who supports right to choose

[BJean 16]

I think this whole discussion has become snarky. I didn't call gadget out on her remarks, but I did think that it sounded like she was sandbagging and waiting to pounce. That's getting personal. That's why discussions like this get non-productive. They become personal.

When people offer up their personal experience to rebut something when someone has posted a broad or generalized statement that it begs for a rebuttal, the common response here is to get personal. That's not productive, doesn't add anything good to the debate and discourages lots of people to participate.

Both sides of the argument are guilty of that. It happens. The anti-abortion/pro-choice debate seems to always wind up getting personal. Then everyone gets grossed out and jumps ship. The discussion dies off for a while and then it is opened up again with some big prounouncement that provokes readers to jump in. This has been going on for quite a long time.

If people don't want abortions, don't believe that they are worthwhile for any reason, they should not have them. They have the ability to use their influence to convince others not to have abortions. That's the law, they have those rights. That is right and good.

But that's not what many anti-abortion arguments are all about. They want the law changed. They want to make the choice for ALL WOMEN. They'll tell you that in extreme circumstances they would allow a woman and her doctor to decide what happens to the woman who has become impregnated without her consent. However what they truly want is to take away ALL women's rights to make decisions about their future and the future of their unwanted pregnancies. They tell you it's about all babies, but it is really about CONTROL.

If it was really just about the babies, they would spend their time and all of their resources on all of the unwanted children in the world. They would be so busy they wouldn't have time to argue.

But they don't do that. Their focus is on the law. They spend their time and resources on changing the law to take away women's rights to choose what happens to them. They spend their time composing grisly photographs and thinking up guilt laden arguments to try to convince you that you should want our government to pass laws that makes women's choice illegal. That's about CONTROL. They want to control YOU.

[MrsFlipFlops 2]

An assumption was made about what I posted, I made an assumption about the reply to my post.....how is that accusatory? Personally, i think the reason people can't have a civil conversation about abortion is because it always breaks down into name calling and personal attacks.

gagetlady=When someone opens up a line of discussion on a public forum, it is not an invasion of privacy for someone to ask questions related to that issue.

I didn't open a line of discussion about whether or not I had an abortion.

I wasn't commenting on the assumption, I was commenting on you saying "It would be intersting to know which side of this debate throws around false statements the most."

I think the comeback on the assumption was fine. I don't know why we've gone on all attack! I'm not just saying you, I mean everyone who's posting... myself included. I'm personally getting offended with some comments. I don't think my blood pressure can handle it.

[gadgetlady 4]

I assume, even though you are talking in the third person, this is your personal experience. Please correct me if I'm wrong) What was the reason you wanted to see the ultrasound before the abortion?

It is not my personal experience, in that I have never sought an abortion and requested to see the ultrasound prior to the procedure. I have, however, spoken with many mothers who were denied (or never offered) the ability to see the ultrasound.

That being said, prior to ANY medical procedure I've ever had, I have always sought to attain the highest possible amount of information before making my decision. If someone were to specifically decline information about the thing that is growing in the womb, it would make me wonder why.

P.S. I've never shied away from ANY question asked on this thread. There is nothing about this topic that I refuse to discuss. Ask away!

[gadgetlady 4]

When people offer up their personal experience to rebut something when someone has posted a broad or generalized statement that it begs for a rebuttal, the common response here is to get personal.

Nobody was attacked. This is a "personal" issue -- in effect, it involves persons. It's pretty difficult to discuss medical procedures undertaken on persons without getting "personal". In the other sense of the term "personal", attacking the person who posted the comment, I don't see where that was done in this case.

If people don't want abortions, don't believe that they are worthwhile for any reason, they should not have them.

The problem with that argument is the same as the problem with this statement: "If people don't believe in slavery, they shouldn't own a slave." The problem is, there's a second human being involved.

However what they truly want is to take away ALL women's rights to make decisions about their future and the future of their unwanted pregnancies. They tell you it's about all babies, but it is really about CONTROL.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with control. I don't have a problem with human beings doing whatever they want with their bodies, so long as what they do doesn't interfere with the life of another person. Women can have pre-marital or extra-marital sex all they want, heck even orgies if that's their thing (I don't think it's healthy but it's not my business). They can opt for birth control or sterilization to make sure their unions don't produce a child. They can do a whole host of other things that only affect themselves: inject themselves with sheep's urine to effect breast augmentation, get saline implants, get various parts of their bodies pierced or tattooed, etc. I DON'T CARE! When they cross the line by having their decision impact the very life of another human being, though, that's where I draw the line.

