who supports right to choose

[gadgetlady 4]

From the moment my baby was conceived, she was a baby to me. That was after many fertility treatments, prayers and with the WILL and GRACE of my God. To another woman, who's pregnancy was unexpected or unplanned - that may not be the case.

It seems extremely arbitrary to define the inception of one person's life (or the status of one membership in the human race) on another person's opinion. In so doing, anyone can justify all sorts of injustices towards others (for example, slave owners simply defining black people as 3/5 of a human being and therefore not entitled to any rights, or Nobel Peace Prize winners defining handicapped infants as not yet human and therefore slated for infanticide).

If a pregnant mother is in a car crash with a drunk driver and her unborn baby dies, the drunk driver who caused it can be held for manslaughter. Most people agree that that's a reasonable law. But what if, in a strange twist, that mother was driving herself to an abortion clinic to have the baby aborted. You and many others would say that's her choice. But isn't the end result for the baby the same?

How can we fight to save the life of a 22-week preemie in one hospital ward, and yet routinely abort babies who are more developed than 22-weeks down the hallway? Since when do we base one person's worth on another person's opinion?

[pearlygirl 1]

It seems extremely arbitrary to define the inception of one person's life (or the status of one membership in the human race) on another person's opinion.

Who is doing this? As someone stated before, no one is being forced to have an abortion. Everyone is able to decide for themselves (a)when their embryo/fetus life begins and ( if they wish to terminate the pregnancy

I have not researched abortion in depth and don't plan to do so, as it really isn't a concern to me personally - I haven't had an abortion and don't plan on having one in the future. What I do know is that over half of the abortions performed in the US are at or before 8 weeks. A fetus is considered "viable" by most of the medical world at 24 weeks. As far as I know there is no state in the US that will perform an abortion after "medical viabilty".

As I stated in a previous post, IMHO, MY daughter was a baby from the moment she was conceived. My husband and I loved and wanted her even before conception. That isn't the reality for everyone, I wish that it was. It does break my heart to know that so many abortions are being performed and that more women don't consider adoption. I still don't feel that my own feelings toward this issue should impact another woman's decision. It is SUCH a personal thing.

[BJean 16]

We "routinely abort babies who are more developed than 22 weeks..."? Really? That's common enough to be routinely done down the hallway from the place that doctors and nurses fight to save the life of another 22 week preemie?

Sure, some doctors and women are in the position where they feel that they must do a late term abortion to save the life of the mother or to end the life of her seriously deformed fetus. And sure, it's undoubtedly done in an adjacent area to the maternity ward. But I do not believe that it is fair to characterize that action as routine. I do not believe that it is right for any extremely unfortunate biological event to be described and used in that way. And I certainly do not believe that it should in any way be construed or assumed to be something that is done without much research and contemplation and with the advice of a woman's physician. You've attempted to make it sound like women choose to abort babies "routinely" after 22 weeks. I do not believe that is a fair representation of the facts.

I am sure that your tone and words are callous because you were trying to make a point. But I believe that you are being very unfair to those women have found themselves in the position of having to make such a sad and gut-wrenching decision.

Furthermore your slavery comparison just doesn't hold Water and it is very tiresome. Children and adults are not the same as fertilized eggs (or malformed fetuses). And this is one argument that is only done for shock value. I am extremely grossed out by it and it makes me feel very bad that you feel you must go to such extremes to try to win your argument against women having complete control over their own bodies AND THOSE OF THEIR FERTILIZED EGGS AND MALFORMED BABIES. There's a lot of guilt in America over our history of slavery and you are trying to use that guilt to further your cause.

As for the car wreck scenario - or you can even use a gun shooting, a stabbing, an attempted drowning or whatever picture you choose to verbally paint - each case must be decided upon its' own merits. You cannot lump many scenarios like that into one and expect it to be a convicing and conclusive argument that the prosecution of a drunk driver who caused a wreck, for instance, is deemed to be a killer if a pregnant woman loses her baby due to his behavior.

In some cases, depending upon the circumstances, an accident or attempt to end a woman's life can certainly end in charges if she loses her baby because of it. In other cases, if the woman is very early in a pregnancy, there is seldom an instance where a D.A. would attempt to prosecute the perpetrator for killing the fetus. If a D.A. did decide to prosecute the perp in a case like that, it is usually seen as a D.A. trying to make the headlines and/or trying to make an example out of a drunk driver or an abuser. If the court room battle is morbid and shocking enough and there are extenuating circumstances, like if the woman is left unable to have children, it could end in a guilty verdict. However that is undoubtedly rare.

