who supports right to choose

[marjon9 6]

Abortions aren't performed when the unborn baby is only 4 cells. Abortions are performed after the baby has a beating heart -- because most women don't know they're pregnant until after that time. The majority of abortions are performed between 8 and 12 weeks. At 8 weeks, the baby has unique fingerprints, just like you and I. Clearly, not a "dividing embryo" with only 4 cells.

As I suspected, you would answer with the "everybody knows" answer. You have stated earlier, I believe, that you are in favor of limiting or outlawing (I'm not sure which) late-term abortions. Why is that OK? Who are you to decide that a late-term abortion is unacceptable for a woman who thinks that her late-term baby (oops, sorry, "dividing embryo of 4 . . . or slightly more . . . cells") isn't a human life?

For that matter, who are you to tell Nobel Prize winning men, professors at major universities, and that ilk (all modern figures, not from decades or centuries ago), that newborns aren't worthy of the right to live until they're 28 days old?

Obviously abortions are not performed when an embryo consists of 4 cells, but if you will agree that an embryo with 4 cells is not a human being, then where do we draw the line? And who gets to decide?

I don't know exactly what you mean by the "everybody knows" answer. If you are talking about my statement that "everybody knows" that Jews and African Americans are human beings, then yes, that is how I answer. I am not opposed to taking wisdom and insight from centuries of human experience. I am willing to be guided by the rule of law to the greatest extent my conscience will allow. I don't really understand why you consider that to be improper.

But the "everybody knows" argument does not work with abortions. That's the whole point. Everybody does not know at what point a dividing embryo becomes a human being. There are differences of opinion. And as long as you agree that society, voters, politicians, judges, etc. will be the ones to decide, and not you, then we will have no problems between us at all.

And I make no claim to telling anyone else what to believe or what they must do or think. Remember, that is your game, not mine. If Nobel Prize winners and professors and other distinguished individuals want to believe whatever they want to believe, I have no problems with that at all. My problem comes in where Nobel Prize winners and others want to make laws and use the police power of the state to control my life and force me to live by their rules. I totally reject their right to do that.

To be clear, I totally accept the right of voters, judges, politicians, and society in general to make laws that control my life. And I will abide by such laws except in the most rare circumstances where I am unable to do so for moral reasons.

But I do not accept the right of any particular group, in this case pro lifers, to determine on their own that they have the right to make the rules. Apparently you agree with that, so really, I have no problems left on this issue. I have no need to try and change your views, or tell you that you are wrong, or do that with anyone else either. All I ask is that pro life individuals understand that they are not the one who gets to make the rules. That voters, judges, politicians, and society in general make the rules. Apparently, you do agree with that. So there really are no more problems here as far as I'm concerned.

[anonemouse 1]

Again, big differences. As much as you don't like it, abortion is NOT illegal therefore there is no cause for punishment. Murder and rape are and we do prosecute those who have broken the law.

I am the chairman of the board of our local crisis pregnancy center and I encounter many women who have found themselves pregnant and considering abortion. How helpful would the pregnancy center be if we went around condemning these women who in a lot of cases, have been turned out by their family and friends? Our mission is to help these women.

We educate them on what abortion is because the majority of them, don't know what it really entails and the risks involved for them. If they still choose to have an abortion, we don't turn our backs on them. While we don't encourage anyone to have an abortion, we love them and stay by them during the often times, difficult occurrences after the abortion. That is if they allow us to help them. Many have felt the repercussions of other pro lifers who have condemned them for their decision and don't want to be around any.

Most women who come into our center choose to continue with their pregnancy and have usually decided before the baby is born whether or not they will keep the baby or give it up for adoption. If they choose to give the child up for adoption, we assist them in the process. We work with an adoption agency to place the child with a loving family. If they decide that they want to keep the child, we educate them on how to be a parent. I live in a town with two large universities and therefore we see a lot of pregnant college students who don't have a clue on how to be a parent. Along with educating them, we help them with basic needs such as a place to live, food, clothing, diapers, etc.

It's not easy to tell someone just have the baby and life will be perfect when you see firsthand the turmoil that these women are going through. I have yet to meet someone who was contemplating abortion that didn't have great struggles in reaching a decision. While I am pro life, I don't feel that gives me a right to condemn someone because they have decided was is best for their life. I am called to educate them and support them whatever their decision may be. That doesn't mean that I don't try to change their opinion. I just don't go about it harshly and treat them like an idiot because they choose to view things differently than me.

Thank you for this well-thought response. To me, you are one of the good ones.

