who supports right to choose

[gadgetlady 4]

The reason the woman has all of the say is because it is her body.

But the baby is not her body. He or she is just living there temporarily.

Scenario 1: a man kicks a pregnant mother in the stomach repeatedly and causes the unborn baby to die. He can be charged with murder. But the mother's not dead, so you have to ask the question: who did he murder? Clearly, he murdered the baby. So the baby wasn't her body, but another body, another person in his or her own right.

Scenario 2: the mother does the same thing to the baby that the man did above (that is, kill him or her) and yet not be held responsible at all.

In Scenario 1, the baby has a right to live and someone taking away that right is responsible for killing him or her. In Scenario 2, the baby doesn't have a right to live and the someone taking away that right (the mother) isn't responsible for killing him or her.

What's the difference between the two scenarios? The baby isn't any different at all. The difference in whether or not the baby has the "right" to live is 100% in the mind of the mother. If she decides he's a person, he's a person. If she decides he's not, he's not. That's social injustice of the worst sort, when one person determines the value of another to the point of death.

[rodriguezequal 3]

The fetus is apart of the womans body until it is born...If the mother kills the baby illegally without the help of a legal abortion then she as held responsible just like if someone was to kick her or punch her and kill the baby...

[Carrie_C 9]

I get what you are saying gadget. But I think in most cases for a man to be charged with murder of an unborn child, the mother has to be like 7 months pregnant. I think the baby has to be far enough developed that it could survive on its own if it were born. I think only then can the person be charged with murder. (I may be wrong, but I think that is what it is based on). Like that guy Scott Peterson who killed his wife. She was 8 months pregnant, so therefore they charged him with killing the baby too because he could have survived on his own. There was a case here where I live not too long ago. A guy beat up his girlfriend, she was like 5 months pregnant. She lived, but the baby died. The prosecutors tried to charge him with murdering the baby. But he got away with it because they said the baby couldn't have survived on its own at 5 months. I can still see that girl crying on tv as the judge said that. It was very sad. I agree that it is a very fine line.

[pattygreen 5]

My daughter was 5 months pregnant when she went into labor, and now her son is almost 4. Babies can survive at 5 months.

Even so, who is going to make that decision as to when it becomes a life in the womb or not? I believe it is at the moment of conception, you believe it's when the baby can survive on its own. Others say after 3 months, that's too late to abort. Who's right?

Most of the people in America claim to be christian. I say lets go with the majority vote. I've always felt that controversial issues should be voted upon by the American people. Why can't we put these things to a vote like we do the presidency. A one time vote every 5 or 10 years. All the questions on the ballot. Abortion, Gay marriages, death penalty,etc.

[Carrie_C 9]

They just had a vote in utah or somewhere during the last election and the majority wanted to keep abortion legal.

[gadgetlady 4]

But I think in most cases for a man to be charged with murder of an unborn child, the mother has to be like 7 months pregnant. I think the baby has to be far enough developed that it could survive on its own if it were born. I think only then can the person be charged with murder. (I may be wrong, but I think that is what it is based on).

The laws vary by state. In California (of all places!), a man who kills a pregnant mother, even if she doesn't yet know she's pregnant (i.e. first trimester), is held accountable for two murders. Case law on this are the 1999 murders of a pregnant mother and first trimester child by a man named Howard Taylor.

[gadgetlady 4]

The fetus is apart of the womans body until it is born...If the mother kills the baby illegally without the help of a legal abortion then she as held responsible just like if someone was to kick her or punch her and kill the baby...

So what you're saying is that it is reasonable that the only "proper" way to kill an unborn baby is clinically? That if it's done this way, it's acceptable, but another way (a mother falling down on something to facilitate her own abortion) is murder? Do you see the logical inconsistency here? If "it" is her body, then if she chooses to attempt her own abortion without the help of an abortionist, why should this be murder? Or, conversely, why is it not murder if she gets assistance?

Try to step away from the whole emotional and experiential component of abortion and think this through from a logical standpoint. Do you see why there are problems here?

[gadgetlady 4]

My daughter was 5 months pregnant when she went into labor, and now her son is almost 4. Babies can survive at 5 months.

They survive earlier and earlier as time goes on. Yet Tiller, the famous late-term abortionist in Kansas, throwing all logic and reason to the wind for the sake of financial profit, basically says viability "is in the eye of the beholder."

I say lets go with the majority vote.

I don't agree with this idea. Because the majority can, and often are, wrong. Mob rule is not the answer. Suppose the majority voted for killing everyone with blue eyes? In the case of abortion, a fundamental right (life!) is at stake and shouldn't be able to be voted in or out.

Along those lines, several states are no bringing forth "Personhood Amendments" to their constitution, establishing that personhood, membership to the human race, begins at conception. This will hopefully work its way up the courts to tackle what's known as the "Blackmun hole" in Roe. Justice Blackmun, in the majority opinion on Roe, said that if the personhood of the unborn could be established, abortion should not be tolerated for any reason.

Since the science of fetology has come a long way since 1973, this issue is finally being addressed.

