who supports right to choose

[sweethot143 2]

Absolutely. The argument is about when the second human life has value.

Good analogy. Quite frankly, when the decision you make is about your own life alone, I am 100% in favor of choice. Seat belts, drug use, whatever. When another life hangs in the balance, that's when it's the government's job to step in.

yes I agree. My intent is not to impose my beliefs on anyone, it's to protect their fetus, baby or unborn child. Why is there a certain time where the baby suddenly has value? Is it any less a person yesterday than it is today?

The baby has value when you exercised your freedom of choice and chose to have sex and made a baby. Why is it ok in only this instance to take that babies life? I don't see this as a valid choice to make. It shouldn't be an option at all.

Of course these statements are not directed at you gadget lady.

[gadgetlady 4]

yes I agree. My intent is not to impose my beliefs on anyone, it's to protect their fetus, baby or unborn child. Why is there a certain time where the baby suddenly has value? Is it any less a person yesterday than it is today?

In the most unjust turn of events in the free world, the baby only has value when the mother decides he or she does. Up until the instant of birth, if the mother determines the baby has no value, she can abort for any reason whatsoever. This is the same as another time in American history when one people decided for another whether their lives had value: slavery. All the more powerful people did was define the less powerful group as 3/5 of a human being and voila! there was no moral or conscience-based issue with slavery!

Oppression is a easy thing when the powerhouse simply defines the oppressed person as sub-human.

[green 6]

I find Sweethot's comments to be very judgemental. What about the married woman who does not wish to have children? It seems to me that you are slotting all women into a very narrow paradigm. You are assuming that all women will want to be and should be married and you are assuming that all women, once married, will want/should/must have children. Where does this place heterosexual women who know that they do not wish to be mothers? I mention these individuals because these are the women who will be careful about their birth control issues. They are focussed on staying child-free and they are likely to be well-educated about these reproductive issues as a result. Nevertheless, birth control measures can flop and it is awful difficult for a chick to get herself spayed before she has had a kid or two.

In France it was actually strictly against the law, and I knew a woman while I was living there who loved children but who ended up having two abortions for strictly medical reasons: you see, carrying a pregnancy to term would have killed her. She was, by the way, a teacher and a happily married woman. Her husband was a psychologist.

I mention these details in order that you understand that abortion is not just a form of lazy birth control that is practised by a clutch of lower class, ignorant and lazy trouts. I also mention this because I find the argument in favour of abortion, the one which is often trotted out by my fellow pro-choicers, the one about victims of incest and rape, to be specious. Yep, it is true that those poor individuals should have the option of refusing to continue their pregnancies but these poster children are in the minority. Most people who want abortions have engaged in an act of sex which went sour on them and they oh so desperately do not want to be trapped by this. A woman who is caught in this situation is much like a wolf who is caught in a trap; she will do the equivalent of gnawing her leg off in order to escape. This level of desperation is something which you who are pro-life do not, perhaps, understand. These are women who will risk death if abortion is recriminalized. I know what I am talking about because I am one of those women.

And, yah, I do find Sweethot's suggestion to be both offensive and impractical. What she is suggesting is that no women, apart from those who are married and who desire children, have a right to a sex life. Well, sh!t, it is either the convent, the dildo, or the burqa for the rest of us, is it not, Sweethot? The glaring inequality is men - remember them? - the humans who can't get pregnant, and who do have the freedom to enjoy their sexuality.

[sweethot143 2]

In the most unjust turn of events in the free world, the baby only has value when the mother decides he or she does. Up until the instant of birth, if the mother determines the baby has no value, she can abort for any reason whatsoever. This is the same as another time in American history when one people decided for another whether their lives had value: slavery. All the more powerful people did was define the less powerful group as 3/5 of a human being and voila! there was no moral or conscience-based issue with slavery! <br /> <br /> Oppression is a easy thing when the powerhouse simply defines the oppressed person as sub-human.

<br /> <br /> thats just so sad. Which just enforces my point about teaching our children the importance of taking responsibility for their choices. <br /> Whatever can be done? I can't see any other choice right now other than government stepping in. When i vote, just can't vote for a candidate who is ok with this. Even when their other policies are great. <br /> It's amazing how ones conscience can be supressed.