[Aphrodite1984 2]

I think Gadget is funny. I like to continue to see her illogical, self-righteous posts juxtaposed to BJean's logical and reasonable discussion.

Slavery? Really? You're pulling out all the stops now. Please don't make me go into how incredibly insulting it is to make a comparison between a fertilized egg and a human being. Idiocy I can deal with, but racism is unacceptable. Please do us all a favor and never make this example again.

[BJean 16]

Aphrodite I appreciate any positive comments you and pearlygirl aim at me. I'm more used to being the only voice that is pro-choice on this thread off and on a whole lot of the time. It makes me happy to hear from you all. You both sound very level-headed and intelligent and quite able to sort out the propaganda from the genuine arguments on this thread.

[brandyII 9]

Aphrodite I appreciate any positive comments you and pearlygirl aim at me. I'm more used to being the only voice that is pro-choice on this thread off and on a whole lot of the time. It makes me happy to hear from you all. You both sound very level-headed and intelligent and quite able to sort out the propaganda from the genuine arguments on this thread.

I agree with you BJean and Aphrodite and Pearlygirl, you three are very sensible people and I can't believe you still have the energy to combat Gidge every time!

[BJean 16]

Oh I forgot about you BrandyII. I remember that you've chimed in a few times too. I've noticed that you and I often agree on other threads too. Really nice to get to know you great women through LBT.

[gadgetlady 4]

Everyone is able to decide for themselves (a)when their embryo/fetus life begins

That is precisely my point. How legitimate is it for one human being to decide when another human being's life begins? If your mother believed your life began at 6 months and my mother believed my life began at conception, does that mean that your life really began at 6 months in utero and my life really began at conception? That our lives began at different stages of pregnancy simply because another human being had a belief that it did? Or did our lives, and the lives of all babies, begin at exactly the same time -- and some people are not only defining it differently, but carrying out a death sentence on their babies based on their definition?

I have not researched abortion in depth and don't plan to do so, as it really isn't a concern to me personally - I haven't had an abortion and don't plan on having one in the future. What I do know is that over half of the abortions performed in the US are at or before 8 weeks.

In most cases, the baby's heart is beating before the mother knows she is pregnant. At 8 weeks, the baby is fully formed, with all body systems present. This baby isn't a "blob of tissue" or an "unformed embryo" or "a few cells dividing". This baby has recorded brain waves, a complete skeleton, reflexes, and can be sucking his or her thumb.

A fetus is considered "viable" by most of the medical world at 24 weeks. As far as I know there is no state in the US that will perform an abortion after "medical viabilty".

In the companion case to Roe v. Wade (Doe v. Bolton), the US Supreme Court guaranteed abortion through all 9 months of pregnancy for any reason whatsoever (in the determination of one physician, who can be the abortionist). There are many facilities that perform abortions after viability, which is now down closer to 19 or 20 weeks.

[brandyII 9]

.......................................................

[gadgetlady 4]

Slavery? Really? You're pulling out all the stops now. Please don't make me go into how incredibly insulting it is to make a comparison between a fertilized egg and a human being. Idiocy I can deal with, but racism is unacceptable. Please do us all a favor and never make this example again.

The analogy holds, and quite well. In both cases, a dominant group of people (white slaveowners / mothers) have imposed their will on a subservient group of people (black slaves / unborn babies) by defining the subservient group (black slaves / unborn babies) as less than human. The argument by those in favor of slavery was that one couldn't compare a black person to a full human being because they obviously weren't fully human, and anybody could simply see that by virture of underdeveloped brain capacity, less refined human features, less ability to perform educated tasks, etc. We clearly see this as wrong now, in 2008, but remember that the arguments were strong enough to convince the US Supreme Court in 1857. The decision defined slaves as not legal people and the property of the slaveowner -- to do with what he wished, including determining whether the slave had a right to live or not.

[gadgetlady 4]

Speaking to the issue of the scientific basis of the beginning of human life:

Many internationally-known geneticists and biologists have testified that human life begins at conception. In 1981 (April 23-24) a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee held hearings on the very question: When does human life begin?

Following are testimonies from two of the doctors who testified:

1. Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman of the Department of Genetics at the mayo Clinic, said: "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."

2. Dr. McCarthy de Mere, a medical doctor and law professor at the University of Tennessee, testified: "The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."

Dr. Jerome Lejeune, known as "The Father of Modern Genetics," also testified that human life begins at conception before the Louisiana Legislature's House Committee on the Administration of Criminal Justice on June 7, 1990.