They spend their time composing grisly photographs

Do you really, truly, honestly believe the the photos of aborted babies are COMPOSED!?!?!?!? That someone's photoshopping little baby body parts? Give me a break. Have you not seen pictures of in-utero development? This is not some giant hoax. This is reality. You refuse to look at the videos and the photos because you can't handle it -- you've said that on this thread in the past. I wonder if it's precisely because you refuse to look that you've been able to convince yourself they're not real and they don't exist.

And that's exactly what I'm talking about with the ultrasound issue. It's much easier to deny the humanity of the unborn when you won't look. Just like it was much easier to deny what Hitler did until we saw the photos of the gas chambers and the dead bodies.

We Celebrate life when it's "wanted". Pregnant mothers gleefully show off their ultrasound photos from even the youngest gestational age. They have tickers and calendars telling them (and us) what's going on with the development of the baby. We have the ability to literally LOOK into the womb and see what's going on there -- if we want to. Nobody makes this stuff up.

[BJean 16]

I never accused anyone of photoshopping or making stuff up when it comes to the grisly photos, etc. You're the one who's thinking that up, not me. I have seen photos and ultrasounds and read the literature and heard the talk. People demonize abortion, claim that they are only concerned with unborn babies. I do not need to constantly go to those sites that you keep posting. I am sure that many people do need those constant reminders when they are speaking with people who have had much needed abortions or who are contemplating them. That way you can continue to pass judgement, throw around the words like "inconvenience" and the rest of the propaganda that is generated to keep women under the firm hand of those people who think they know best.

What is not mentioned often enough here are the women who are in such dire straits that they must consider something like abortion in order to themselves survive. You discount those women as if they are exactly what you mentioned in your last post: women who get implants, have sheep's urine injections, tatoos, piercings and other forms of changing their bodies. Unfortunately the vast majority of women who for many reasons, find themselves unable to bear an unwanted child, are just like you and me. They're just American women who need help. They find that they cannot, absolutely cannot, have a child. Those women should not be characterized as just some dumb women with no sense and only illicit sex on their minds. Nor should they be characterized as someone who did not use birth control. You cannot, must not, lump troubled women into one "likely" scenario that you conjure up to make a point.

Women can and do need abortions from time to time. That is a fact. And They should never have to break a law to get one.

[luluc 6]

I really hate how abortion seems to be lumped into a category with Christian views. Almost making it dismissable with other Christian views... it's not a Christian issue, it's not necessarily a MORAL problem, it's a societal problem. Pro Choicers claim a woman should have control over her own body... should drug users have "control" to do what they want to their body? The answer is NO because it doesn't just affect that one person who is choosing an action for their body. And yes, I did lump pregnant women in with drug users... because they both have a CHOICE to not have inappropriate sex and to not use drugs.

With hesitation entering BACK into this debate - I must comment here. Sorry, Christians will continue to to be lumped in this Area, because it is they who choose to make this a litmus test for "Thier" politicians. They are also the only Active voice in trying to make this Legal Procedure (Yes, that is what it is when you come right down to it - Sorry!!) reversed. I don't see the Jews/Muslims/Hindu/Athiests/>>>fill in the blank Faith - protesting the abolishment of Roe v Wade like those of the Christian faith.

I'm betting there will be a "study" to show me differently on the above characterization, I just couldn't read any longer and continually hear the same old same old that those women who choose to have an abortion - treat it as a form a birth control. That's just not fair, nor accurate. And if some of you are fine in calling this murder - get a law book out , not a bible. One persons bible does not make law.

For those who continue the fight to protect the fetus - Rock on!!! I will do the same to continue to keep this a SAFE & Legal Option.

BJ - it's all yours~~ I got nothing left,

[gadgetlady 4]

Sorry, Christians will continue to to be lumped in this Area, because it is they who choose to make this a litmus test for "Thier" politicians. They are also the only Active voice in trying to make this Legal Procedure (Yes, that is what it is when you come right down to it - Sorry!!) reversed. I don't see the Jews/Muslims/Hindu/Athiests/>>>fill in the blank Faith - protesting the abolishment of Roe v Wade like those of the Christian faith.

