who supports right to choose

[Froggi 4]

Funny thing is that before I was a born again Christian I had the same pro life view! I think that it is the only human thing to do. and someone needs to speak for the Unborn and their rights!

Maybe if you were a female and went through being raped and got pregnant your views would change. You are a man and cannot get pregnant so I think that this really only pertains to women. Abortion is up to the woman, it's her body...and you have no damn right to try to say that you have any say in their choice.

If you magically become a female one day and get pregnant then you can talk about not having an abortion!

Thanks.

[BJean 16]

I do not believe that fertilized eggs have rights. I do not believe that fetuses have rights. Sorry if that is offensive to you, but them's my beliefs and they are just as valid as yours. They have no bearing on this issue really, because what we are talking about is women's rights. And women do have rights. They have the same rights as every other individual in this country.

Let me paint a little scenario for you: If you were compelled to have sex, and let's assume it's against your wishes, and someone told you that because of that, you had to have a child, Mr. Man, and that you had to have a fertilized egg implanted in your abdomen, you had to take pills to ensure that your body provided the proper nourishment so that the egg grows and is healthy, have the baby-making process completely rule your life and your job and make you uncomfortable, physically distort your body, change your hormones and all that and then after nine long months you must then go through hours of painful labor and delivery; and then you had to support the baby once it's born and raise and nurture the baby, take care of all its' needs: food, clothing, shelter, education, protection from harm, take care of it through all of its' illnesses, miss work and have your job put in jeopardy because of the missed work, provide it medical care; then help it go to college and become a productive member of society, certainly help it learn how to love and marry well and then help it when it goes on to have babies... I don't know if your eagerness to ban abortion would be quite the same as it is now. Naturally there is no way you could possibly know how you would feel about it since you will never, ever be faced with any of that in a way that a real woman would.

But that's not all you need to consider... then if the government decided that we need more children in this world, but only girl children because they can reproduce, and they decided that you had to try to become impregnated with a girl baby but you couldn't have a girl baby, and you must abort any boy baby you become pregnant with, would you still believe that it is within the government's rights to dictate what you must do when you get pregnant?

[gadgetlady 4]

A bit of interesting news happened at the end of last week: the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on a case about South Dakota's informed consent law. By a 7-4 vote, the judges ordered the state to enforce a law that requires doctors to tell women who are seeking an abortion that it "will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being."

Perfectly put. That's exactly what abortion does: terminates the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being.

[tink128 0]

Maybe if you were a female and went through being raped and got pregnant your views would change. You are a man and cannot get pregnant so I think that this really only pertains to women. Abortion is up to the woman, it's her body...and you have no damn right to try to say that you have any say in their choice.

If you magically become a female one day and get pregnant then you can talk about not having an abortion!

Thanks.

That did happen to me and faced with the thought that I might very well be pregnant I would have chosen to have the baby even at 15. Life is not determined by a set of perfect circumstances all the time and we do not get to choose to kill babies. Just my opinion.

[BJean 16]

Well the case you mentioned that defined for us all that: it is a whole, separate, unique, living human being, is merely a sampling of things to come. (Separate? Really?)

When Bush loaded the Supreme Court deck with people who clearly have an agenda to make it against the law for women to make their own choices, we knew exactly what to expect. It is just a matter of time, really.

If any of you care, you should make sure you get out and vote. It certainly does make a difference. And if you want people who think it is their right, and theirs alone, to choose who lives and dies in America, in charge of making laws and interpreting them, you better not vote Republican.

John McCain used to be in favor of women's right to choose. But in order to get the Republican backing he needed to be the Republican candidate for president, he had to give up that position and adopt theirs - and that's not the only very important compromise that he's made. I used to think that McCain had the gumption and fortitude that he claims from having been a veteran, but I was wrong about him.

He was very vocal in his criticism of those "Swift Boat Veterans" and "POWS for Truth" who banded together to attack John Kerry and accuse him of lying about the inidents in Vietnam that led to his military decorations. McCain called the group's advertising "dishonest and dishonorable." But today McCain needs their money and votes so he has accepted nearly $70,000 from the top donors of theose groups and their relatives. To defend his acceptance of donatons from those "dishonest" people, he says that they are obviously interested in supporting his agenda of reform and peace.

What? Wait. What? Seriously?

[gadgetlady 4]

That did happen to me and faced with the thought that I might very well be pregnant I would have chosen to have the baby even at 15. Life is not determined by a set of perfect circumstances all the time and we do not get to choose to kill babies.

So sorry you had to go through this, especially at such a young age

[gadgetlady 4]

Well the case you mentioned that defined for us all that: it is a whole, separate, unique, living human being, is merely a sampling of things to come. (Separate? Really?)

Yes, separate, really. Not separated, but separate, distinct, unique, a different person with his or her own circulatory system, heart, organs, brain, etc.

[MrsFlipFlops 2]

Oh gag, I was glad when this post started dying down!

I'm not pro McCain, but let's be accurate here. He's for overturning Roe v. Wade, not for the purpose to disallow abortion, but for returning the power to decide to the states. He doesn't believe that the constitution allows the federal government to decide flatly that abortion is legal or illegal. Whether he's pro abortion or anti abortion is irrelevant as he's saying he wants the STATES to decide. Once that's done, McCain has no power to advocate a pro life or an anti life view as the states are now in charge.

Secondly, McCain is pro adoption. Since adopting a child themselves, the McCain's have always advocated adoption as the first alternative to an unwanted pregnancy.

