who supports right to choose

[luluc 6]

Curious here -- why do you consider it a sin?

Because I believe it "was" a life, not just a fetus & something I can never shake. That's just me, my gut of sin - I have nothing more to explain it in words. As I mentioned earlier, I HOPE it's the hardest decision one makes. To go down the road why I feel it should remain legal, for me, is simple - I don't want law dictating what I can / can not do with my body.

I've read all the posts, and realize I contradict myself & my position in many eyes on many fronts .... The net result was I made a decision, it impacted me profoundly, and from where I come from God is forgiving.

Not sure I explained myself completely... yikes~

Lulu

[gadgetlady 4]

luluc, I absolutely do not want to add to your grief / guilt over this matter -- if you don't want to "talk" about it please feel free to just "walk away" from this conversation. I strongly suggest since you're still carrying this with you after so many years that you seek some post abortion counseling. I would be happy to refer some organizations if you don't know where to go.

I do, however, have a comment.

Because I believe it "was" a life

I don't want law dictating what I can / can not do with my body.

How can "it" (the unborn baby) be both a life and your body?

[luluc 6]

luluc, I absolutely do not want to add to your grief / guilt over this matter -- if you don't want to "talk" about it please feel free to just "walk away" from this conversation. I strongly suggest since you're still carrying this with you after so many years that you seek some post abortion counseling. I would be happy to refer some organizations if you don't know where to go.

I do, however, have a comment.

How can "it" (the unborn baby) be both a life and your body?

I'm not one to shy from the subject, nor could get grief here that I haven't imposed on myself. Counseling has been a part of my adult life with this subject both inside and outside the church/temple, to not do so would have been devastating spiritually to me. To still carry it around to me is healthy - I feel it would be callous to act & forget.

I mentioned I was a contradiction on this subject. I can't give you the answer that satisfies either camps. I made a decision at 20 as and undergrad in Europe. Would I make the same decision at 38 - No.

Do I want that right abolished - absolutely not.

I'm very doubtful I can give you an answer that "fits" a camp precisely. Just my story - it is my body, it was a child, and I had a legal option at the time to abort. Interference by any govt on this topic truly infuriates me, as I will always see this as a personal issue, free from the need of laws.

I truly respect your position - You and my BF have the same passionate opinions on the subject, I'd swear you were her. All the best for the NYR.

[AlysonRR 0]

Complications, minor to major (including death) happen regularly with "safe and legal" abortions.

You quoted me regarding the simplicity of abortion. Technically simple is different from lacking complication; technically simple means anyone with a few instruments and a little knowledge of anatomy can terminate a pregnancy.

Yes, complications will happen, even with legal abortion. More complications happen when women who decide they want to terminate have to travel to a different town/county/state/country because there are no qualified practitioners in theirs - they will be later term and thus have a higher complication rate. More complications happen with illegal abortion - there's a reason some pro-choice advocates use a bloody hanger as a symbol of "never again".

I stand by my statement that until there is a foolproof alternative, there will always be women who, for various personal reasons, do not want to carry a pregnancy to term, and they will seek abortion, legal or illegal, regardless of the risks.

Lulac, I'm so sorry you were one of the few women who had complications :-( If I were faced with a pregnancy at 18 I would have done the same thing.

Alyson

[BJean 16]

Don't actually have the stats in front of me but I am sure some of you out there do. There are more complications during 9 months of pregnancy and the act of delivering a baby than there are with the relatively short and simple abortion procedure.

Alyson's point is well taken. When abortion was illegal, it didn't take the education and experience of a doctor to carry out an abortion procedure. Many uneducated people became abortionists, with practically no medical instruction, for miriad reasons. None the least of which was to prey upon desperate women in order to make money.

The question of whether the tissue (fertilized egg) could become a viable person or is an individual person from the day of conception (or even before) will probably always be with us and a matter of debate for some time. The fact that a fertilized egg must depend upon its' host for survival makes it NOT an individual - it can't be an individual until it IS an individual. Just because it has DNA that is different from its' parents doesn't mean that it is a living, breathing human being in and of itself prior to the time when it IS actually a living, breathing human being that is capable of surviving without a host.

But as much as some anti-choice people would like for us believe that is the issue, that is NOT the issue as far as most of us are concerned. The primary issue here is whether the government or certain individuals can tell all of the rest of humanity that impregnanted women MUST bear any and all of those children in each and every case. The decision that all impregnanted women must bear those children should not be in the hands of the government or a few zealots who have decided that it is their right to force women to do their bidding. It should be frightening to everyone that the government be allowed to make a decision of this magnitude for all of us.

