who supports right to choose

[gadgetlady 4]

i can agree it is the beginning of life, absolutely i can. i also understand the "science" vs religious view on this, and for me (& my pro choice view only), it is still someone else's view that i may not share.

The problem arises when one person's "belief" about when life begins leads to another person's death. As I have pointed out in this thread in the past, there are very learned men and women, one of whom is a Nobel Prize winner, who believe that a newborn infant isn't "alive" (or at least worthy of life) until it passes certain standards. Can we / should we / do we tell them they can't kill their infants, even though they hold to a belief that those infants aren't "life" yet? And how do we have the authority -- dare I say audacity? -- to tell them they can't live their own lives according to their beliefs?

When does or when should science trump an individual's belief? Especially when that individual's belief -- if incorrect -- is causing the death of another individual?

As I have also said on this thread, the "belief" that a black person was 3/5 of a person allowed a whole group of people to enslave those whom they believed weren't fully "life". It is much easier to feel justified in denying rights to a person or group of people when you define them as "less than". But that doesn't make the oppressor "right", just because he's stronger, has the power to do it, and has managed to make it more palatable by altering the terminology.

[BJean 16]

Darlin' as I've said, a clump of cells does not an individual make. You can't govern a person until they're a person. They can't speak for themselves for a very good reason. That's the way God made us. If he wanted babies to be able to have a voice when they're a fertilized egg, He'd have given them voices. He made it so that they must rely on mother, and mother nature. Not goverment, right or left.

[luluc 6]

When does or when should science trump an individual's belief? Especially when that individual's belief -- if incorrect -- is causing the death of another individual?.

Gadget - I didn't use "science" as way to justify my position, believe Jennie questioned me on it. I'm pretty vanilla / simple in my thinking here since "faith & science" can easily be challenged by any / all sides of an argument. I don't want to use my value system or scientific understanding to create law, more importantly I don't want someone elses; that I do not share, to do the same.

You can probably ask me a million other questions with other comparissons. That's my view - not changing, not budging.

[ELENATION 0]

Let's say there is a sperm that swims up and enters a women's egg. If you took that clump of cells out of the woman, there is no way that it would continue to grow or even exist as life in any form - at least not without science and test tubes. It would die a natural death and for some, a medical abortion at early stages is nothing more than an intervention step in a process, much like a morning after pill.

There are many, many cases where a sperm has fertilized an egg and yet those clumps of cells never produce a baby. There are huge numbers of spontaneous abortions that happen every day. We don't mourn that loss of cells as "deaths". We may mourn the fact that we are not pregnant, but there was never a baby, and so we don't have a funeral or an investigation about the "death" of a clump of cells.

Some women want more than anything to be pregnant and to bear a child. Some people believe that all life is sacred and that life in any form should be preserved. That's fair.

However there are some women who cannot bear a child, for a miriad of reasons, and yet have had a fertilized egg implant itself in her uterus and begin the process. Those women have the right and deserve to have the right to not grow that clump of cells into a baby.

For me, that decision is the ultimate personal decision. It has no bearing on the rest of the world. It is her decision and hers alone. She may choose to confide in her mate or her clergy or family, but she is ultimately the one who has to bear the burden of this physical reality and she's the only one who is physically at risk. Therefore it is not fair for outsiders to make the decision whether or not a woman should risk her life to have a child.

When there is absolutely no risk to women to have children, and when the government takes on the responsibility for all the unwanted children, then we can revisit this issue and I will reassess my position on the subject. Until then, I will continue to disagree with anyone who moves to pass a law requiring all women who have been impregnated to mature some clumps of cells into living, breathing, human beings.