A lot of people don't realize that many women who choose to have abortions are in between a rock and a hard place, whether those are of their own making or not, whether they are exagerrated in the mind of the woman or not. Many people say, "Just give the baby up for adoption." In some cases, that works. In others, it doesn't. Would the crack baby of a drug-addicted prostitute have a chance in hell of being adopted? Probably not. In an ideal case, adoption would solve everything. Unfortunately, this world isn't ideal. It's not black and white. Many of these women choose what they feel is the best option for them. It may not be the option that other people would choose, but we don't live their lives, do we?

[gadgetlady 4]

And He did grant amnesty to those two sinners who were hanging on their crosses along side of Him. It seems to me that part of what he was teaching was to embrace simplicity, good works, and a generosity of spirit towards others, even those whom you might judge as being sinners.

Actually, no. He only "granted amnesty" to one: the one who called on Him and accepted Him as Lord. He grants forgiveness to those who ask and who are repentant.

John 8:9-11 (NIV): At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"

"No one, sir," she said.

"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

(this is also, in the NKJ translation, is more commonly quoted as "Go and sin no more"). Jesus calls for us not only to acknowledge our sin and repent of it, but to turn away from it. That's why the second thief on the cross wasn't forgiven; he was more interested in Jesus' power for his own glory than he was in seeking forgiveness for what he had done wrong.

[marjon9 6]

But it doesn't miss the mark at all. What you're forgetting is history. What you're forgetting is that Hitler and the people around him DID BELIEVE that Jews were less than human. And probably some people still believe that. Slave owners DID BELIEVE that slaves were 3/5 of a person. And probably some people still believe that. Certain modern professors and Nobel Prize winners DO BELIEVE that newborns are less than human. You can say it's been corrected and "nobody" believes that anymore, but that doesn't erase the fact that it once existed and was fully believed. And the reasons people gave were perfectly logical to them.

Just because "the majority" doesn't agree NOW doesn't mean that when "the majority" agreed THEN that they were right. "The majority" is right NOW (about Jews and blacks), and "the majority" WAS WRONG then (about Jews and blacks). "The majority" IS WRONG now about abortion.

We can look at history with 20/20 hindsight. We can't look as clearly at the history we are making now. If/when "the majority" (or the politicians or the judges) recognize the humanity of the unborn and we look back at when abortion used to be legal, perhaps we will see 20/20 then, too.

I have not in any way "forgotten" that Hitler and the people around him had certain outrageously evil beliefs. But I don't think that helps you prove your point at all. You see, I don't agree with you that abortion is "evil." Is it possible that someday people will look back and say that abortion was evil like Hitler and slavery? Yes it's possible. But I don't think so.

You have singled out Hitler and slavery as your examples of how the majority is not always right. These are the two examples of the greatest evil and the greatest mistakes in the last several hundred years of human history. I do not think that this helps you prove your point at all. Your argument is that because occassionally human beings make truly horrible mistakes, and in hindsight we see they were wrong, that that means the same thing will happen with abortion. You are welcome to your opinion. I do not agree with you. There are very few examples of mistakes in human history on the level of Hitler and slavery. Just because there are a few, does not in any way tend to prove that abortion will be the next one.

[green 6]

Actually, no. He only "granted amnesty" to one: the one who called on Him and accepted Him as Lord. He grants forgiveness to those who ask and who are repentant.

John 8:9-11 (NIV): At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"

"No one, sir," she said.

"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

(this is also, in the NKJ translation, is more commonly quoted as "Go and sin no more"). Jesus calls for us not only to acknowledge our sin and repent of it, but to turn away from it. That's why the second thief on the cross wasn't forgiven; he was more interested in Jesus' power for his own glory than he was in seeking forgiveness for what he had done wrong.

Thanks for correcting me on this. As you can see my bible knowledge is kinda shakey.

[gadgetlady 4]

Thanks for correcting me on this. As you can see my bible knowledge is kinda shakey.

No problem. I'm happy to help. Any time you have questions about the Bible, feel free to ask

[gadgetlady 4]

OK, let's try this a different way, Mark. Pretend you are climbing into a time travel machine. You go back to the time to America when slavery was legal. The slave owner you run into fully believes blacks are only 3/5 of a person. Convince him otherwise. You can't use the "everybody knows" argument because everybody in his time doesn't know. What evidence will you use to convince him? What scientific facts will you use to support your claim? You can use scientific facts from 2007, if you'd like, but not "in the future we all know", or "in the future it is outlawed for good reason". Give him the reasons.

One, two, three, GO!

[gadgetlady 4]

You have singled out Hitler and slavery as your examples of how the majority is not always right. These are the two examples of the greatest evil and the greatest mistakes in the last several hundred years of human history. I do not think that this helps you prove your point at all. Your argument is that because occassionally human beings make truly horrible mistakes, and in hindsight we see they were wrong, that that means the same thing will happen with abortion. You are welcome to your opinion. I do not agree with you. There are very few examples of mistakes in human history on the level of Hitler and slavery. Just because there are a few, does not in any way tend to prove that abortion will be the next one.