[marjon9 6]

"Many pro-choice people are fully aware that a heartbeat can be detected at an early point. They still, in their own soul and in their own conscience, do not believe this is a "baby"

The same way that pro choice people may believe that pro-lifers are wrong for believing that life begins at conception, we believe some women are wrong for not understanding that a baby is conceived at "conception" and that what they believe in their conscience and soul about the moment a baby is concieved is wrong, both sides believe that the other side is wrong, neither side is trying to force its beliefs on others, they are expressing their opinions here in LBT

I agree that people on LBT are simply expressing their opinions. But that does not change the fact that in the real world, a group of Americans who are in the minority have absolute certainty in their "correctness," and they believe that they have a right to use the police power of the state to force everyone else to live by their beliefs, at a huge cost those people's lives. Just because you are absolutely certain you are right, and break out the latin or greek roots of various words to prove it, does not change a thing. This is a dispute where well-meaning, good, honest, moral, intelligent people disagree. One group does not have the right to force its views on others.

And after decades of freedom of choice in this country, there is no going back again on this issue. This is one genie that is out of the bottle. Regardless of what the Supreme Court says, or what anyone else says, the majority of Americans who are pro choice will never go back. That much is clear.

[sweethot143 2]

I find Sweethot's comments to be very judgemental. What about the married woman who does not wish to have children? It seems to me that you are slotting all women into a very narrow paradigm. You are assuming that all women will want to be and should be married and you are assuming that all women, once married, will want/should/must have children. Where does this place heterosexual women who know that they do not wish to be mothers? I mention these individuals because these are the women who will be careful about their birth control issues. They are focussed on staying child-free and they are likely to be well-educated about these reproductive issues as a result. Nevertheless, birth control measures can flop and it is awful difficult for a chick to get herself spayed before she has had a kid or two.

In France it was actually strictly against the law, and I knew a woman while I was living there who loved children but who ended up having two abortions for strictly medical reasons: you see, carrying a pregnancy to term would have killed her. She was, by the way, a teacher and a happily married woman. Her husband was a psychologist.

I mention these details in order that you understand that abortion is not just a form of lazy birth control that is practised by a clutch of lower class, ignorant and lazy trouts. I also mention this because I find the argument in favour of abortion, the one which is often trotted out by my fellow pro-choicers, the one about victims of incest and rape, to be specious. Yep, it is true that those poor individuals should have the option of refusing to continue their pregnancies but these poster children are in the minority. Most people who want abortions have engaged in an act of sex which went sour on them and they oh so desperately do not want to be trapped by this. A woman who is caught in this situation is much like a wolf who is caught in a trap; she will do the equivalent of gnawing her leg off in order to escape. This level of desperation is something which you who are pro-life do not, perhaps, understand. These are women who will risk death if abortion is recriminalized. I know what I am talking about because I am one of those women.

And, yah, I do find Sweethot's suggestion to be both offensive and impractical. What she is suggesting is that no women, apart from those who are married and who desire children, have a right to a sex life. Well, sh!t, it is either the convent, the dildo, or the burqa for the rest of us, is it not, Sweethot? The glaring inequality is men - remember them? - the humans who can't get pregnant, and who do have the freedom to enjoy their sexuality.

i think you misunderstand me. If you get pregnant while married, chances are far better that you'll be able to or want to take responsibility in one way or another. Possibly adoption if need be.

The reason i don't throw men in there is because this debate is about the woman's right to choose. Believe me, I don't think men should get off scott free. Afterall, it is their penis that got us into this mess! Men are a whole seperate issue.

Biblically speaking sex was reserved to be between a man and a woman within the bonds of marriage. I know not everyone cares about that, and I really don't mind. As long as no one is getting killed over it. Maybe God designed marriage that way for this reason. Its very hard for a woman to raise children alone, I know my mom was a single mom since I was 2.

I also understand there may be some extreme cases where abortion would be necessary. Only extreme cases. But the everyday young girl who made a mistake and wants to get rid of it, no, that is not right. It shouldn't be an option for her either. There is nothing wrong with giving your baby up for adoption.

[ELENATION 0]

"This is a dispute where well-meaning, good, honest, moral, intelligent people disagree. One group does not have the right to force its views on others.

And after decades of freedom of choice in this country, there is no going back again on this issue. This is one genie that is out of the bottle. Regardless of what the Supreme Court says, or what anyone else says, the majority of Americans who are pro choice will never go back. That much is clea"r

Well, again, like you said, and I agree, this is a dispute among honest intelligent people disagree, I don't think anybody is trying to force it's views on others, you are the one who keep saying that...