[kimaly 57]

well i'm sure this will make some of you angry but so be it: women shouldn't use it as birth control, and alot do. I would never have one, but i can see sometimes maybe feeling you have no choice, life and death and all. so many people have brought up the rape thing, Well my best friend is the porduct of rape(my beautiful daughter) I don't regret having her at all. Although she doesn't know at 23, and i doubt she ever will. my ex was nice enough to give her his last name even though we were not togather at the time. not saying it's the way everyone should be. that's not up to me and not my choice. I only have to answer for what i've done in life. it boils down to i don't beleave in it but who am i to tell someone else what they can or cannot live with.

[BJean 16]

tink the great thing about your situation was that you were able to make a choice. What if the government decided that under your circumstances, you absolutely HAD to have an abortion?

You may think that sounds like an impossible scenario, but it is not. When the government gets involved, and I don't care whether it is the state or federal government, it is no longer a personal medical decision anymore. And if something happened, let's say an influx of millions of refugees after a natural disaster, and the government decided that rather than preventing abortion, they required that a woman must have an abortion unless the baby would be born into a household with two parents, do you think that would be a good thing?

I don't think many people would be very happy about that. Actually I don't know anyone who would embrace a law like that. And to me, it is just absolutely wrong for the government to make these kinds of decisions for women and their unborn babies, whether the government decides that a woman must have an abortion in a particular case, or whether a woman must not have an abortion in a particular case.

I think it is great that you chose to keep your child. Very admirable and a beautiful thing. I also think that those women who choose to give their children up for adoption so that their children can have a better life than they can provide, is also a wonderful thing. And in this country both of those possibilities exist and women are smart enough to make these life changing decisions based upon what they believe is best.

It is completely wrong for the government to force women to do what the government (made up of who? Supreme Court justices, Presidents, Congress, Judges?) believes women faced with such decisions should do.

This question is too important for a few people to make a ruling that impacts all women and their medical, perhaps life threatening, decisions. That is completely wrong. And it goes against everything that this country stands for.

Whether you believe women should have abortions is beside the point. No woman is required to have an abortion against her wishes at this point in time. (Let's hope it never comes to that.) On the other hand, neither should a should woman be prevented from making a decision that she and her doctor believe are in her best interests, even if it means that she must have an abortion.

[BJean 16]

yeah I understand gadget. A few people have decided that a fertilized egg is a separate individual. But that doesn't mean that they are correct or even right. When they share a circulatory system and oxygen, among other things, a fetus sure isn't separate in any sense of the word from its' mother. Two hearts beat as one, until there are two hearts separate, meaning not sharing all the same vital stuff.

You know... separate. Like in Webster's Deluxe Unabridged, Second Edition Dictionary: Separate: to set or put apart (two or more things) into parts, groups, sets, etc., to disunite, to divide, to sever, to part in any manner, to disjoin; withdraw or secede from; to part, come to draw apart, or become disconnected; to part company, to go in different directions, to cease to be associated; to become distinct or disengaged; unconnected; not united; distinct; individual; alone; withdrawn from the company or association of others; solitary; isolated; secluded; of or peculiar to one; not shared or held in common, etc.

[gadgetlady 4]

yeah I understand gadget. A few people have decided that a fertilized egg is a separate individual. But that doesn't mean that they are correct or even right. When they share a circulatory system and oxygen, among other things, a fetus sure isn't separate in any sense of the word from its' mother. Two hearts beat as one, until there are two hearts separate, meaning not sharing all the same vital stuff.

You're kidding, right? You think the mother's heart and the baby's heart "beat as one?" They're not even close! The baby's heartbeat (rate of beating) is significantly faster than the mother's. They're not sharing "all the same vital stuff" -- the baby is his own person with his own closed circulatory system. There's no shared heart, no shared brain, no shared blood cells, no shared organs (except for the placenta, which isn't shared but simply manages the exchange of oxygen, nutrients, and waste products), no shared limbs, etc.

You know... separate. Like in Webster's Deluxe Unabridged, Second Edition Dictionary: Separate: to set or put apart (two or more things) into parts, groups, sets, etc.

Yes, they are apart, two or more things (that's why we call them mother and baby).

[kimaly 57]

once again BJ you and I disagree on something. Comparing someone ordered to murder their own child and someone choosing to get rid of the problem is to differant things so I'll end my part in this debat. I think you just like to argue no matter the subject. Good day 2 u

[BJean 16]

Yup, when a mother's heart beats faster, so does a baby's.

kimaly: I am sorry if I offended you with my beliefs, but obviously you misunderstood. I did not equate someone ordered to murder their own child and someone choosing to get rid of the problem as being the same thing. My analogy was lost on you, for sure. I probably didn't explain it well enough.

I am very strong in my belief that women should not be told that they either should have an abortion or that they should not have an abortion. The government should not have that control over a woman in our society. I do not agree that a fertilized egg is a separate entity. But whether I believe that any person who has an abortion is killing her baby is, to me, irrelevant to the debate. The debate to me, IMHO, is whether the law should be able to tell women what to do when they are faced with such a decision. There are plenty of valid reasons why a woman might need to undergo an abortion and it is not for the state to decide what those reasons are and pass judgement on a woman who makes a choice that it (the government, whoever that is) may not agree with.

If you find this debate distasteful and my posts in particular to be disgusting, then by all means, opt out. This thread is definitely not for the faint of heart. You should hear some of the arguments against abortion. It gets unbelievably graphic and vile.

[gadgetlady 4]

Yup, when a mother's heart beats faster, so does a baby's.

The normal heart rate for an unborn baby is 120-160 beats per minute. The normal heart rate for a mother is under 100 beats per minute. The baby's heart rate varies depending on a variety of factors, such as whether he or she is sleeping. The baby is often sleeping when the mother is awake, and vice-versa. The hearts do not beat together, they are not "two hearts beating as one", and their heart rates are not even close to being the same.

This would be consistent with something like, say, the heart rates of two distinct people. Oh, yeah. Because that's what it is.