(emphasis added)

The reason I use the arguments of slavery and Hitler is not because they were great evils, but because they were great evils which were based on the belief that certain human beings were not 100% human and therefore could be exterminated at the whim of those who were 100% human. There are many other great evils in history, but not all were based on the premise that people can be exterminated if they are deemed to be sub-human. These two were. And abortion is, too.

[niecyrenee 2]

Thank you for this well-thought response. To me, you are one of the good ones.

A lot of people don't realize that many women who choose to have abortions are in between a rock and a hard place, whether those are of their own making or not, whether they are exagerrated in the mind of the woman or not. Many people say, "Just give the baby up for adoption." In some cases, that works. In others, it doesn't. Would the crack baby of a drug-addicted prostitute have a chance in hell of being adopted? Probably not. In an ideal case, adoption would solve everything. Unfortunately, this world isn't ideal. It's not black and white. Many of these women choose what they feel is the best option for them. It may not be the option that other people would choose, but we don't live their lives, do we?

Thank you Laurend. I try to go into the R&R section with an open mind because I know that others view things differently then I do but that doesn't give me the right to treat them like an uneducated fool. IMO, it's a no win situation when you try to force your views on someone else. We can discuss things as rational adults and point out why we feel as we do but we don't have to resort to fighting or sulking because someone else chooses to feel differently. That is one reason why I have respect for you and several others on here because you state your views and even if someone doesn't agree with you, you take it in stride and move on. You don't try to force them to believe like you do.

We were all given free will but how quickly we tend to forget that when someone doesn't agree with us. I wish that some here would step back and look at the message they are sending. I have to admit that I am often embarrassed because Christians preach love and then demonstrate the opposite. No wonder Christians have lost the respect of many.

It continues to baffle me how some people can think that this is an easy decision for all women who choose to abort. How could it be easy? A lot of these women have gotten themselves into a position where they are ashamed of themselves and yet they know that whatever choice they make, they will make someone upset with them and will face further scrutiny. You are so correct, we don't live their lives. We can never truly understand what someone else goes through. My heart goes out to them.

I know that lapband and abortion are two totally different things and normally wouldn't be lumped together but sometimes I feel bandsters have a small insight into what they must be thinking about their situation. What I mean by that is, when a women finds herself in a "crisis" pregnancy, she is often looked down upon because she allowed herself to get into that position. Then when she does make her decision, she is condemned for not choosing what someone else would (rather that be to abort or not). That same goes for people who choose to have wls. We are often ridiculed because we allowed ourselves to become overweight but when we make a decision to do something about it, we are condemned.

[marjon9 6]

(emphasis added)

The reason I use the arguments of slavery and Hitler is not because they were great evils, but because they were great evils which were based on the belief that certain human beings were not 100% human and therefore could be exterminated at the whim of those who were 100% human. There are many other great evils in history, but not all were based on the premise that people can be exterminated if they are deemed to be sub-human. These two were. And abortion is, too.

Obviously I understand that this is why you are using these arguments. I just do not believe that these two horrible examples in any way support your opinion that abortion is the next similar example. Just because there are examples in the past of how human beings were considered less than human does not mean that abortion suffers from the same misconception today. You have the right to your opinion, certainly. But the existence of Hitler and slavery does not in any way tend to "prove" that abortion is the next similar example. There is simply no connection between these examples from the past and abortion today except your own personal opinion that abortion is "just like Hitler and slavery." That argument is totally without substance and it is not even remotely convincing to me. There's no "there" there, as the saying goes.

[anonemouse 1]

Thank you Laurend. I try to go into the R&R section with an open mind because I know that others view things differently then I do but that doesn't give me the right to treat them like an uneducated fool. IMO, it's a no win situation when you try to force your views on someone else. We can discuss things as rational adults and point out why we feel as we do but we don't have to resort to fighting or sulking because someone else chooses to feel differently. That is one reason why I have respect for you and several others on here because you state your views and even if someone doesn't agree with you, you take it in stride and move on. You don't try to force them to believe like you do.

We were all given free will but how quickly we tend to forget that when someone doesn't agree with us. I wish that some here would step back and look at the message they are sending. I have to admit that I am often embarrassed because Christians preach love and then demonstrate the opposite. No wonder Christians have lost the respect of many.

It continues to baffle me how some people can think that this is an easy decision for all women who choose to abort. How could it be easy? A lot of these women have gotten themselves into a position where they are ashamed of themselves and yet they know that whatever choice they make, they will make someone upset with them and will face further scrutiny. You are so correct, we don't live their lives. We can never truly understand what someone else goes through. My heart goes out to them.