The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. was, when all is said and done, a Christian Reverend. That did not make civil rights a religious issue. There are people of most, if not all, faiths (and of no faith) that are pro-life. I'm not saying there aren't a lot of Christians -- of course there are -- but there were also a lot of Christians against slavery and in favor of civil rights. Their faith doesn't negate the truth in their arguments.

[gadgetlady 4]

I never accused anyone of photoshopping or making stuff up when it comes to the grisly photos, etc.

They spend their time composing grisly photographs -- what does that mean?

That way you can continue to pass judgement

I don't pass judgment. I empathize more than you can possibly imagine with these mothers. I have friends who have chosen abortion, friends who have chosen to keep their babies, and friends who have chosen adoption. I don't judge those who have chosen abortion. It's not my place. I know you think of me as this mean, judgmental monster who's trying to control people's sex lives, but it's just a figment of your imagination. It's not reality.

You discount those women as if they are exactly what you mentioned in your last post: women who get implants, have sheep's urine injections, tatoos, piercings and other forms of changing their bodies.

I don't discount them at all; my citing women who get implants, etc. was not at all to compare them to women considering abortion. It was to emphasize that my goal is not CONTROL (as you indicated it was), but that I fully believe everyone should have the freedom to choose whatever they want to do in their lives -- with one caveat: that it does not infringe on the life of another innocent, unwilling participant.

Unfortunately the vast majority of women who for many reasons, find themselves unable to bear an unwanted child, are just like you and me.

Undoubtedly.

They're just American women who need help.

Also undoubtedly. Their help shouldn't come in the form of suggesting and allowing them to kill their offspring.

[luluc 6]

The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. was, when all is said and done, a Christian Reverend. That did not make civil rights a religious issue. There are people of most, if not all, faiths (and of no faith) that are pro-life. I'm not saying there aren't a lot of Christians -- of course there are -- but there were also a lot of Christians against slavery and in favor of civil rights. Their faith doesn't negate the truth in their arguments.

Didn't say other religions aren't Pro-Life - I don't see them actively trying to abolish the Right to Choose - Sorry, my perception. That is my Hang Up & will continue to be so.

And on the topic of slavery - Someone owned slaves, my hunch some were Christians, are they to be condemned like women who choose to abort because it was legal for ownership of slaves - as abortion is "legal" now? I suspect I "might" know your thoughts there.

Gadget - I do respect your view .... It is however one, and I felt the "need" to step it up for my opinions on the subject,

Cheers~~

[BJean 16]

luluc: Thanks a lot for your input. You make a couple of very excellent points.

I've had it too.

[gadgetlady 4]

Didn't say other religions aren't Pro-Life - I don't see them actively trying to abolish the Right to Choose - Sorry, my perception. That is my Hang Up & will continue to be so.

Your perception is probably relatively accurate. There are many Christians involved in this issue. There are also several secular groups who oppose abortion. Why is it a "Hang Up" for you if people of any particular faith fight for something?

Someone owned slaves, my hunch some were Christians, are they to be condemned like women who choose to abort because it was legal for ownership of slaves - as abortion is "legal" now? I suspect I "might" know your thoughts there.

I'm not sure I understand the question, but I will try to parse it. Someone owned slaves (yes), some were Christians (yes, or called themselves Christians -- how a Christ-follower could ignore the clarity in the Bible that all human beings are of one blood is beyond me), are they to be condemned . . . because it was legal for ownership of slaves (OK, I think I see your question here -- the answer is emphatically YES! Just because something is "legal" does NOT make it "right." We are not excused for bad behavior by hiding behind a bad law. WWII, Hitler, and the Nuremburg Trials should have settled that matter forever. We condemn female circumcision in Africa because it's wrong. We don't excuse it by saying it's legal [if it is] or by saying it's part of their culture. It's just plain wrong to do that to another human being. Just as it's wrong to own a slave and it's wrong to take the life of an unborn child.)