[gadgetlady 4]

For more information on Personhood Amendments, go to Welcome to Personhood USA | Personhood USA | Pro-Life. Currently North Dakota and Montana are well on their way to passing these amendments. It has passed the senate in Montana and the house in North Dakota.

[Carrie_C 9]

I think with Obama in office, abortion isn't going to be illegal any time soon.

[BJean 16]

Deeming a fertilized egg, i.e., a clump of cells, the responsibility of "personhood" is an absolutely exteme concept that opens such a can of worms that it is not to be believed. It just shows us how nutty the anti-choice people are in their zeal to make abortion illegal again.

Making abortion illegal, or claiming that a 3 day old clump of cells deserves to be recognized as a "personhood" is never going to work. Just as making abortion illegal did mot work.

The reason a woman isn't charged with murder is because it is her clump of cells and she's responsible for providing an environmental anatomy capable and ready to allow a sperm to penetrate her egg and then allowing or even encouraging that fertlized egg to be nurtured and developed into a fetus and then providing the nourishment that allows the fetus to continue in its' development until it is full-term and subsequently she delivers a baby, however if at any point in that development she is unable or even unwilling to allow these physical changes to occur in her body, she cannot be charged with murder. Only after a live child is delivered and she physically murders it, is there a possiblity of her being procesuted for murder. In other words, when a murder actually occurs.

If this "personhood" thing were adopted, when, where and how would they determine if the woman was a murderer if for some reason, the development during any point in this process were to cease?

People are absolutely insane when it comes to the abortion issue. Fortunately most people are not so extreme and outrageous; they are much more intelligent and practical when it comes to issues of these kinds. They know that there are some things, some very personal things, that should never be legislated.

Many years ago abortion was illegal and at the same time there were states where certain sexual acts between two consenting adults (including married adults) were illegal. It was a time when certain people in society annointed themselves the morality police. They thought that the Bible told them that God didn't want people to participate in certain sexual activties and so they decided that it was within their rights to pass laws making those sex acts illegal and to prosecute people who did them.

Lets' not take any giant steps backward. We have learned from our mistakes. Lets' not listen to the extremists who want to tell the rest of us what we can and cannot do with our bodies because it is absolutely no one's business but our own.

In other words religious, God-fearing, extremists may believe that devient sexual activities between two consenting adults is not what God intended for sexual partners and abortion may not be what God intended for women, but it is not smart or practical for those people to pass laws gainst those activities because there is an entire segment of society (the majority) who have different beliefs and are on just as high a moral ground, whether the extremists believe that or not.

[BJean 16]

Carrie I hope you're right. And I also hope that his position on this particular issue doesn't cost him his life.

[coltonwade 27]

They survive earlier and earlier as time goes on. Yet Tiller, the famous late-term abortionist in Kansas, throwing all logic and reason to the wind for the sake of financial profit, basically says viability "is in the eye of the beholder."

I don't agree with this idea. Because the majority can, and often are, wrong. Mob rule is not the answer. Suppose the majority voted for killing everyone with blue eyes? In the case of abortion, a fundamental right (life!) is at stake and shouldn't be able to be voted in or out.

Along those lines, several states are no bringing forth "Personhood Amendments" to their constitution, establishing that personhood, membership to the human race, begins at conception. This will hopefully work its way up the courts to tackle what's known as the "Blackmun hole" in Roe. Justice Blackmun, in the majority opinion on Roe, said that if the personhood of the unborn could be established, abortion should not be tolerated for any reason.

Since the science of fetology has come a long way since 1973, this issue is finally being addressed.

They survive earlier and earlier because docs push the envelope . there are guidlelines . If a doc goes beyond those guidelines ( As they did in the octomom case ) Then they are pushed. Most guidelines and some state laws I believe say a fetus is not viable until its 22-24 weeks. A doc pushes that and tries to "save" one at 20 week.s What happens ? You have a baby then that has survived BUT has more physical damage and has no quality of life.

So to say they are "surviving " younger and younger is not quite an accurate or fair statement.

Surviving at what price ?

And at who's hands and who's choice ?

Mindy

[Carrie_C 9]

I think it is good that babies are being saved sooner. Not all of them have problems.

[rodriguezequal 3]

So what you're saying is that it is reasonable that the only "proper" way to kill an unborn baby is clinically? That if it's done this way, it's acceptable, but another way (a mother falling down on something to facilitate her own abortion) is murder? Do you see the logical inconsistency here? If "it" is her body, then if she chooses to attempt her own abortion without the help of an abortionist, why should this be murder? Or, conversely, why is it not murder if she gets assistance?

Try to step away from the whole emotional and experiential component of abortion and think this through from a logical standpoint. Do you see why there are problems here?

I did not in any part of my post say "proper". I did not say it was murder. I said that is the way it is now. I did not say agreed with it. I said that right now if an abortion is done illegally that the woman is held reasponsible for the death...I didn;t say where I stood one that issue...maybe you should read my posts more than once before you come at me with logic....thank you.