And if you believe this is a done deal and there is no going back regardless of what the Supreme Court says, etc, then why are you even waisting your time debating this....? you won, right? that's fine with me, what goes on in the real world about this issue will go on, this to me is only a debate in LBT and expression of different opinions. Have a good day.

__________________

[marjon9 6]

"This is a dispute where well-meaning, good, honest, moral, intelligent people disagree. One group does not have the right to force its views on others.

And after decades of freedom of choice in this country, there is no going back again on this issue. This is one genie that is out of the bottle. Regardless of what the Supreme Court says, or what anyone else says, the majority of Americans who are pro choice will never go back. That much is clea"r

Well, again, like you said, and I agree, this is a dispute among honest intelligent people disagree, I don't think anybody is trying to force it's views on others, you are the one who keep saying that...

And if you believe this is a done deal and there is no going back regardless of what the Supreme Court says, etc, then why are you even waisting your time debating this....? you won, right? that's fine with me, what goes on in the real world about this issue will go on, this to me is only a debate in LBT and expression of different opinions. Have a good day.

__________________

Just to clarify, I do not believe that anyone on this forum is trying to force their views on others. That is not my point or my claim. My claim is that many people on this forum support forcing others to take actions against their will, that is, to force a woman to carry an embryo to full term when that woman does not agree that this is the right course of action.

I don't think you can deny that what I am saying is clearly correct. You can find this point made in post after post on this thread. For example, look at the post right before yourse from Sweethot, where she says:

"I also understand there may be some extreme cases where abortion would be necessary. Only extreme cases. But the everyday young girl who made a mistake and wants to get rid of it, no, that is not right. It shouldn't be an option for her either. There is nothing wrong with giving your baby up for adoption."

In other words, Sweethot, and most if not all of the "pro-life" advocates on this forum, support forcing women to carry an embryo to full term, regardless of how much this conflicts with the moral code of the woman.

Elena, you've said several times that no one on this forum is trying to force their views on others. But please consider that this is not the issue. It is not people's "views" I am talking about. Rather, it is actions.

I respect people who have the view that abortion is murder and an embryo is a baby. But I do not believe that such people should be able to use the police power of the state to force other people to take actions relating to those views that conflict with their own moral code. This is especially true in the case of abortion, when the majority of Americans are not pro-life, and the consequences to the women involved is so enormous.

Sweethot says that "there is nothing wrong with giving your baby away for adoption." And this is certainly true. But the actual point she is making is not that there is nothing "wrong" with adoption. Her point is that women should be forced against their will to carry an embryo to full term and give it away for adoption when this is in profound conflict with the woman's own personal morality. This is not right, and again, I repeat, American society will never allow this to happen.

[ELENATION 0]

I understand your point, and I'm glad you weren't talking about people here trying to force their views on others...

And I respect your point and understand the reasons why you defend your point.

Now, when you quote what Sweethot said, I agree that the every day woman that for whatever reason, other than rape and incest want to have an abortion is not right, we should be responsible for our actions, the thing is that you don't see an embryo as a life, I do, some people do, even if it's the minority, so we are defending this life... and it's unfortunate that the mother has to have a baby that she doesn't want, but that mother should have also been careful and not concieve a baby if she didn't want to, that mother should think that there are consequences to every action that we make, that if you concieve a life you should respect it and grant rights to that life as well, I know you have good intentions protecting the woman's right, but please also understand that even if it seems like pro-lifers want to force women to have an unwanted baby, we are simply protecting the baby's rights, and the solution may not be the best, this is not simple at all and easy to resolve, I understand that, but I know that the intention of saving a baby's life and a baby's right to live is good, even if we can't agree on the way of accomplishing it... I understand that you and I may never agree, I'm not saying that I'm right because I'm right... I'm saying I have a valid reason to feel this way, I just want to protect a life, and I know that it begins with the fact that we disagree when a life begins, but it is what it is for both of us...

I say you shouldn't be concerned because you believe that american society will never allow it, I for one have to keep thinking of ways of saving those babies's lives... maybe one day there will be a better option for everyone..

[marjon9 6]

I understand your point, and I'm glad you weren't talking about people here trying to force their views on others...

And I respect your point and understand the reasons why you defend your point.

