who supports right to choose

[Pix 4]

A Medical clinic not regulated?? I really don't want to know what back alley doctor is running that place to be honest.

Medical clinics have standards in which they must maintain. If it is not being maintained report them.

[gadgetlady 4]

Gadget, for me I feel she makes a mockery of someone who struggles with the choice to abort. She allows herself to be the Poster Child for the Pro Life movement as an example of how the Pro Choice views abortion - treating it like birth control & that's not an accurate depiction.

Well, I don't think she's pro-life but I guess it's a possibility.

As to using abortion for birth control, isn't that her choice? If it's a morally neutral act, why decry the use of it as birth control?

[gadgetlady 4]

A Medical clinic not regulated?? I really don't want to know what back alley doctor is running that place to be honest.

Medical clinics have standards in which they must maintain. If it is not being maintained report them.

I know you're going to question my sources, but I'm sitting in an airport right now and I don't have a lot of time to hunt around. Read this: South Carolina Abortion Clinic Regulations Upheld. I can post more sources later that are not directly pro-life (i.e. news reports, etc.).

These types of reports are the norm, not an anomaly. Somewhere else on this thread I posted information about Planned Parenthood or another abortion organization opposing regulatory standards that would require freestanding abortion clinics to comply with the same regulations as other freestanding medical clinics. If you can't find the information by the time I land from the flight I'm about to board, I will find it for you.

Abortion clinics are NOT required to maintain the same standards as other medical clinics.

[TommyO 5]

The story was a hoax and as such there is no valid reason to debate it. I could come up with some silly irrelevant scenario. What if I were to make up a story about a member of the pro life movement who goes around kidnapping women who were planning on having abortions and forcing them to give birth. I think that we could all agree that doing something like that would be wrong, debating why it was wrong or trying to validate our opinions based on an imaginary "what if"scenario is an excersise in futility.

When I was younger and I would argue with my Dad using "what if" statements my Dad would retort, and I quote, "If my Aunt had balls she'd be my Uncle"

[luluc 6]

As to using abortion for birth control, isn't that her choice? If it's a morally neutral act, why decry the use of it as birth control?

I thought of replying, then saw Tommy's repsonse & will leave it there.

Your often not satisfied w/my answeres anyway - .

[melliott74 0]

It would be so hard to deal with that. But in the end we would have the baby And possible we would put it up for adoption. My fear would be that the kid would grow up to look like her attacker and the kid would be resented. I have not asked my Wife about this but knowing her I think she would agree to no abortion. the baby should not be killed because of a rapest. But the persons that this has happen to I really feel for them it would be so bad. And the ones this has happen to, and had an abortion. I would have so much compassion for them. (more than for the person that uses abortion 7-8 times like it is some birth control or something) that is just crazy.

a BABY should not be born because of a rape either..

[Jennie1976 1]

I do agree that a fetus is alive but I do not agree that it is a human being.

Then I'm confused by your next statement:

I 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.

If it is life and it is human, then logic dictates that it is human life. By your own logic, you believe it to be human life.

Your argument is exactly what I said a few posts earlier. As stated earlier, you cannot argue the following:

1. It is life (see previous posts for proof).

2. It is a human being (again, see previous posts for proof).

No one disputes these. These are not belief. These are scientific fact. They are not even theories.

The ONLY thing you can "disagree" with is whether or not it is deserving of basic human rights--i.e. a "person". As stated earlier, this is also what the courts cannot agree on.

[gadgetlady 4]

I thought of replying, then saw Tommy's repsonse & will leave it there.

I don't understand how Tommy's response negates the question. The fact is, there are women who abort for reasons such as this woman's (even if they're a very small quantity of women, they do exist). Very early in this thread I posted about hard-core feminists who advocated deliberate pregnancy and abortion for feminists who hadn't had the opportunity to experience an abortion (I was blasted for suggesting such a thing exists, but it does, and I did show evidence of it).

The question remains: As to using abortion for birth control, isn't that her choice? If it's a morally neutral act, why decry the use of it as birth control?

I am always astonished when those who are in favor of abortion object to women who use abortion for whatever purpose they desire to use it -- "art", the "experience", birth control, fetal deformity, a broken relationship, financial hardship, or, for that matter, fetal harvesting. After all, if choice is king and the "blob of tissue" growing in the womb is really just her body, who on God's green earth has a right to question her motives?

[gadgetlady 4]

If it is life and it is human, then logic dictates that it is human life. By your own logic, you believe it to be human life.