Of course all of this is just IMHO! :crying:

Well, but what may appear like a clump of cells at that early stage, to me is actual life, even if she/he still doesn't look like a human being yet, a newborn doesn't look like a full grown person either, but when the chromosomes from the father join with chromosomes from the mother, this new life/biological individual is complete and has a gender, and is ready to grow and develop until death, I'm sorry, I know I said that before.... :sad:but that's why I have such a hard time saying that it's a clump of cells because a clump of cells wouldn't have a set of DNA/gender and all and also because she/he needs the womb of the mother to keep growing doesn't mean it's not life , I can say, well, i'ts my body and my womb and I don't want a baby in there right now and I decide to take him/her out of my body right now and nobody can stop me, but that doesn't mean that I'm not ending a life, to me that means that I'm doing what I want or what I think I need to do now, but that is a life already growing inside me, I don't know, I just don't believe it's a clump of cells, once the cells have a set of DNA it's a human life to me and that happens at conception, that's why I believe that life begins right at conception, but this is only my perception from what I have learned or research.

Edited April 16, 2008 by ELENATION

[gadgetlady 4]

Darlin' as I've said, a clump of cells does not an individual make. You can't govern a person until they're a person. They can't speak for themselves for a very good reason. That's the way God made us. If he wanted babies to be able to have a voice when they're a fertilized egg, He'd have given them voices. He made it so that they must rely on mother, and mother nature. Not goverment, right or left.

Newborns don't have (intelligible) voices either. Many handicapped people can't speak for themselves. It isn't the voice that makes a person a person.

In the words of Dr. Seuss, "A person's a person no matter how small."

[Jennie1976 1]

Let's say there is a sperm that swims up and enters a women's egg. If you took that clump of cells out of the woman, there is no way that it would continue to grow or even exist as life in any form - at least not without science and test tubes. It would die a natural death and for some, a medical abortion at early stages is nothing more than an intervention step in a process, much like a morning after pill.

A baby one day old (or, heck, 3 YEARS old) would "die a natural death" if not for someone to take care of it. The ability to survive without assistance is not a requirement for life -- or *I* wouldn't even be alive!!

There are many, many cases where a sperm has fertilized an egg and yet those clumps of cells never produce a baby.

"Baby" is a relative term. Homo Sapien (sp?) or human being would be more scientifically correct. And yes, that clump of cells is alive (scientifically) and a human being. And I'm only arguing this scientifically because when we start dealing with unknowns (or beliefs), then choice DOES come into question. But, when we deal only with science, choice has no place.

There are huge numbers of spontaneous abortions that happen every day. We don't mourn that loss of cells as "deaths". We may mourn the fact that we are not pregnant, but there was never a baby, and so we don't have a funeral or an investigation about the "death" of a clump of cells.

Some people DO mourn these things--provided they know about it. However, no one's going to mourn the death of one of my particularly obnoxious uncles. Does that mean he's not alive?

Some women want more than anything to be pregnant and to bear a child. Some people believe that all life is sacred and that life in any form should be preserved. That's fair.

I believe that too, but my beliefs only hold true for me. I hope, but don't expect others to believe that way. To me, this is not a topic of belief. Polygamy is a topic of belief. This is a topic of science.

However there are some women who cannot bear a child, for a miriad of reasons, and yet have had a fertilized egg implant itself in her uterus and begin the process. Those women have the right and deserve to have the right to not grow that clump of cells into a baby.

Not exactly correct. Once something is alive (and human no less), what right do we have to kill it? And since I can prove that it is alive (and human), and I'm sure we agree that it is not okay to kill humans, then your logic makes no sense to me (but I might be misunderstanding this part).

For me, that decision is the ultimate personal decision. It has no bearing on the rest of the world. It is her decision and hers alone. She may choose to confide in her mate or her clergy or family, but she is ultimately the one who has to bear the burden of this physical reality and she's the only one who is physically at risk. Therefore it is not fair for outsiders to make the decision whether or not a woman should risk her life to have a child.

It's true, the woman has to "bear the burden of this physical reality". Life's not fair. In a truly fair world, there would be a way that this doesn't have to happen. Unfortunately, technology is not at that stage yet. When it is, I will be an advocate for that. But, it doesn't change the fact that we are killing something alive. Not that long ago, we didn't have geriatric hospitals. If someone couldn't take care of their aging parent, did they have the right to kill them? Even if they were the one "bearing the burden of the physical reality"? No. They did not. This is the same scenario. It sucks that they are in that position...whether by choice or not. But they are. And, technology being what it is, for the next nine months they are responsible for another human being. After that nine months is up, technology (or social services!) has made it possible for her to forego any other responsibilities.