Now, when you quote what Sweethot said, I agree that the every day woman that for whatever reason, other than rape and incest want to have an abortion is not right, we should be responsible for our actions, the thing is that you don't see an embryo as a life, I do, some people do, even if it's the minority, so we are defending this life... and it's unfortunate that the mother has to have a baby that she doesn't want, but that mother should have also been careful and not concieve a baby if she didn't want to, that mother should think that there are consequences to every action that we make, that if you concieve a life you should respect it and grant rights to that life as well, I know you have good intentions protecting the woman's right, but please also understand that even if it seems like pro-lifers want to force women to have an unwanted baby, we are simply protecting the baby's rights, and the solution may not be the best, this is not simple at all and easy to resolve, I understand that, but I know that the intention of saving a baby's life and a baby's right to live is good, even if we can't agree on the way of accomplishing it... I understand that you and I may never agree, I'm not saying that I'm right because I'm right... I'm saying I have a valid reason to feel this way, I just want to protect a life, and I know that it begins with the fact that we disagree when a life begins, but it is what it is for both of us...

I say you shouldn't be concerned because you believe that american society will never allow it, I for one have to keep thinking of ways of saving those babies's lives... maybe one day there will be a better option for everyone..

The one comment I have to the above is that many, many unwanted pregnancies occur with people who have taken precautions to avoid pregnancy. It's not all about reckless and irresponsible teenagers who don't have a care in the world. It's not just people who weren't "careful" who seek abortions.

Beyond that I know we will never agree on where the line should be drawn here. I agree with a lot of what you say except for the final resting place of who has the choice. I'll say again that I am not in any way "pro-abortion." I just know for me that it is not my place to force another person to take a life altering course of action that conflicts with their own personal morality. But again, I know we will never agree on this.

[ELENATION 0]

The one comment I have to the above is that many, many unwanted pregnancies occur with people who have taken precautions to avoid pregnancy. It's not all about reckless and irresponsible teenagers who don't have a care in the world. It's not just people who weren't "careful" who seek abortions.

Beyond that I know we will never agree on where the line should be drawn here. I agree with a lot of what you say except for the final resting place of who has the choice. I'll say again that I am not in any way "pro-abortion." I just know for me that it is not my place to force another person to take a life altering course of action that conflicts with their own personal morality. But again, I know we will never agree on this.

Understood, and I agree to disagree on those certain things... it's ok..

[WASaBubbleButt 41]

the post saying...

"You assume that you are right that a fetus is a "baby," and that therefore everyone else should live by that rule. But the whole point is, not everyone agrees with that. You can't succeed in this argument by simply saying "I'm right because, well, I just know I am." That is not a good enough basis for forcing your morality on people who disagree with you."

I'm sorry to hear this comment because I completely understand what you said and I know you were not arguing because you knew you were right and that was it.... you were making very good points and obviously you were not trying to force your morality on other people ... I do not understand why would anybody get all that from what you said.... I like you, wish there were other ways of preventing abortion other than have the government involved... but at the same time, for those who agree that life is at conception, it's a crime to perform abortion, like you said, maybe it's a no win situation... They can ask any woman who has suffered the physical and emotional pain of a miscarriage and I'll bet you won't find anyone who will say she lost her first-trimester fetus. She'll tell you she lost her baby. Pro-life or pro-choice, doesn't matter. Ultimately discussing this issue is extremely complex and I definitely feel for the mother who must carry an unwanted pregnancy, but I also feel for the baby, who maybe a fetus for some but not for everyone, but who determines who's right? can it even be determined fairly?

Well, the law does not agree that a fetus is a human being, that's why they have no rights.

Science does not support that a fetus is a human being, that's why it is called a fetus vs. a human being.

There is a difference between human life and a human being. A kidney is human life, it is not a human being. A full term baby is a human being.

For me personally, when there are connections between the brain and everything else, when the fetus begins to have a personality, can feel something... anything physically, then it becomes a human being. That is the difference between a human being and human life.

The biggest problem I have with pro-lifers is that it is their religion that teaches them that it is a human being. Not science, not fact, but religion. So when you (general you not specific you) push your beliefs on others it is a belief in religion you are pushing on others. It would be exactly the same thing as if another religion were to come along and say that it is amoral to live beyond the age of 30 because the person has had their shot at life. Give room to those who haven't had a shot at God given life. Would you agree to this because that is their sincere and honest belief? Aren't you doing the same thing?