[BJean 16]

Saying that an embryo is life doesn't contradict saying that an embryo is part of a woman's body. How can you possibly debate that? I know why you would like to make that distinction. That is quite obvious.

However in my estimation, quibbling over the definition of the word "life" isn't worthwhile or relevant to this discussion.

[gadgetlady 4]

Don't actually have the stats in front of me but I am sure some of you out there do. There are more complications during 9 months of pregnancy and the act of delivering a baby than there are with the relatively short and simple abortion procedure.

Baloney. Here's one study: Abortion Four Times Deadlier Than Childbirth. This study takes into account the 1-year after both incidents. One of the problems with a statistical analysis of abortion vs. pregnancy is that women who carry their babies to term have 9 months to "have complications" -- and often the studies include non-pregnancy related issues (like car accidents). The Finland study is exceptional; I suggest taking the time to read the entire thing.

And did you know that abortion is a better predictor of breast cancer than any other factor? If you'd like to read a commentary, go to http://www.lifenews.com/nat3362.html; to download the .pdf of the study, go to http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/carroll.pdf

Alyson's point is well taken. When abortion was illegal, it didn't take the education and experience of a doctor to carry out an abortion procedure. Many uneducated people became abortionists, with practically no medical instruction, for miriad reasons. None the least of which was to prey upon desperate women in order to make money.

The abortion industry is sadly less regulated than the veterinary industry in the US. Read Planned Parenthood: Trusted Health Provider or Greedy Abortion Business? to learn about how Planned Parenthood tried to avoid complying with state safety regulations that other medical facilities had to comply with.

[gadgetlady 4]

quibbling over the definition of the word "life" isn't worthwhile or relevant to this discussion.

luluc said something interesting in one of her posts:

it "was" a life, not just a fetus

The implication is that a "fetus" is something other than a "life". That points to the success of the abortion movement in defining the thing growing in the womb as something other than human. She said, "not just a fetus" -- as if a fetus is something other than a growing human life! Of course the unborn baby is a fetus! It's just another word for the same thing. Wherein lies the confusion. It is easier to discriminate, abuse, maim, or kill someone when you simply define them as something other than a person.

[marjon9 6]

The discussion of whether an embryo is or is not "life" ignores the fact that unwanted pregnancy is a totally unique situation where two lives/potential lives are intertwined to such a degree that a decision with respect to one has enormous consequences for the other. There is just no way around that.

The so-called "pro-life" camp wants to discuss the two "lives" as if they are separate an independent, and then decide the issue of abortion based on the need to "protect" the alleged separate life of the embryo. As lulu's story indicates, however, this is not how it works in the real world.

In the case of an unwanted pregnancy, the harsh truth is that one entity or another is definitely going to suffer a major tragedy. There is no way to avoid that. Simply giving up a baby for adoption is not the magic answer that relieves this tragedy, notwithstanding the "pro-life" argument to the contrary.

So, often the decision comes down to this: Should an embryo with no meaningful consciousness at the present moment lose its potential life? Or should a grown up, adult woman lose everything that she considers to be valuable in her already-existing life. This is a very difficult question, and both sides have valid points. But one thing for sure is that it is never, ever appropriate is for the government to force a woman to make one decision or the other. There is no room for the government in this matter, and that is true even if an embryo must lose its potential life in many circumstances. This is a decision for the woman, her family, and her doctor. It is not a place for anonymous legislatures and judges to impose their own view of morality on others, and use the police power of the state to force a woman to carry an unwanted embryo to full term.

[gadgetlady 4]

In the case of an unwanted pregnancy, the harsh truth is that one entity or another is definitely going to suffer a major tragedy. There is no way to avoid that.

This presumes that in 100% of the situations where a woman is abortion-minded, her life will be tragic if she chooses to bring her baby to term. That's a fallacious assumption. What a woman perceives as an untenable situation may not be. Many of us have faced situations in our lives that we perceived to be without hope. And yet, somehow some things have a way of working themselves out for the better, despite our inability to see such a resolution in the throes of the perceived disaster.

So, often the decision comes down to this: Should an embryo with no meaningful consciousness at the present moment lose its potential life?