When there is absolutely no risk to women to have children, and when the government takes on the responsibility for all the unwanted children, then we can revisit this issue and I will reassess my position on the subject. Until then, I will continue to disagree with anyone who moves to pass a law requiring all women who have been impregnated to mature some clumps of cells into living, breathing, human beings.

The fact is that they ARE living, breathing (getting oxygen from the mother), human beings already. THAT is my point. They eat. They grow. They reproduce at maturity. That is ALL that is needed to be alive--in a scientific UNBIASED argument. And because it is a human being, it should be illegal to kill it.

I know this is a long post, but I'm bored and had nothing else to do! This is fun and I appreciate your opinions and arguments BJean. You've obviously put a lot of thought in this and I look forward to reading your responses!

[snuffy65 1]

Jenn that was a great post. The only contention I have is that there is still no "official" scientific definition of life. There are lots of theories, but we haven't defined it yet.

Roe v Wade the courts had to define it by law and had no scientific definitions to go by. Which is the reason they went with 23 weeks.

This is why this argument will continue. Because its a scientific argument, not theological. This also is why I am on the fence on this. And whenever I am on the fence I normally will go tot he side that doesn't effect my family and also doesn't infringed on someone elses rights.

[BJean 16]

I never have said that a fertilized egg is not life. Of course it is life. It just isn't a human being in the same sense that a fully developed person is.

Obviously the scientific definition is debatable, and so too is the matter of choice. I believe that is why theological beliefs come into play here. People choose based on their beliefs, not science. Even if the Supreme Court made a different ruling, I believe that people will still believe what they believe. That's why outlawing abortion will not stop abortions. That is also why the decision should not be within the framework of American jurisprudence.

If you want to speak to the matter of us kiling in our society, we're killing a human being when we put a convicted criminal to death. We put down dogs and cats and other living creatures when they are in pain. We kill people when we go to war. We believe that it is all right for a police officer to kill another human being in the line of duty. You talk about killing, yeah we do that all right, and in spades.

When a woman has been violated and inseminated against her wishes, she has the right to protect herself from that violation, just as society has the right to defend itself against all manner of criminal acts.

I appreciate your posts too Jennie, and the way you presented your thoughts. The fact of the matter is, this is one of those topics where there is little chance that we will be able to sway each other's opinions. But that's all right. It is good that we are able to state our opinions and our beliefs, no matter what they are or how different they are from others.

I'm like luluc: I will never budge from my principles on this issue. I would be surprised if the opposing side would.

[Jennie1976 1]

Jenn that was a great post. The only contention I have is that there is still no "official" scientific definition of life. There are lots of theories, but we haven't defined it yet.

Roe v Wade the courts had to define it by law and had no scientific definitions to go by. Which is the reason they went with 23 weeks.

Actually, that is not entirely accurate. There IS an official scientific definition of life. No one disputes that it IS life and that it IS a human being. The dispute comes from whether or not it is considered a "person" and, thus, entitled to protection under the law. My contention is that if it IS life and it IS a human being, how could it be anything other than a person and, consequently, protected by law.

To me, you can't argue religion or feelings. You can only argue facts and science. I am VERY Christian, but it has nothing to do with my argument. I am also VERY against the government intruding in our lives. However, that also has nothing to do with my argument.

We can argue that it's not fair. She didn't choose to get pregnant. She chose to get pregnant and is using abortion as birth control. She chose to get pregnant and changed her mind. She was raped. She's religious. She's not religious. The mom deserves ______ (fill in the blank). None of that matters. What matters, and what cannot be denied is the following:

1. It is alive.

2. It is a human being.

The question here is whether or not to kill that human being. It is the same as the death penalty or euthanasia. The only difference between abortion, the death penalty, and euthanasia are the reasons behind the killing.

People always want to fight facts with emotion. I am VERY guilty of that at times (just ask my husband!!!). But this is not (or should not) be an emotional issue. Emotions mean opinions and opinions don't count. Facts count, and the facts cannot be denied.

