who supports right to choose

[MrsFlipFlops 2]

The purpose of law is to protect people from other people and to protect people from themselves.

If a woman is not in physical danger by having the baby, by her choosing to abort the baby, she is potentially harming herself. It would be like asking her or any individual to put on a seatbelt, not do drugs, not participate in prostitution... all seemingly "victimless" crimes that are put into place to prevent the person from hurting themselves. Putting a law into place that prevents freely performed abortions prevents her from hurting herself.

I'm not going to get into the details of when the child becomes a life. My whole point is that a healthy woman has a choice before getting pregnant. Should that choice turn into an unwanted pregnancy- the law should prevent her from hurting herself. We already know the horrible damage an abortion can cause a woman. I'm feel sorry for the woman who carry the baby and then give it up for adoption. I cannot imagine the pain it might cause throughout some years to never know where that child is. But that is a personal emotion she must overcome, even with assistance from a psychologist.

I'm not willing to allow a woman to harm herself in order for her to pretend a problem doesn't exist and move on with her life "complication-free". Our choices have actions.

Do I ever think we will have a law banning abortion- no, I don't. What I'm really hoping for here is that people on their own will come to their senses and make good choices that will lead their lives in the direction they want to go. I'm all for women's freedom and equality, but women, wake up! You're not doing yourself any favors by getting yourself into a bad situation. I'm for changing women's actions for better- not attempting to change the natural, biological consequence.

[TommyO 5]

Actually it would appear, that a healthy women has a choice before and after getting pregnant.

[Aphrodite1984 2]

FlipFlops,

There is one aspect of health that you are forgetting....mental health. As a person who has dealt with "mental health issues" for my entire life, I know that it is often impossible for other people, or even health care professionals, to recognize. There have been times in my life where carrying an unwanted pregnancy would have had dire consequences to MY health....possibly even death. Just another thing to think about...

[BandedMomX6 1]

There is one aspect of health that you are forgetting....mental health. As a person who has dealt with "mental health issues" for my entire life,

From this article:

Royal college warns abortions can lead to mental illness - Times Online

"Women may be at risk of mental health breakdowns if they have abortions, a medical royal college has warned. The Royal College of Psychiatrists says women should not be allowed to have an abortion until they are counselled on the possible risk to their mental health.

This overturns the consensus that has stood for decades that the risk to mental health of continuing with an unwanted pregnancy outweighs the risks of living with the possible regrets of having an abortion."

THIRTY YEARS LATER:

EVIDENCE THAT ABORTION DOES REAL DAMAGE TO WOMEN

Cover Story

Is There a Post-Abortion Syndrome?

I can give you more to read if you want.

[BJean 16]

MrsFlipFlops: It sounds like you believe that pregnancy does not carry health risks. Is that your position? That pregnancy is less risky to women than abortion? So for that reason women should never have an abortion because it carries health risks?

I hope I am misunderstanding you. Pregnancy is always a health risk to a woman. Most of the time, there is a happy ending to a healthy pregnancy, one where a beautiful bouncing baby is produced. Unfortunately, there are no guarantees.

Pregnancy changes a woman forever and in some cases, it kills women. Sometimes when women have been compelled to get pregnant and are expected to "do what is expected of them", even though they did not feel that they could handle it, they have gone through with a pregnancy and bore a child. And sometimes those women wind up with serious health issues, either mental or physical or both. Remember the women who have literally drowned their children in a bath tub because they were unable to cope? Or driven them into a lake, or how many other scenarios do we need to remember in order to understand the seriousness of unwanted pregnancies?

I am like you in that I hope women will take responsibility for themselves. I hope that they will make good choices and take excellent care of themselves both physically and psychologically. But when there is a woman who hasn't been able to do that, for whatever reason, and she discovers that she is pregnant when she did not want to be pregnant, I believe that she should have the choice to decide whether she can bear a child and survive the experience, or whether, because of her health or other circumstances, she should choose to have an abortion.

Edited May 28, 2008 by BJean

[BJean 16]

Branded: That's a ton of reading. What I read was that women who are mentally or physically ill before an abortion will probably be mentally or physically ill after an abortion. That in no way proves that there is a greater risk after an abortion or after a full term pregnancy - either physically or emotionally for women.

You hear all about the women who have been traumatized after an abortion. I hear all about women who feel total relief and joy after an abortion. Both are extremes. Both are real. Neither are absolutely indicative of 100% of women being traumatized or happy after an abortion. So while those items you posted are interesting reading, they only tell part of one side of the very complicated story.

That is why there is no simple and conclusive answer to the question of whether women should have the choice of whether or not to complete an unwanted pregnancy. For some women, going through with the pregnancy is absolutely the right answer. For other women, it is absolutely the wrong answer. That's why it should never have been illegal and should never be illegal for women to have the choice.

[Aphrodite1984 2]

Amen BJean!

[pearlygirl 1]

The beauty of pro-choice is quite simple...if you don't believe in abortion - don't have one. AND...for those who do decide to have an abortion - it is no one else's business. So if you are strongly pro-life just don't burden yourself with putting your nose into everyone else's very private matters.

[gadgetlady 4]

This is what happens when we don't value life in utero: Newborn Birmingham IVF twins 'abandoned because they were girls' - Mirror.co.uk

A Birmingham couple have abandoned their healthy newborn IVF twins because they were girls, it was claimed today.

The children were born in Wolverhampton's New Cross Hospital two weeks ago – but soon afterwards the pair are said to have told doctors they did want the “wrong sex” babies.