Gadget - I do respect your view .... It is however one, and I felt the "need" to step it up for my opinions on the subject

luluc, I don't have a problem with you stepping in with your opinion AT ALL (or anyone else for that matter). It IS possible to have a rational, sensible, non-personal, non-attacking discussion about this issue.

[luluc 6]

Your perception is probably relatively accurate. There are many Christians involved in this issue. There are also several secular groups who oppose abortion. Why is it a "Hang Up" for you if people of any particular faith fight for something?

I'm not sure I understand the question, but I will try to parse it. Someone owned slaves (yes), some were Christians (yes, or called themselves Christians -- how a Christ-follower could ignore the clarity in the Bible that all human beings are of one blood is beyond me), are they to be condemned . . . because it was legal for ownership of slaves (OK, I think I see your question here -- the answer is emphatically YES! Just because something is "legal" does NOT make it "right." We are not excused for bad behavior by hiding behind a bad law. WWII, Hitler, and the Nuremburg Trials should have settled that matter forever. We condemn female circumcision in Africa because it's wrong. We don't excuse it by saying it's legal [if it is] or by saying it's part of their culture. It's just plain wrong to do that to another human being. Just as it's wrong to own a slave and it's wrong to take the life of an unborn child.)

luluc, I don't have a problem with you stepping in with your opinion AT ALL (or anyone else for that matter). It IS possible to have a rational, sensible, non-personal, non-attacking discussion about this issue.

Gadget, with all due respect your dissection of everyone who has a differing opionion of you gets old, truly it does. But I'll play for a moment.

Hang Up - Yeah I got a big one, when Bible Thumpers intervene an individual from a Planned Parenthood - I've yet to see one Holding the Torah up let alone the Koran. To me that gives Christianity a bad name, period.

In looking back at my statements - I did not attack a single person - Nor have I EVER on LBT...Mrs Flipflops threw out that Christians were lumped into an unfair position for the majority of their opinions on this subject (*my interpretation of that statemet*). I chose to refute that, and provide an alternative explanation to that statement.

I have been extremely respectful to those in the Pro Life movement in these discussions, though disgusted at times. NEVER once have I said anything else other than me personally wanting to keep this a Safe and Legal Procedure. If you feel I'm attacking Christianity - well can't help ya there. I'll be at Mass tomorrow night, might have to hit confession for some cuss words this week - Oh well.

I've said this before - this thread will not sway one person from their beliefs on the subject .... But take this apart, done playing for now....there's a LOT more going on here on LBT or in Real Life to challenge and occupy me for the time being...

Wish ya'll well,

Lu~

[gadgetlady 4]

Gadget, with all due respect your dissection of everyone who has a differing opionion of you gets old, truly it does.

I do it so it's easier to follow. Sorry you don't like it.

Hang Up - Yeah I got a big one, when Bible Thumpers intervene an individual from a Planned Parenthood - I've yet to see one Holding the Torah up let alone the Koran.

I don't much care for it either, primarily because I don't consider abortion a religious issue and it's generally illogical and ineffective to quote the Bible to people who don't believe in it.

As an aside, I have seen Orthodox Jews and Muslims protest abortion. I've also seen athiests do it.

In looking back at my statements - I did not attack a single person - Nor have I EVER on LBT

I don't think I said or even implied you did. My last post (about how the discussion can be rational, sensible, etc.) was intending to compliment on the civility of your and my words to each other.

I'll be at Mass tomorrow night

I take this to mean you are a Catholic. Can you answer the question I posed to Rugman (which wasn't answered)? Here it is again:

When Jesus was in Mary's womb, was He a human being? When He leaped in the womb in the presence of John the Baptist in Elizabeth's womb, was John the Baptist a human being? Had God created him? Did either of those two unborn babies have rights or a purpose on this earth?

I've said this before - this thread will not sway one person from their beliefs on the subject

People DO change their minds on this issue. It does happen. Some very prominent people in history have changed their minds at varying points in their life: Ronald Reagan, Nat Hentoff, even former abortionist and one of the founders of NARAL, Bernard Nathanson, just to name a few. I have talked to people who have changed their minds after hearing both sides presented in debate format. I once participated in a debate where a woman sat in the front row and, at the end, approached me and told me she had been pro-abortion until the debate, but now she wanted to know how she could volunteer for the pro-life side.