Dr. Lejeune explained that within three to seven days after fertilization we can determine if the new human being is a boy or a girl. "At no time," Dr. Lejeune said, "is the human being a blob of protoplasm. As far as your nature is concerned, I see no difference between the early person that you were at conception and the late person which you are now. You were, and are, a human being."

Dr. Lejeune also pointed out that each human being is unique -- different from the mother -- from the moment of conception. He said, "Recent discoveries by Dr. Alec Jeffreys of England demonstrate that this information [on the DNA molecule] is stored by a system of bar codes not unlike those found on products at the supermarket...it's not any longer a theory that each of us is unique."

Dr. Jerome Lejeune died on April 3, 1994. Dr. Lejeune of Paris, France was a medical doctor, a Doctor of Science and a professor of Fundamental Genetics for over twenty years. Dr. Lejeune discovered the genetic cause of Down Syndrome, receiving the Kennedy Prize for the discovery and, in addition, received the Memorial Allen Award Medal, the world's highest award for work in the field of Genetics. He practiced his profession at the Hôpital des Enfants Malades (Sick Children's Hospital) in Paris. Dr. Lejeune was a member of the American Academy of the Arts and Science, a member of the Royal Society of Medicine in London, The Royal Society of Science in Stockholm, the Science Academy in Italy and Argentina, The Pontifical Academy of Science and The Academy of Medicine in France.

Statement by Paul E. Rockwell, M.D. (not part of the Senate hearing):

"Eleven years ago while giving an anesthetic for a ruptured ectopic pregnancy (at 8 weeks gestation), I was handed what I believe was the smallest living human ever seen. The embryonic sac was intact and transparent. Within the sac was a tiny human male swimming extremely vigorously in the amniotic Fluid, while attached to the wall by the umbilical cord. This tiny human was perfectly developed, with long, tapering fingers, feet and toes. It was almost transparent, as regards the skin, and the delicate arteries and veins were prominent to the ends of the fingers."

Dr. Rockwell continues, "The baby was extremely alive and swam about the sac approximately one time per second, with a natural swimmer's stroke. This tiny human did not look at all like the photos and drawings and models of 'embryos' which I had seen, nor did it look like a few embryos I have been able to observe since then, obviously because this one was alive! When the sac was opened, the tiny human immediately lost his life and took on the appearance of what is accepted as the appearance of an embryo at this stage of life (with blunt extremities etc.)."

A report from the Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 1981 reads: "Physicians, biologists and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being--a being is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings."

[BJean 16]

Your point gadget, that one person cannot legitimately decide for another person when human life begins, is well taken. That is precisely why the information you posted has no bearing. It is also why your position, that one segment of the population should make that decision for all women is so very wrong.

Argue all you want. You cannot pick and choose which studies and papers you want to believe and then impose those beliefs on others. Well I guess you can, but it is patently unfair and wrong as you pointed out in your own post above.

[gadgetlady 4]

Your point gadget, that one person cannot legitimately decide for another person when human life begins, is well taken. That is precisely why the information you posted has no bearing.

Actually, that's precisely why the information I posted HAS bearing.

Here's the bottom line. Human life starts at some point. Logically, it can't have started at different points for different people. The point at which life begins physically and scientifically cannot be defined as when the human being's mother determines it begins. It has a definite inception, and the mother's opinion about when that inception occurs is irrelevant to the facts of the matter.

The problem with abortion is that while claiming neutrality, those in favor of the practice actually are deciding for another person -- the baby -- just as those in favor of slavery claimed neutrality by saying the black person wasn't fully human.

[pearlygirl 1]

Okay, I just have to ask...have you seen a baby who was born and survived at 19-20 weeks??? I myself have never heard of such a thing although that doesn't mean that it hasn't happened. What I know is that while my own daughter developed and grew in an incubator for two months , I became close to other parents with NICU babies. Babies born at 24, 25 and even 26 weeks, in real life, who I saw with my own eyes struggled like you would not believe. You couldn't even touch them because it put them into such distress. They had multiple surgeries, frequent episodes of not enough oxygen to their brains and were on the edge between life and death on a weekly and sometimes daily basis. Many ended up blind, deaf, immobile and unable to learn to speak, I see them at our NICU follow up appointments. I have a hard time imagining a baby 5-6 weeks younger surviving. I don't mean to sound as if they aren't worth it, they certainly are but truly the edge of viability is 24 weeks.

[pearlygirl 1]

Also, in my state(Nebraska) 24 weeks has been declared the age of medical viability. Babies before this age are wrapped in a blanket and given to their parents to be held, they are not revived. I would guess that most states have similar cut-offs.