who supports right to choose

[gadgetlady 4]

I didn't mention the *medical* definition nor the *religious* definition nor the *spiritual* definition.

I don't think we should try to employ a religious or spiritual definition in the case of when human life begins, precisely because religious and spiritual definitions are personally, not biologically, determined. We should not base the decision about when life begins on one's personal judgment, because a nebulous "what I believe" judgment isn't medical fact.

If Person A believes life begins at conception, Person B believes it begins at 24 weeks, and Person C believes it begins at birth, they cannot all correct. Baby A, Baby B, and Baby C were all alive at the same point in development, regardless of what their mothers believed them to be. There is a point when life actually begins, despite the differences that people have as to when they believe it begins. And that point should be biologically determined, not spiritually.

What has changed over the years was not the baby but the attribution of legal rights.

That is exactly my point. Just as black people weren't any different the day before the Dred Scott decision was overturned than they were the day after it was overturned, so also the unborn baby is the same at, say, 16 weeks in 2008 as he or she was at 16 weeks in 1908. The biological facts about the beginning of human life, the same ones we were taught in 6th grade biology, are quite clear.

One great improvement IMHO, is the inclusion of the fetus in addition to the mother in such cases as murder and other physical mayhem.

I agree that it is a great improvement, but it also serves to shine a light on the fact that an outside entity can't harm or kill an unborn baby; his or her mother is the only one with that "right."

[gadgetlady 4]

And the notion the legal definition used, had to do with establishment of *legal* standing, not "life" standards.

You are 100% correct; it is an issue of standing. My point is that legal standing for the right to life should be based on when life begins, not at some other arbitrary point in time -- just as black people, for biological reasons, should never have been defined as 3/5 of a person and been denied rights based on that analysis (interestingly, one of the rights they were denied was the right to life, as their "owners" had the right to kill them if they wanted to; had the basis for their legal standing been biological, they couldn't have been denied these rights).

Edited October 25, 2008 by gadgetlady

[BJean 16]

If you believe that it is a better world when women have the right to choose and that the government should never have the right to control women's reproductive organs, you should get out and vote for those people who share your beliefs.

You should be able to tell by this thread that there are many people who wish to control women's reproductive organs and that they will pretty much stop at nothing to overturn Roe v. Wade and make every women's right to control her own reproductive organs in fact, illegal.

We really must let them know, by our votes, that we will not stand for it.

That is the crux of this argument, the blood, guts, and extremely obnoxious arguments, notwithstanding.

[gadgetlady 4]

Just as the state has the power to define when it is a legal age to drink, to drive, to marry, give consent, to vote, etc.

To put it another way, Jack, life is an inalienable right and should not be denied any living human being. The rights to drink, drive, marry, etc. are not.

[gadgetlady 4]

If you believe that it is a better world when women have the right to choose and that the government should never have the right to control women's reproductive organs

Women should absolutely have a right to control their reproductive organs.

A baby is not one of a woman's organs.

[BJean 16]

We've been down that road many times before. A fertilized egg is definitely a part of a woman's reproductive organs. You can't have your way about that. It is not a seperate entity. It will not survive outside the womb, at least until people have gone so far as to duplicate a womb. A fertilized egg depends solely on its' host - a woman's reproductive organs - to survive.

If someone invents a contraption that will replace a woman's womb, God forbid, then the argument could change.

[gadgetlady 4]

We've been down that road many times before. A fertilized egg is definitely a part of a woman's reproductive organs.

You can stick your finger in someone's mouth, but that doesn't make your finger part of their mouth. When a man and a woman have sex, his sex organ does not become part of her vagina, even for a short time.

Yes, the unborn baby does reside in the mother's womb. He or she is not, however, part of that womb.

[gadgetlady 4]

If someone invents a contraption that will replace a woman's womb, God forbid, then the argument could change.

So I take it from this that you support a ban on late term abortions, abortions performed after the baby could survive outside the womb. There are roughly 20,000 of these abortions performed every year in the US.

[BJean 16]

Seriously gadget? Seriously? You equate a man's penis in a vagina and a person's finger in a woman's mouth to be in any way similar to a fertilized egg in a woman's womb?

For heaven's sakes. No wonder there's such a huge disconnect between those of us who support women's rights and your wish to take them away. For you, it is a very simple thing. The complexity of the issue as well as the basic biology of the issue seems to be lost on you. I am sincerely amazed and mystified.

[BJean 16]

As for late term abortions, my opinion is that it is a matter between a woman and her medical practioner. I would never be able to make a medical decision like that for another person. And you shouldn't be making them for others either.

If you wish to be influencial in helping another woman make a decision like that, it is your business. You don't seem to have any trouble telling others what is right and what is wrong with the way medicine is practiced today. And that is your perrogative - it is well within your rights to make your opinions known. But I object to your desire to pass a law that makes it illegal for women to make their own decisions when it comes to late term abortions or any other decision that involves a woman's reproductive organs.

[gadgetlady 4]

Seriously gadget? Seriously? You equate a man's penis in a vagina and a person's finger in a woman's mouth to be in any way similar to a fertilized egg in a woman's womb?

I was responding to the claim that the unborn baby is a part of the womb with an analogy. I am not equating the baby with a penis or a finger.

I recently had an ultrasound to determine why I was having some physical problems. It was determined that I had a fibroid in my uterus and a cyst on my ovary. The fibroid was not determined to be part of my uterus and the cyst was not determined to be part of my ovary. They fibroid is in and the cyst is on. They are not part of.

The claim that the unborn baby is part of the womb is not accurate. The unborn baby is not the mother's body but a separate (not separated, but separate) entity.

the basic biology of the issue seems to be lost on you.

Right back at 'cha.

[Carrie_C 9]

Gadget, if the woman's life is in danger, or there is something seriously wrong with the baby, do you still not support late term abortions in these circumstances??

[gadgetlady 4]

As for late term abortions, my opinion is that it is a matter between a woman and her medical practioner.

But why, if there is a "contraption" that will replace the womb?

If someone invents a contraption that will replace a woman's womb, God forbid, then the argument could change.

If the mother's womb is not required to support the baby, as it is not in the case of late-term abortions, why then doesn't the argument change -- as you said it would above?

[BJean 16]

Because the new argument would be why not allow your fertilized egg be developed in this new contraption. Duh.

[BJean 16]

The fertilized egg starts out by being implanted in the woman's tissue.

Your "analogy" is flawed.