who supports right to choose

[BJean 16]

I have to interject here that all of you who have made supportive and understanding comments about me, have not only made my day, you have made my week! I cannot tell you how very much your support and kind words have meant to me. I know that sounds gratuitous in a way, but I really can't express how nice you are to say positive things and let me know that you have some understanding of where I'm coming from. Sometimes I feel like the lowest creature on the planet when things turn ugly here. You definitely make me want to continue to be a better person each and every day of my life. Thank you. :crying:

[BJean 16]

I understand your comments, gadget about being a sinner and about not judging others and not wanting to control people. I hope you can understand why I believe that someone who puts conditions on Christianity and who makes judgments about how or why women become pregnant, and that they want to tell them what they must do in that situation, they do exhibit those qualities.

I'm glad we're both out of time here. We definitely need a cooling off period. And although this is probably entertaining for some folks, it's painful for me.

[snuffy65 1]

TO SIMPLIFY FOR YOU: Married people and people who wait for marriage to have sex are not the ones getting a majority of abortions.

Ya and my point was unmarried people are more inclined to get abortions because of the stigma , especially from people of faith! You are so way out there.

TO SIMPLIFY FOR YOU (FIRST QUOTE): 83% of women who get abortions are not married.

TO SIMPLIFY FOR YOU (SECOND QUOTE): 13% + 27% = 40%. 40% is NOT a majority.

Um there is more religions out there then evangelicals and catholics. I think the second largest is protestants. So those numbers are bunk.

YOU SAID: "3rd, this doesn't prove me wrong because what you would be telling me is tat most black, Hispanic, and teenagers, don't have any religious affiliations. Thats dumb assertions."

I'M SAYING: Huh? Actually, I'm not saying anything because I don't think you'd understand it even if I tried. Moving on...

I say huh? Saying teenagers, blacks, and Hispanics having unplanned pregnancies has no bearing on the effects of religion nor abortions. Whats the abortion rates of those blacks, Hispanics, and teenagers unplanned pregnancies compared to others? Answer tat and you might have something. What you quoted from them says nothing.

YOU SAID: "This also proves my point that unmarried woman are shunned and so talk down to about not getting pregnant they feel that the need to get an abortion."

I'M SAYING: If you want to have a discussion about married people raising children versus unmarried people having and raising children and the results thereof, we can, but this is about abortion.

Sure go for it

YOU SAID: "Heres a picking from a more extensive poll, from no other then an prolife site( Abortion Statistics )."

IF YOU READ YOUR ENTIRE SITE, YOU WOULD READ AT THE TOP: "The following is a list of useful abortion statistics as well as some facts on abortifacients. All abortion numbers are derived from pro-abortion sources courtesy of The Alan Guttmacher Institute and Planned Parenthood's Family Planning Perspectives."

Its still a prolife site :crying:

YOU SAID: "Please read your stuff before cutting pasting from Prolife sites and just assume it backs you up."

I'M SAYING: Do you really think that the Washington Post and PROCHOICE.org are pro-life? I'm not seeing where you got that.

Actually was hoping you would say this because its funny how you look at these statistics and say you got something here to prove when in fact is your making yourself look bad.

A FINAL THOUGHT: Statistics lie. You can change statistics to say whatever you want. I deliberately chose statistics from a pro-choice website so that it might be harder to disprove them. However, statistics don't mean anything in the fight to end/keep abortion. It just shows what has happened already. That is why my pro-life arguments had nothing to do with statistics, religion, or feelings.

Your right ,because people like you try to distort them to say what you want. I guess you can say the same thing about me except I use reasoning and common sense when reading them.

All it proves again is prolife people don't look at the science, numbers, or anything that would be used in a court of law which is why you will never win..

This is most definitely about feelings because it is your FEELING that life begins at conception. It is your FEELINGS that you think abortionists are murderers. It is your FEELING that this doesn't happen in your social circle prevalently. Screw numbers, screw facts, screw science, lets pass a law on your gut FEELING.

No thanks!

Edited April 24, 2008 by snuffy65

[Jennie1976 1]

Ya and my point was unmarried people are more inclined to get abortions because of the stigma , especially from people of faith! You are so way out there.

In my opinion, the LACK of a stigma is a problem. I think there should be MORE stigma attached.

Actually was hoping you would say this because its funny how you look at these statistics and say you got something here to prove when in fact is your making yourself look bad.

I don't see how you not understanding something makes me look bad, but okay.

Your right ,because people like you try to distort them to say what you want. I guess you can say the same thing about me except I use reasoning and common sense when reading them.