I know that lapband and abortion are two totally different things and normally wouldn't be lumped together but sometimes I feel bandsters have a smallinsight into what they must be thinking about their situation. What I mean by that is, when a women finds herself in a "crisis" pregnancy, she is often looked down upon because she allowed herself to get into that position. Then when she does make her decision, she is condemned for not choosing what someone else would (rather that be to abort or not). That same goes for people who choose to have wls. We are often ridiculed because we allowed ourselves to become overweight but when we make a decision to do something about it, we are condemned.

You stated that wonderfully, Denise. And you know what? The "d" in my username stands for my middle name, which is Denise. It's nice to meet another Denise, since the name isn't exactly a dime a dozen!

I try to be understanding and rational here in RnR, but I'll admit that there are a few topics that really get me going. I can usually keep a cool head, but occasionally (usually when I feel especially insulted or am just completely frustrated with either the argument or real life), I let my Scotch/Irish nature get the best of me. I come from a family with some extremely bad tempers. We're usually slow to anger, but once we do, watch out!

[niecyrenee 2]

You stated that wonderfully, Denise. And you know what? The "d" in my username stands for my middle name, which is Denise. It's nice to meet another Denise, since the name isn't exactly a dime a dozen!

How cool is that?!? I used to be embarrassed of my name when I was a child. To me it was an odd name because there were never any other Denise's in school. Now, I have grown to like my name and am happy that there aren't several others around. It makes me feel unique.

[marjon9 6]

OK, let's try this a different way, Mark. Pretend you are climbing into a time travel machine. You go back to the time to America when slavery was legal. The slave owner you run into fully believes blacks are only 3/5 of a person. Convince him otherwise. You can't use the "everybody knows" argument because everybody in his time doesn't know. What evidence will you use to convince him? What scientific facts will you use to support your claim? You can use scientific facts from 2007, if you'd like, but not "in the future we all know", or "in the future it is outlawed for good reason". Give him the reasons.

One, two, three, GO!

I don't understand your point here. But aside from that, I don't believe I have the responsibility to convice pro-life people that abortion is a good thing. That's not my job. And I have no inclination to do so. In fact, I am glad the pro-life movement is here because it forces us all to examine important and difficulte questions. I'm glad for that debate. I don't claim to have all the answers, and I'm not trying to convince anyone else that I am right and they are wrong.

The ONLY thing I have ever asked on this issue is that pro-life individuals understand that no matter how deeply held their beliefs may be that an dividing embryo is a human life, that other people who are just as intelligent and compassionate disagree. And that the pro-life group does not get to set the rules for others to follow simply because they really, really, really, really, really believe that abortion is killing a human being. As long as pro-life individuals understand that it is the voters, the judges, the politicians, and society in general that will make the rules that control people's lives, I have no problem.

[niecyrenee 2]

The ONLY thing I have ever asked on this issue is that pro-life individuals understand that no matter how deeply held their beliefs may be that an dividing embryo is a human life, that other people who are just as intelligent and compassionate disagree. And that the pro-life group does not get to set the rules for others to follow simply because they really, really, really, really, really believe that abortion is killing a human being. As long as pro-life individuals understand that it is the voters, the judges, the politicians, and society in general that will make the rules that control people's lives, I have no problem.

Very well stated. How can we demand that someone change their views simply because we feel it is right? We can't. If, during a normal discussion on the subject I present information that makes them reexamine their beliefs and they choose to change their opinion, great. If not, I have to respect their decision. It's as simple as that. Demanding that someone do something never sets well, presenting facts and discussing things does.

[gadgetlady 4]

I don't understand your point here. But aside from that, I don't believe I have the responsibility to convice pro-life people that abortion is a good thing. That's not my job. And I have no inclination to do so.

Yup, that's what I thought you would say. In fact, I almost posted before you did that I'm quite positive you wouldn't take me up on the challenge. I know why, too. And it's not because you don't get the point or it's not your job.

Anyone else want to take the time-travel challenge?

And that the pro-life group does not get to set the rules for others to follow simply because they really, really, really, really, really believe that abortion is killing a human being. As long as pro-life individuals understand that it is the voters, the judges, the politicians, and society in general that will make the rules that control people's lives, I have no problem.

I'm a bit confused here. What pro-lifers do you know who make the decision for other people? You keep bringing this up, but I don't get it. The pro-lifers I know lobby, protest, march, run pregnancy counseling centers, debate, run homes for unwed mothers, donate to the cause, try to influence politicians to pass laws, educate people, engage in civil disobedience, etc. Not a single one of them holds a gun to a woman's head and makes the decision for her. Not a single one of them "gets to set the rules for others to follow". They (we) have a belief and we act accordingly to change the law and society around us.