It's really, should the [insert your favorite word for unborn baby] lose it's life, not it's potential life. There is no such thing as a potential life. Either it's a life or it's not. From http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5187:

A common way to dehumanize the unborn in order to justify abortion is to refer to pregnancy as "creating potential life." Calling an unborn child a "potential life" is just a clever rhetorical trick. There is no such thing as creating a "potential life."

Think about it. First, you could potentially create life, that is, create a potential for life. When a man and a woman get married and have sex there's potential in their conduct for life to be created. Second, you could create a life with potential, one that has the possibility of developing into something good or noble. But that's the end of your options. You either potentially create a life or you create a life with potential. You never create a potential life.

It's like saying, "I just had a potential thought." What could that possibly mean, you just had a potential thought? You either had a thought or you didn't. And your thought has some potential for the future or it doesn't. But you never have a potential thought.

In the same way, pregnancy doesn't create a potential life. If so, then the problem of that potential life could be solved simply by having a potential abortion. Since a real abortion is needed to end pregnancy and not a potential one, a real life must be involved, not a potential one.

Or should a grown up, adult woman lose everything that she considers to be valuable in her already-existing life.

It's really interesting that the abortion industry so loves the word "choice", when really when women resort to abortion it's because they felt they did not have a choice. Women are sold a bill of goods that having a baby "at the wrong time" will ruin their lives -- that they can't be successful, productive members of society if they have a baby or if they can't choose the "exact right moment" to have a child (as if there is one). What abortion does is it pits women against their children. And that's a very sad thing.

[marjon9 6]

As you know I disagree with most of your premises, as do most people. But I don't want to go in circles again about it all. The main point to me is, no matter how strongly you believe everything you just said, you and those who agree with you do not have the right to use the police power of the state to force women who disagree with you to make life decisions based on your values. That's really the only thing that matters here.

As for your views on "life" etc., I fully support your right do everything you can convince everyone you see of the vaidity of your point of view. I would imagine you will be able to convince a number of people to see things your way. More power to you.

[AlysonRR 0]

Baloney. Here's one study: Abortion Four Times Deadlier Than Childbirth.

...If you'd like to read a commentary, go to http://www.lifenews.com/nat3362.html;

...Read Planned Parenthood: Trusted Health Provider or Greedy Abortion Business?

Commentaries like the latter two articles aren't any more relevant than any other person's opinion.

I took the time to look up the first article on PubMed where I was interested to see that the conclusions in their abstract don't remark upon any significant mortality risk difference compared to previous studies. In fact they specifically point out that the decision of which post-maternal deaths to attribute in part to pregnancy, birth, or termination is arbitrary and difficult to quantify. I won't pay to get the article to evaluate it more completely, but neither do I trust the Eliot Institute to accurately interpret it.

And finally, none of it - the heartfelt stories, the impassioned commentaries, the (mis?)interpretation of scientific literature - none of it changes the fact that where abortions are illegal, they still happen. And they still happen at about the average rate of 25-30%. Yet where abortion is legal and available, and contraception is free and available to all sexually active women, abortions decrease to 10-12%.

So if you want to eliminate abortions, well, you just won't. Those who want one will just find an illegal practitioner. The wealthy will find a good one, the poor will find a butcher, and we'll have more dead women without decreasing the number of terminated pregnancies.

And if you want to join with those of us who work to make abortions increasingly rare, you'll stop fighting to make it illegal and work towards improving reproductive health care for all women, particularly those in poverty and/or in rural communities.

[gadgetlady 4]

where abortions are illegal, they still happen. And they still happen at about the average rate of 25-30%. Yet where abortion is legal and available, and contraception is free and available to all sexually active women, abortions decrease to 10-12%.

From where do you get these statistics? Because abortion has dramatically increased in all places when it has become legal.

[BJean 16]

Baloney yourself, gadget. Your research conflicts directly with every study I've ever seen with respect to pregnancy vs. abortion as they relate to risk factors for women. I have no desire to read the claptrap you cite here. I've spent the time to do it on several occasions and found them to be extremely biased sources that skew the numbers in favor of your viewpoint. It isn't worth the my time.

You will never convince me that making abortion illegal is in the best interests of women or the other members of our society. I am convinced, however, that some of you will stop at nothing to try to impose your will upon others.

And Marjon, hang in there. You make total sense and you sound like a very compassionate and humane individual.

[gadgetlady 4]

Why don't you try reading the .pdf I posted, not the "biased" commentaries on it? It's very informative.