Sorry, reasoning and common sense are something I have yet to see from you, and yet I keep reading! You fascinate me, Snuffy, but for all the wrong reasons. Still, I AM interested in seeing what you say to an actual argument...to follow at the end of this post.

All it proves again is prolife people don't look at the science, numbers, or anything that would be used in a court of law which is why you will never win..

This is most definitely about feelings because it is your FEELING that life begins at conception. It is your FEELINGS that you think abortionists are murderers. It is your FEELING that this doesn't happen in your social circle prevalently. Screw numbers, screw facts, screw science, lets pass a law on your gut FEELING.

No thanks!

To me, that is YOUR argument...screw science and fact and let's pass a law on YOUR gut feeling.

All it proves again is prolife people don't look at the science, numbers, or anything that would be used in a court of law which is why you will never win..

Okay, if you want science, here you go. I'm interested to see in how you respond to a scientific argument. I'm not posting sources because it would take too long, but if you really want them, I will give them to you. But, this is elementary science, so I think you can follow it:

MY ARGUMENT:

FIRST: In order for something to be alive it has three requirements:

1. It must take in nutrients for energy (and get rid of waste).

2. It must have the ability to reproduce at maturity.

3. It must grow.

This is basic, third grade science.

Thus, the newly conceived sperm/egg combination is alive. You might argue it, but courts, public school science text books, and college biology/anatomy books all agree with me.

SECOND: A newly conceived sperm/egg combination is a human being. It has all of the chromosomes required for a human being. The DNA is solely human. Therefore it is human.

Thus, we have a human that is alive. Again, you can try to argue, but courts, public school science text books, and college biology/anatomy books agree with me.

THIRD: The ONLY argument here is whether or not it is a person and, therefore, deserving of all the rights of human beings in our great country--including the right to life.

MY CONCLUSION: Because a newly conceived sperm/egg combination is a live human being, it is deserving of the same rights as other live human beings.

P.S. This is the ONLY part of the argument that courts/you can disagree with, but, I'm interested in seeing how you scientifically and factually disagree :-)

COUNTER-ARGUMENTS (before you make them and to save time):

YOU: It can't survive outside the mother. This infringes upon the rights of the mother.

ME: True, it's not fair. Life is not fair. If someone breaks in my house and shoot him, *I* can be sued? That's not fair either. And if science comes up with a way to avoid having the mother carry it to term, I will support it 100%.

YOU: It's a fetus/embryo not a baby.

ME: So? It's a child, teenager, geriatric. That's a stage of development, not a different species.

YOU: What about rape? Incest? ______ (fill in the blank)?

ME: Again, if it is a live human being, we do not have the right to kill it. The conditions of it's birth/conception have nothing to do with it.

Like I said, you fascinate me. I am looking forward to your responses.

[*susan* 1,709]

Obviously, this is a subject that many are very passionate about. When discussing something such as this, emotions tend to take over and the next thing we know, people are being attacked as opposed to the idea. So, please let this serve as a gentle reminder that we attack the idea, not the person.

This has been a very long, ongoing thread with a great deal of intelligent conversation and debate. Lets get back on track with that, as it would be a shame to have to lock this thread after all this time.

Thanks guys.

[gadgetlady 4]

Gadget, thats just it I don't know who's right, I only know what I believe. I may be wrong and you may be wrong

Here's the problem. If you are wrong and abortion is the taking of a human life, then we as a society are responsible for genocide. So shouldn't we get beyond just plain beliefs and look at scientific fact? Because individual beliefs don't determine when life begins -- if you allow them to, you get situations where infanticide becomes OK in the eyes of some, because they don't believe human life has begun yet. I know you may scoff at this correlation, but it's a reality. People really believe it. And if belief is all we go by to determine the inception of human life, there's nothing really wrong with what they believe and how they choose to act on that belief.

After all, if you don't know if a person's dead, you don't bury them. You figure it out first.

[gadgetlady 4]

gadget I have been called down and "reported" for supposedly attacking you. I have done my level best never to attack you, but to only address your statements.

I believe that when two people debate, you do not expect them to become personal and throw barbs and accusations at each other. You expect them to address the issues, and you expect them to address what their opponent is claiming when it relates to the issues.

The problem is that by not addressing me directly, but rather only addressing the ideas that I have just stated, you can hide behind the fact that you "aren't addressing me" when you call the "ideas" narrow-minded, angry, etc. That's the problem I have. I don't have a problem at all with your stating your beliefs and backing them up with facts. But I believe you circumvent the "don't attack the person" model by cleverly not mentioning the person but only the beliefs they just espoused, and then calling those beliefs and the people who espouse them all sorts of derogatory names.