From Numbers favor prolific pro-lifers: as the pro-life/pro-choice debate moves into its fourth decade, the consequences of abortion are looming over many countries that face a decline in birthrates and population growth that could undermine social stabil (the article was written in 2002 but the trends mentioned have continued):

A Zogby International poll commissioned for the Buffalo News (New York) in December found that 32 percent of Americans changed their opinions on abortion during the last decade, with 21 percent becoming more negative--indicating that those who changed negatively were twice as numerous as those who changed in favor. More than two-thirds of all queried said that they strongly would advise a pregnant woman not to get an abortion. Moreover, the strongest age group opposing abortion consisted of young people 18 to 20 years old.

The tide is turning.

[luluc 6]

Nope don't like your breakup of dialogue - You interrupt "albeit cyber convo", and it truly distracts from content, my issue I guess.

I am Catholic - But half Jewish too, I was raised to recognize both faiths but to get to specifics, was baptised, rec'd first communion, was confirmed in the Catholic Faith. You pose questions Gadget, that maybe Rugman didn't feel the need to explain, but I will - irregardless of my "Faith", I believe in the Right to Choose - Bar NOTHING. Doesn't make me a bad Catholic, Doesnt' mean I can't take communion. Your line of questioning is quite intriguing - trying to get to the "root", very passive aggressive , not seen a single Pro Choice person here question your views they way you do. But hey, you can throw more scripture/study out there, and more than likely most will ignore, who differ in your opinion. As will I & your last 1/3 statements. I treat your cut/copy/paste dogma like someone posting in all CAPS that they are stuck on a cheeseburger day 2 post op. :smile:

OK - people change their mind, Gee no one did that for political purposes did they?? Come on - I was saying that in gest of this thread only. Please do a poll who "changed their views from this thread".

I consider myself a considerate person, The God I was raised to worship does not judge. He loves all - SO with that I really Need my husbands plane to land ... DAMN AA, got my skinny panties in a wad here tonite, and that usually doesnt' happen.

For Real - Checking out tonite....Smoochies to all!!

[gadgetlady 4]

irregardless of my "Faith", I believe in the Right to Choose - Bar NOTHING. Doesn't make me a bad Catholic, Doesnt' mean I can't take communion.

I never said you were a bad Catholic or couldn't be a communicant member of your church. That's between you and your church leadership and is none of my business. I asked a question about the humanness of Jesus and John the Baptist in the womb (which you didn't answer).

I ask the question because it's difficult for me to believe one thing because of my faith, but believe something completely contrary because of my politics, lifestyle, or (insert any other factor here). If that's not a problem for you and if your faith doesn't inform this issue for you, that's fine. I only asked the question because I truly don't understand the reasoning.

Your line of questioning is quite intriguing - trying to get to the "root", very passive aggressive , not seen a single Pro Choice person here question your views they way you do.

Actually, my views have been questioned extensively. This is a very long thread and I don't know if you've been following all along, but a lot of hostile and demanding questions have been asked of me. I've never shied away from the questions and I've tried to always answer in a respectful way. I don't think I'm passive-aggressive, and I don't think trying to get to the root of someone's thinking is passive-agressive -- rather, my questions are very straightforward.

I treat your cut/copy/paste dogma like someone posting in all CAPS that they are stuck on a cheeseburger day 2 post op.

Well, quite frankly, I don't like your misspellings and rambling method of dialogue either, but I don't keep hitting you over the head with it.

OK - people change their mind, Gee no one did that for political purposes did they??

Nat Hentoff was shunned by his fellow liberals when he changed his opinion on the abortion issue. He didn't change on any other issue, so his transformation to pro-life hindered his career as a liberal writer. He certainly didn't do it for political reasons.

Bernard Nathanson went from being an abortionist, making a lot of money, to also being shunned by his former friends, in addition to being temporarily out of a job. So no, I don't think he did it for political reasons, either.

I don't believe Ronald Reagan did it for political reasons but since I can't get inside his head, no one will ever know for sure. He did have a change of heart on a lot of issues after he was contractually obligated (through his job hosting General Electric Theater) to speak at GE plants across the nation. He called that time his "post-graduate education in political science".

As I said, people DO change their minds, and just because those on LBT aren't public figures doesn't mean they can't either.