Bravo, Jennie! I meant to respond to this earlier but I haven't had the time. I don't know what kind of mental gymnastics one has to go through to arrive at the conclusion that something that is human and something that is life isn't . . . human life.

[Pix 4]

Technically Gadget, she didn't give herself an abortion. She admited she had no idea if she was pregnant. Chances are she was just inducing her monthly over and over. Until pregnancy is confirmed it is just your monthly. With out confirmation (and missing one or two (IMHO) is confirmation unless you normally skip a few (make sense??)) its just her monthly.

I mean seriously if you want to argue semantics I am all for it, and she said she would "inseminate" herself then take the herbs/chemicals. I would assume from the way the article was written she never tracked her monthlies, nor did she have inclination she was even pregnant. No time line was ever given, no nothing. The person chose to use the term "induce and abortion" but from reading it through again (talk about disgusting reading it a second time) to me it read that she was just assuming and would ingest the herbs at the time of 'insemination'.

[gadgetlady 4]

Technically Gadget, she didn't give herself an abortion. She admited she had no idea if she was pregnant. Chances are she was just inducing her monthly over and over. Until pregnancy is confirmed it is just your monthly. With out confirmation (and missing one or two (IMHO) is confirmation unless you normally skip a few (make sense??)) its just her monthly.

Oh, I agree 100%. Don't get me wrong. I don't agree with what she did, I don't think it makes for "art" in any sense of the word, and I don't believe she was necessarily pregnant any of the times she took the herbs. But that's not what I'm questioning.

What I'm questioning is the simultaneous illogic and audacity of people who support "choice" and believe that a woman should be allowed to have an abortion anywhere, anyhow, at any time during pregnancy, for any reason -- and yet decry what this woman did. Even if it's a hoax, or even if she was never pregnant -- what the heck is the problem with it, if it's solely her body to do with what she pleases?

[Pix 4]

I decry what she did cause she is fekking nuts! Hoax or not, a person who can do that to their own body (or even pretend they did(ingesting the herbs and chemicals)) has serious issues that needs to be addressed, not just physically. But this is just my opinion.

While a woman choosing an abortion is going through a difficult and personally traumatic experiance and they don't need people assuming that she is like one college co-ed who is off her rocker. You know some of the more 'fanatic' pro-lifers' will use that woman against all people wanting/needing an abortion.

[snuffy65 1]

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.

This just isn't true. Read this article and in the first paragraph the author notes that there is 280 different definitions of "life". So what do we do? Only point out the ones that support your side?

Now, on a side note, I am guessing 80% of definitions would support your theory that a fertilized egg is "life". However, most of those definitions can define a peice of human skin tissue as "life" as well.

So, please do not say its a scientific fact tht you are killing people when its not.

New Scientist Space Blog: Life defined

Edited April 22, 2008 by snuffy65

[BJean 16]

I've been off-line for most of this discussion, Thank God! This hoax thing is one of the most ridiculous discussions I've ever read.

Which brings up the reason for my posting now. Trell said that I was only trying to stir up strife. I was absolutely not trying to cause problems. I was only responding to a comment or comments that I believed questioned my position on this issue. I was defending my argument. You have every right to do the same.

The strife that has been caused, again, was due to a poster's reference to a link that was all about some hoax that was probablyl thunk up by a group of frat boys that were tired of putting up with their girlfriends' raging hormones at that time of the month. I prefer to think that is what happened rather than another obvious possibility and that is that the extremeist anti-abortion folks invented it to get people ranting and raving about the topic of abortion.

Which, btw, also brings up someone's remarks about my calling anti-abortion people "anti-choice." The reason I refer to those people as anti-choice is because they have for years referred to pro-choice people as "pro-abortion." Fair is fair, right?

Another item that bothered me was where it was stated, again, that women already have a choice... that being simply to choose to refrain from having sex. I would be one of the happiest people on the planet if women were always in charge of their bodies. Unfortunately much of the time they are not and there are dozens of reasons why women have sex and become impregnated without their consent.

Those reasons why women have sex without choosing to and the subsequent impregnations caused without their consent are some of the reasons why this issue is so complicated and why passing a law that makes the choice of abortion illegal will never work.

[Jesusislove 26]

BJean It is okay to defend your argument, but to add to what I said, "all women" is adding to my very brief comment. I just stated what I believe, that is my choice. The comment I made had nothing to do with this "hoax" discussion or at least I was not referring to it.

Edited April 22, 2008 by LLPlady3