It would be like my knowing you were a cat-lover because you just said it, and then saying "you know, those dirty SOB cat-lovers, blah blah blah", and then when you called me on it I said angelically, "But I wasn't talking about you! I was just talking about the idea of cat-lovers!"

Btw, I am glad that the subject of religion came up on this thread in an honest way. Often it has been denied that religion has any bearing on the discussion. I have begged to differ. I think it has every bearing on the issue and is at its' very core.

Just because the subject of religion has come up on the thread doesn't mean abortion is a religious issue.

I do not believe that if one is not a fundamentalist Christian that they are inferior or bad Christians or even worse, that they are not actually Christian at all. Finally... we are at the core of the issue.

I don't believe that either. But why is this the core of the issue?

[gadgetlady 4]

I understand your comments, gadget about being a sinner and about not judging others and not wanting to control people. I hope you can understand why I believe that someone who puts conditions on Christianity and who makes judgments about how or why women become pregnant, and that they want to tell them what they must do in that situation, they do exhibit those qualities.

Do you believe I am "someone" who puts conditions on Christianity, makes judgments about how or why women become pregnant, and wants to tell they what the must do in that situation? I have to assume you do, although you're using nebulous language and are not clear about it.

Operating under the assumption, since you weren't 100% clear, that you are lumping me in with the group that meets the conditions above: I don't put conditions on Christianity, other than the obvious that if one don't even make an attempt to follow Christ or his teachings, one would be hard-pressed to call oneself a Christian. I have a lot of Christian friends who aren't the dreaded fundamentalist breed that you so often cite, and I consider them Christians. I know many on the opposing side of the abortion issue like to paint pro-lifers as black-and-white fundamentalists who have no capacity for compromise or a complete inability to understand anything outside of their personal beliefs, but that's just not the case -- at least not with me.

I also don't make judgments on how or why women become pregnant. I personally believe there are some sexual activities that are (or can be) damaging emotionally and physically, but I have never, ever stood in judgment of a pregnant mother.

Finally, I believe it is acceptable for anyone to tell another person that it is wrong to kill another human being -- despite their being in a situation where they don't want to have a live child

[AlysonRR 0]

...statistics take us away from the issue at hand, which is not who is having abortions or why they are having them, but whether abortion is the taking of a human life. If it is, then it doesn't really matter who is having them or why.

And if it is not?

You believe abortion is the taking of a human life and should always be illegal.

I believe that abortion before the fetus is viable outside the mother's body should be legal because, in my view, the life of an independent human outweighs that of a dependent fetus. I don't know why any particular woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy. I don't need to know - in my opinion that choice should be between a woman and her health practitioner.

I also believe, because of the heartbreaking situations I have observed, that there are circumstances under which termination after viability (when less than 1% of abortions are currently performed, usually for serious medical issues) can be an ethically valid choice.

I believe abortions should be rare and that making abortion illegal would not significantly reduce the number of abortions that are performed (there are statistics that back this up but I won't muddy the issue by sharing them again).

I think the way to ensure that abortion is rare is by providing accessible, reasonably priced (or free) family planning information and supplies to anyone who chooses to be sexually active (there are statistics that back this up, too). In areas where unwanted pregnancy is frequent, more resources should be dedicated to ensure that girls understand their choices and that they have the self esteem and emotional support to make responsible choices about their sexuality. Men and boys need to understand their role, too - emotional pressure, violence, or rape are not conducive to healthy sexual or emotional relationships.

most people who define themselves as Christians don't hold to the traditional tenants of the Christian faith

I think you mean tenets.

I don't think you get to decide who is a Christian or not.

I know Christians who have no religious or ethical problem with abortion. Some of them hold their position in opposition to the views of their priest/pastor/church; others have support for their views within their faith family. Christians are no more unified on this issue than any other group.

[gadgetlady 4]

I also believe, because of the heartbreaking situations I have observed, that there are circumstances under which termination after viability (when less than 1% of abortions are currently performed, usually for serious medical issues) can be an ethically valid choice.

So 1% of 1,300,000 abortions every year is 13,000 viable babies killed every year. And that's an ethically valid choice? If it were anything other than the sacred right to abortion, any situation where 35 innocent people were being killed daily against their will through an elective surgical procedure, the US populace would be literally up in arms!