If you are pro-death penalty, you are pro-killing a living human being (and, honestly, I go back and forth on this--giving people at opportunity to attack my inconsistencies )

If you are pro-euthanasia, you are pro-killing a living human being (another one I go back and forth on).

If you are pro-choice, you are pro-killing a living human being--a fact that cannot be denied. The only argument to this is an emotional or religious one--both of which are not relevant and still make this a true statement--even according to the Supreme Court.

**I know this can be a very heated argument. I just love arguments and am not trying to insult anyone. I know that PROBABLY no one will change their minds. However, I am first and foremost a Christian, so if someone DOES change their mind, yay! If not, I'm also a dork who loves debate! :-)

Edited April 17, 2008 by Jennie1976

[BJean 16]

Oh but we can argue religions and feelings and beliefs. That's what we're doing here.

It is hard for me to believe or understand how people can be unsure of their stance on other killings but absolutely firm on this one, particularly if as some have said, a life is a life, period.

A woman cannot be forced to have a baby and she cannot be forced to have an abortion or not to have an abortion. That is, unless you take her into custody and put her on a 24 hour watch for nine months.

I have no doubt that some people feel passionate enough about this issue that they would be willing to have the government imprison a woman who has said that she wants an abortion and put her on a 24 hour watch for the entire nine months.

I know one thing and that is that I would hate to live in a country like that.

[Jennie1976 1]

Oh but we can argue religions and feelings and beliefs. That's what we're doing here.

It's true, we CAN argue religions and feelings, but they are unproductive. They cannot be proven. I try to stick with what I can prove. I have faith...that is why I am Christian. I believe in my faith wholeheartedly. But I accept that it is faith. When arguing for a law, I do not believe faith (mine or anyone else's) has any part. The law needs to be objective, not subjective...otherwise it's called a monarchy.

It is hard for me to believe or understand how people can be unsure of their stance on other killings but absolutely firm on this one, particularly if as some have said, a life is a life, period.

It's true. And if it took getting rid of the death penalty to get rid of abortion, I would be for it. That WOULD be only fair. As you said, a life is a life. However, we do NOT have the death penalty for children.

A woman cannot be forced to have a baby and she cannot be forced to have an abortion or not to have an abortion. That is, unless you take her into custody and put her on a 24 hour watch for nine months.

I have no doubt that some people feel passionate enough about this issue that they would be willing to have the government imprison a woman who has said that she wants an abortion and put her on a 24 hour watch for the entire nine months.

While I ALWAYS hesitate to call on the government for intervention, I do believe in it if someone is harmful to another individual. If the schitzophrenic (sp?) down the street is harmful to his family, he should be take into custody and dealt with appropriately. If the man down the street has no mental illness, but has indicated a desire to harm his neighbor, he too should be dealt with. A woman who has indicated a desire to harm her child should also be dealt with.

"It's not fair!" is never an acceptable defense. Not everything is fair. But, sometimes, we have to do things we don't want to do.

[BJean 16]

I didn't use the argument, "it's not fair" although the law, in it's infinite wisdom (ha), does try to be fair in all things. And it is definitely subjective in many things. As I said, I would not want to live in a world where, as in China, the government tries to control the very soul of its' citizens.

[Jennie1976 1]

BJean...you are totally my favorite poster! I soooo look forward to seeing what you write!

By "It's not fair", I only meant to the woman who has to carry the baby for nine months. It's not fair that there is no other way to not kill that human being.

[BJean 16]

Oh, okay. I thought you thought I was making that claim. :tt1:

Just want to add that I completely understand what you've said about killing a person and all that. You've stated your case perfectly.

I enjoy reading your posts too. I wish we were in agreement on this topic but perhaps we'll meet up on another thread and be right on target with each others viewpoints! Could happen. :tt2:

[TommyO 5]

When you state that there are two undisputable facts that

1. It is alive

2. It is a human being

I do agree that a fetus is alive but I do not agree that it is a human being. I agree with this statement it is alive and it is a human fetus but I do not believe that it is a human life. Once again it comes down to belief, you can disagree with me but it is what I believe. Just because you believe something is a fact doesn't make it a fact. It is definitly an opinion but not a fact.