The mother, aged 59, is said to have had fertility treatment in India, where both parents originally hail from.

The father, aged 72, is alleged to have asked doctors how long it would take before his wife could return to the country to have more IVF treatment so the couple could try for a boy.

It will continue to astound me that the "feminist" movement doesn't care about discrimination against unborn baby girls.

[BJean 16]

How outrageous to claim that the "feminist movement" does not care about discrimination against unborn baby girls. I don't know what your article said about the "feminist movement" as it relates to this couple from India who were only wanting a boy child. I don't really care what it said.

But I do know this - most women, whether they are a part of the "feminist movement" or not, absolutely do care about unborn babies. You're pretty mixed up gadget. You carry things to the extreme and they don't have to make any sense for you to post them or post a link to them.

As I have said, ad naseum, some people value the unborn more than people who already have lives. That's certainly your perrogative to do so. But to make outrageous claims based on your one-dimensional beliefs on this topic does not add anything positive for your side in this debate.

I know it isn't my job to let you in on that little secret. It would be more politic on my part if I just let you hang yourself. But your post, as usual, begged for rebuttal.

Now, it's your turn. Come right back at me - have at it. Do yourself proud. Like Daffy Duck used to say, "Put 'em up... put 'em up."

[gadgetlady 4]

But I do know this - most women, whether they are a part of the "feminist movement" or not, absolutely do care about unborn babies. You're pretty mixed up gadget. You carry things to the extreme and they don't have to make any sense for you to post them or post a link to them.

You're pretty mixed up yourself. If you cared about unborn babies, you would care when they're violently dismembered.

Furthermore, I didn't say the article "made sense" -- it is the reporting of something that happened. I see the rejection of born female babies as a natural extension of the devaluing of human life that abortion leads to. If they could have aborted them 2 months prior to the birth, why not simply abandon them the day after birth? After all, they're the same babies they were 2, 4, 6, 8 months ago!

As I have said, ad naseum, some people value the unborn more than people who already have lives. That's certainly your perrogative to do so.

Ahhh, but I don't. I value both lives equally. It is you who places value on one life to the detriment, or in this case death, of the other.

[luluc 6]

The mother, aged 59, is said to have had fertility treatment in India, where both parents originally hail from.

The father, aged 72, is alleged to have asked doctors how long it would take before his wife could return to the country to have more IVF treatment so the couple could try for a boy.quote]

ya know - i find the ages of these individuals appalling & selfish in their Quest for the "golden child - a boy". see i don't quite see the correlation between this story & the right to choose - sorry, on some pain meds from oral surgery here .... but the 2 are not to be compared in my opinion.

what's even more frightening is the Dr's willing to do another set of IVF on a 60 old woman - how indulgent can we get. i'm not one to set age limits on parents, but Please - if they couldn't take what was handed to them, i as there Dr would send them to the nearest dog shelter and get a pet. they dont' belong being parents.

[BJean 16]

I wouldn't wish some people off on a sweet little innocent pet.

Gadget I absolutely do care about unborn babies. It's undeveloped fertilized eggs that I do not believe have the same value as a living, breathing human being in every sense of the word.

You will have things your way or no way, right? There's no give and take here. Only the lofty idea that you are out to save every human embryo on the planet. Well I just value life too much to share that belief with you. You seem to think that any joining of an egg and sperm has a 100% chance of developing into a human being. Sorry, it just isn't that way. You attribute it to God's will. I believe it has to do with "Mother Nature" (biology).

The primary difference between you and me is that you believe that since you are arm-linked with God in your Quest to make abortion illegal that you are right, and I believe in your right to go on your quest to save unborn children, but I do not believe that you have the right to legislate your beliefs in deference to all others.

[gadgetlady 4]

Gadget I absolutely do care about unborn babies. It's undeveloped fertilized eggs that I do not believe have the same value as a living, breathing human being in every sense of the word.

What's the difference between an "unborn baby" and an "undeveloped fertilized egg"? When does an "undeveloped fertilized egg" become an "unborn baby" in your mind? At what stage of development would you support the limitation or cessation of abortion?

You seem to think that any joining of an egg and sperm has a 100% chance of developing into a human being. Sorry, it just isn't that way. You attribute it to God's will. I believe it has to do with "Mother Nature" (biology).

LOL! You just love putting words in my mouth, don't you? No, any joining of an egg and sperm doesn't have 100% chance of developing into a "human being" (which I take it you mean a born human being, because a fertilized egg is human and it is a being). There are such things as spontaneous abortions (aka miscarriages), fetal deaths, and failures to implant.

Furthermore, I don't attribute the transition from fertilization to birth to God's will in the sense that you're talking about. I do attribute it to basic biology. As I have said before, my position on abortion has nothing to do with my religious beliefs.

[gadgetlady 4]

ya know - i find the ages of these individuals appalling & selfish in their Quest for the "golden child - a boy". see i don't quite see the correlation between this story & the right to choose

I agree that they are appalling and selfish. The reason I compare the two (this scenario and abortion) is because they both speak to the general devaluing of human life. When the baby in the womb is valueless and easily discarded, it doesn't take much to transition to the idea that the baby outside the womb is equally valueless and easily walked away from.

It is for this very same reason that we have proponents of infanticide, arguing that the parents should have the "choice" to withhold sustenance from their newborns if those newborns don't meet certain standards. These voices in favor of infanticide have already been discussed on this thread, with notables such as bioethics professor (at Princeton) Peter Singer supporting the idea. If you would like more information on the people who support such a thing, whose credentials include Nobel Peace Prize winners, lmk and I will post more info.