speaking on behalf of those who cannot speak for themselves. When we were at the Underground Railroad Museum last week, my dh pointed out that if we had lived during that time, we would likely have been working on behalf of the slaves. Injustice absolutely wrecks me, especially when it affects innocent human beings.

Did you know that today, over 150,000 young people are speaking out -- or not speaking out, as it were -- on behalf of the unborn? Today is the Pro-Life Day of Silent Solidarity. Students all around the nation (and in 18 other countries) are wearing armbands and in some cases duct tape over their mouths with the word "LIFE" on them. They are remaining silent for the day in support of those who will never have a voice. For more details, go to Pro-Life Day of Silent Solidarity. TThe website tracks people by school, so you will see a count of students in close to 4600 schools participating; the individual count of students is over 150,000. I suspect it might reach 200,000. I spoke with the founder a few days ago and it was growing exponentially by the day.

I was commenting to my dh the other day that I understand why people were in favor of abortion during the social turmoil of the 60's and 70's -- that it made sense in the context of a "me" society that was focused on personal pleasure with no strings attached and no responsibilities. But as we have learned more and more about the development of the unborn, as we know that at 12 weeks in utero babies are developed down to having individual fingerprints, as we know that the baby has a beating heart generally before the mother knows she's pregnant, more and more youth are becoming pro-life. To me, education turns the tide and will continue to do so.

[BJean 16]

You continued speaking about humanity and you're right - what someone says or thinks is humanity doesn't make it humanity. It's biology, pure and simple.

And let's face it, fertilized eggs can't speak for themselves because they aren't selves yet.

Don't go clumping every woman with an unwanted pregnancy in your little "selfish" box. Some women have abortions because they are not selfish.

This issue isn't simple. It isn't cut and dried, even though you think that it is simple and cut and dried. I have no statistics to back it up, but I'd bet more educated women have abortions than uneducated ones. It may have nothing to do with the education though.

Speak out all you want. That's what free speech is all about. I will continue to do the same and believe me, when the serious marches come, you will be outnumbered. Right now, women think they are protected by the law from people who believe they have the right to tell them what to do about abortion. Once they understand your agenda, they will demonstrate it much better than I ever could. So this is a good thread and although you'd think it would die since we've nearly said it all, it probably won't.

(That's for my granddaughter, looking over my shoulder. It's one of her favorites. This is the other: and she LOVES this :rain: one and :whoo: and :heh: Woo-hoo, we're having fun now! :kiss2:)

[gadgetlady 4]

You continued speaking about humanity and you're right - what someone says or thinks is humanity doesn't make it humanity. It's biology, pure and simple.

Perfect! When does biology tell us a person comes into existence? When is the entity that is identifiable by DNA separate from the mother in existence?

[SlimTarnishedDiva 1]

Perfect! When does biology tell us a person comes into existence? When is the entity that is identifiable by DNA separate from the mother in existence?

That's just it, it's when the MOTHER decides whether or not she is physically and mentally capable of bearing and raising said zygote/embryo/fetus.

[gadgetlady 4]

That's just it, it's when the MOTHER decides whether or not she is physically and mentally capable of bearing and raising said zygote/embryo/fetus.

What if the mother decides that she's not capable when the baby's been born for a week? Again, some very learned people have proposed that that should be acceptable. One of them is a Nobel Laureate.

There are many websites that document this. I have cut and pasted from one:

For some time now, many in the medical profession, along with the intellectual elite, have advocated infanticide and euthanasia. In his book, The Sanctity of Life and the Criminal Law, Dr. Glanville Williams advocates "humanitarian infanticide" and "euthanasia for handicapped children." Dr. Robert H. Williams, a professor of endocrinology, has said that "planning to prevent overpopulation of the earth must also include euthanasia, either negative or positive" (Northwest Medicine, July 1970). According to Dr. Joseph Fletcher, the well-known professor of medical ethics and proponent of situation ethics, "It is ridiculous to give ethical approval to positive ending of subhuman life in utero, as we do now in therapeutic abortions for reasons of mercy and compassion, but refuse to approve of positively ending a subhuman life in extremis" ("Ethics and Euthanasia," in To Love and to Die: When, Why, and How, by Robert H. Williams). James D. Watson, the Nobel laureate who discovered the double helix of DNA, has said: "If a child were not declared alive until three days after birth, then all parents could be allowed the choice only a few are given under the present system. The doctor could allow the child to die if the parents so choose and save a lot of misery and suffering. I believe this view is the only rational, compassionate attitude to have" (Time, May 28, 1973, page 104). Francis Crick, also a Nobel laureate, has said, "No newborn infant should be declared human until it has passed certain tests regarding its genetic endowment and that if it fails these tests it forfeits the right to live" (American Medical Association, Prism, May 1973). Millard S. Everett, who was professor of philosophy and humanities at Oklahoma A & M, wrote: "My personal feeling...is that eventually, when public opinion is prepared for it, no child should be admitted into society of the living who would be certain to suffer any social handicap—for example, any physical or mental defect that would prevent marriage or would make others tolerate his company only from a sense of mercy" (Ideals of Life: An Introduction to Ethics and Humanities, 1954). [emphasis added]

So infants are "subhuman", parents should have the right to "euthanize" their children if there is a social handicap present, and newborn infants shouldn't be declared human until they pass certain tests. Who the hell is this man to have the presumption to "declare" someone human! It's not his right to "declare". Either someone is human or they're not. His mind-boggling opinion doesn't make one iota of difference to biological and scientific reality.

I'm not making this stuff up. Advocating that a woman OWNS her child in utero leads directly to this line of thinking.

I don't OWN my children. Never have. Never will. They are not mine to do with what I wish. They weren't my property when they were kicking me in the ribs while in my womb, they weren't my property the millisecond before or after they were removed from my abdomen, and they aren't my property now.