Do you believe that at conception the embryo has a soul? Isn't that what makes it a human being vs. an embryo? What about those that don't share your belief that the embryo has a soul? They believe it is a clump of cells. Isn't it religion dictating your belief it is a baby vs. an embryo?

Your religion (or anyone's religion) isn't based on fact, if it were you wouldn't need faith. True? I'm not making claims whether your religion is real to you or not, I'm saying it is based on faith that what you believe is true and correct. What about those that do not share your religion? Should they be forced to live by your beliefs or should you be forced to live by theirs?

[WASaBubbleButt 41]

Fetus is a Latin word meaning "unborn child" or "little one". It is just a stage of human development, as is adolescence. The unborn baby is not something other than a human being just because his or her mother decides so in her own mind.

Not exactly. According to a Latin dictionary it means:

fetus

fetus (1) -a -um (1) [pregnant; fruitful , fertile; teeming with, full of]. (2) [that has brought forth, newly delivered].

fetus (2) -us m. [the bringing forth or hatching of young]; of the soil , [bearing, producing]. Transf., [that which is brought forth; offspring, brood]; of plants, [fruit, produce, shoot].

Latin Word Lookup

Since it can also mean a carrot, it's a stretch to say it is an unborn child.

[ELENATION 0]

Well, the law does not agree that a fetus is a human being, that's why they have no rights.

Science does not support that a fetus is a human being, that's why it is called a fetus vs. a human being.

There is a difference between human life and a human being. A kidney is human life, it is not a human being. A full term baby is a human being.

For me personally, when there are connections between the brain and everything else, when the fetus begins to have a personality, can feel something... anything physically, then it becomes a human being. That is the difference between a human being and human life.

The biggest problem I have with pro-lifers is that it is their religion that teaches them that it is a human being. Not science, not fact, but religion. So when you (general you not specific you) push your beliefs on others it is a belief in religion you are pushing on others. It would be exactly the same thing as if another religion were to come along and say that it is amoral to live beyond the age of 30 because the person has had their shot at life. Give room to those who haven't had a shot at God given life. Would you agree to this because that is their sincere and honest belief? Aren't you doing the same thing?

Do you believe that at conception the embryo has a soul? Isn't that what makes it a human being vs. an embryo? What about those that don't share your belief that the embryo has a soul? They believe it is a clump of cells. Isn't it religion dictating your belief it is a baby vs. an embryo?

Your religion (or anyone's religion) isn't based on fact, if it were you wouldn't need faith. True? I'm not making claims whether your religion is real to you or not, I'm saying it is based on faith that what you believe is true and correct. What about those that do not share your religion? Should they be forced to live by your beliefs or should you be forced to live by theirs?

Yes, but science also doen't have to support it to be true... science also could be wrong.. I understand that the main thing is that we all don't agree when a life begins and that's probably the biggest problem...

I tell you that I personally feel this way not just because my religion, which is a factor sure, but it's not all about religion, but also because I have two kids and I heard their heart beats so quick after I got pregnant.. I understand that the big problem is that some think that it's a clump of cells while others think that conception is the beginning of life... and I understand that those that don't agree with me on this are not going to agree with me on the whole pro/against abortion issue, I know that and it's ok..

I couldn't find the example that you gave about other religions and the shot at live at 30 years.. to make sense to me personally.....

[WASaBubbleButt 41]

Yes, but science also doen't have to support it to be true... science also could be wrong.. I understand that the main thing is that we all don't agree when a life begins and that's probably the biggest problem...

I tell you that I personally feel this way not just because my religion, which is a factor sure, but it's not all about religion, but also because I have two kids and I heard their heart beats so quick after I got pregnant.. I understand that the big problem is that some think that it's a clump of cells while others think that conception is the beginning of life... and I understand that those that don't agree with me on this are not going to agree with me on the whole pro/against abortion issue, I know that and it's ok..

I couldn't find the example that you gave about other religions and the shot at live at 30 years.. to make sense to me personally.....

I know how a mother feels about hearing her own child's heartbeat but that is a plea to emotions, a logical fallacy. I *feel* abortion is sad, that is based on emotion. That doesn't mean I have a right to change laws because something makes me feel sad or feel any which way. There is more to it, much more.

Sure, science can be wrong. So can religion.

Bottom line in my mind is that the plea to emotion has no place in a debate. So what do we rely upon? Your religion or my lack of religion? See what I mean?