I think the way to ensure that abortion is rare is by providing accessible, reasonably priced (or free) family planning information and supplies to anyone who chooses to be sexually active

Are you saying this isn't currently available? Because it is. And yet, the high abortion rate persists. IMO, that means it's not working.

I don't think you get to decide who is a Christian or not.

I never said I "get to decide". Whether someone is a Christian is between them and their God. However, I think it's perfectly reasonable to question the statistics about the quantities of people who profess Christianity vs. those who actually follow it. If I told you I was an atheist, but you saw me praying before every meal, wouldn't you have the right to question my commitment to atheism?

I know Christians who have no religious or ethical problem with abortion. Some of them hold their position in opposition to the views of their priest/pastor/church; others have support for their views within their faith family.

On the one hand, I think this just solidifies the claim that abortion isn't a religious issue. On the other hand, as a Christian myself I do think it's fair to ask Christians who are pro-abortion how they reconcile some very specific things in the Bible with their belief that killing the unborn is acceptable. I've asked those questions on this thread before and no one's ever answered, but I'd be willing to ask again if anyone who's both Christian and in favor of abortion wants to take a stab at it.

[snuffy65 1]

On the one hand, I think this just solidifies the claim that abortion isn't a religious issue. On the other hand, as a Christian myself I do think it's fair to ask Christians who are pro-abortion how they reconcile some very specific things in the Bible with their belief that killing the unborn is acceptable. I've asked those questions on this thread before and no one's ever answered, but I'd be willing to ask again if anyone who's both Christian and in favor of abortion wants to take a stab at it.

I'm Christian and pro choice. But please don't ask me why because we would have to get into theology and won't help any side.

[snuffy65 1]

So 1% of 1,300,000 abortions every year is 13,000 viable babies killed every year. And that's an ethically valid choice? If it were anything other than the sacred right to abortion, any situation where 35 innocent people were being killed daily against their will through an elective surgical procedure, the US populace would be literally up in arms!

If your right there is alot more then 1,300,000 lives being killed every year in the US. You are so set on claiming a fertilized egg is a human life, yet you want to set a double standard on that human life?

The reason religion fits so much in the debate is if you truly believe in human life at conception, then there would be no legal birth control pills. No legal invitro procedures. No embryonic stem cell research. Most of which a "true" Christian ironically doesn't have to worry about.

A true Christian:

Thinks sex is only for procreation and definitely not before marriage

Doesn't believe in invitro

Thinks embryonic research is immoral anyways.

How convenient that Christians can stand up be sooo against something that doesn't effect them.

[Jennie1976 1]

Snuffy...I don't know if you are deliberately ignoring my last post, or if you just didn't see it. I'm very interested in your reply to a scientific argument. If you are deliberately ignoring it, then I'm sure you'll continue to do so with this post; however, if you just missed it, then I'm hoping you will go back and respond.

Thanks either way!

[snuffy65 1]

Snuffy...I don't know if you are deliberately ignoring my last post, or if you just didn't see it. I'm very interested in your reply to a scientific argument. If you are deliberately ignoring it, then I'm sure you'll continue to do so with this post; however, if you just missed it, then I'm hoping you will go back and respond.

Thanks either way!

I already answered all those.

Thats not the only definitions on life and yet all those could explain living tissue. There is a big difference of living tissue and a human life as we know it to be. As a matter of fact many scientists make this assumption everyday.

I am glad to aswer questions, just not a hundred times.

COUNTER-ARGUMENTS (before you make them and to save time):

YOU: It can't survive outside the mother. This infringes upon the rights of the mother.

ME: True, it's not fair. Life is not fair. If someone breaks in my house and shoot him, *I* can be sued? That's not fair either. And if science comes up with a way to avoid having the mother carry it to term, I will support it 100%.

YOU: It's a fetus/embryo not a baby.

ME: So? It's a child, teenager, geriatric. That's a stage of development, not a different species.

YOU: What about rape? Incest? ______ (fill in the blank)?

ME: Again, if it is a live human being, we do not have the right to kill it. The conditions of it's birth/conception have nothing to do with it.

Like I said, you fascinate me. I am looking forward to your responses.

However, becuase of this statment I wont dignify any question from you any further. I have never made those claims and probably never will for arguements for prochoice.

Thanks for trying to pigeon hole me.

But if you want you can answer me these.

Are you for making in vitro illegal?

Are you for making Birth Control pills illegal?

Are you for making embyrionic research illegal?

[gadgetlady 4]

I'm Christian and pro choice. But please don't ask me why because we would have to get into theology and won't help any side.

I'm not surprised. Anyone else who's a Christian and pro-abortion want to answer?