who supports right to choose

[BJean 16]

You can't lay a zygote or fertilized egg out on a table and expect it to assemble itself and become a fully produced human being, just like you can't gather some car parts and expect it to assemble itself and be considered a car.

Without the mother, who can be considered the robot, mechanic, the painter, the oiler and fully the producer of the end product (a baby), there will be no baby.

This analogy is growing on me. A baby is the sum of his parts.

As for gadget's comment: "Ergo, legal through all 9 months of pregnancy. If, according to you, no restrictions should be placed on it at all, it means legal through natural birth."

The whole decision-making process should not be in the hands of the government. So restrictions are not necessary without laws allowing the government to tell women when they can (or maybe even they can't) have a baby.

It's just not something that should be governed by a law. Only the women involved are knowledgable about each and every component that will rule the decision-making process. We sure don't need the government or a group of zealots telling women in this country what they can or cannot do when they are faced with an unplanned, unwanted, impossible to endure pregnancy.

[gadgetlady 4]

The growing that happens with a fetus is different from the growing of a newborn and a toddler...the toddler isn't growing limbs or developing new organs...

So what defines or constitutes a fully "produced" human being? Where do you draw the line between a baby who should be protected against killing and one who shouldn't?

[gadgetlady 4]

As for gadget's comment: "Ergo, legal through all 9 months of pregnancy. If, according to you, no restrictions should be placed on it at all, it means legal through natural birth."

The whole decision-making process should not be in the hands of the government. So restrictions are not necessary without laws allowing the government to tell women when they can (or maybe even they can't) have a baby.

It's just not something that should be governed by a law. Only the women involved are knowledgable about each and every component that will rule the decision-making process. We sure don't need the government or a group of zealots telling women in this country what they can or cannot do when they are faced with an unplanned, unwanted, impossible to endure pregnancy.

If you say that the government should have no right to intervenne in any decision a pregnant mother makes about her baby, then you are de facto saying abortion should be legal through all 9 months of pregnancy. I know it's not a particularly pleasant thing to advocate, but that's absolutely what you're saying.

[gadgetlady 4]

Here's a question that I'd love to hear an answer from -- from anyone.

If/when medical science advances to a stage where an unborn baby can be removed from the mother's body in a procedure as "easy" as abortion, and placed in another person's body or sustained with machines, how would you feel about requiring the preservation of the unborn's life (instead of destroying it through abortion)?

I know you think this question is "out there", but remember that doctors are in the process of working on an artificial placenta right now.

[rodriguezequal 3]

I think that would be great....only if that is the option that the mother wishes to take...

[gadgetlady 4]

I think that would be great....only if that is the option that the mother wishes to take...

The question is whether you (not you specifically but whoever answers the question) would accept a law that made it mandatory for the life of the unborn child to be preserved, assuming the procedure to preserve that life were just as invasive as the procedure to kill that life. The mother would have no further legal or financial obligation to the child.

[rodriguezequal 3]

I missed to required party sorry...lol. Trying to read and watch my son lmao....I don't think it should be required...no

[gadgetlady 4]

I missed to required party sorry...lol. Trying to read and watch my son lmao....I don't think it should be required...no

No problem -- I understand doing 12 things at once!

This question gets to the heart of motive. I know everyone didn't answer it (just you), but I hope everyone at least thinks about it in their own mind because it really speaks to a big issue.

What you're saying in your answer is that a mother owns her child and can do with him or her whatever she wants, even to the point of death. That if she wants to take that child's life, even if it's at zero inconvenience to her, she will have zero medical issues, zero financial obligations, and zero legal obligations, it is still her right to decide whether her child lives or dies.

Basically, what you're saying is that a mother's "right" to abortion isn't a right to be "un-pregnant", but rather it's a right to have a dead baby. The arguments made previously center around her having the "right" to do whatever she wants because the baby is connected to her body. But if she has the right to do whatever she wants even if the baby can be easily "dis-connected" from her body at zero inconvenience to her, then the crux of the matter isn't really the connection; it's her motherhood. And the problem is, no matter what, abortion or not, a pregnant mother already has a baby; her only decision at that point is the fate of the baby.

[rodriguezequal 3]

The baby is HER baby...not the governments. I am saying that if she chooses to abort than that is what should happen...if she should decide to carry the baby and give it up for adoption then that is her choice. It is her genes, it is her dna...it is her choice what happens to her fetus.

[rodriguezequal 3]

You can say that there will be no responsibility...well what happens when the baby grows up and wants to know their real mom....what happens when they track her down and ask her why...that is still apart of her out there....it is the woman's choice...and her choice alone unless she wishes to include someone else...

[gadgetlady 4]

The baby is HER baby...not the governments. I am saying that if she chooses to abort than that is what should happen...if she should decide to carry the baby and give it up for adoption then that is her choice. It is her genes, it is her dna...it is her choice what happens to her fetus.

Then when does the baby cease to be the property of the mother? Does the mother have the right to kill her child 3 months after birth if she can't handle having a baby? I know your answer to that will be obviously no, so I'm asking the question: by what criteria do we determine precisely when a baby has a right to live and not be killed by someone else? You previously indicated that this happens once the baby is born, but now what you're saying is that it doesn't matter if the baby can be physically separated from her body with no affect on her; she still has the right to kill the baby. So my question is when does her baby's right to live begin and her right to kill him or her end? Given the scenario above, it can't be "separation from the mother" -- then when is it?

[gadgetlady 4]

You can say that there will be no responsibility...well what happens when the baby grows up and wants to know their real mom....what happens when they track her down and ask her why...that is still apart of her out there....it is the woman's choice...and her choice alone unless she wishes to include someone else...

Since the scenario is hypothetical, we can assume those protections will be guaranteed. In the scenario, what I'm trying to get at is motive, not specifics of how it would work. What you're saying is that the mother's right isn't to be unpregnant, but to have a dead baby. The problem is, you can't wipe the existence of the pregnacy and the baby off of her history. A mother who has aborted was pregnant, had a baby, and now has a deceased baby. She isn't in a state of never having been pregnant, and she can never be in that state. Just like someone who has cancer will always have had it, even if they beat it. And someone who owned a house will always have had it, even if they lose it. Abortion doesn't reverse or negate motherhood.

[rodriguezequal 3]

Then when does the baby cease to be the property of the mother? Does the mother have the right to kill her child 3 months after birth if she can't handle having a baby? I know your answer to that will be obviously no, so I'm asking the question: by what criteria do we determine precisely when a baby has a right to live and not be killed by someone else? You previously indicated that this happens once the baby is born, but now what you're saying is that it doesn't matter if the baby can be physically separated from her body with no affect on her; she still has the right to kill the baby. So my question is when does her baby's right to live begin and her right to kill him or her end? Given the scenario above, it can't be "separation from the mother" -- then when is it?

I think you answered your own question here. When the baby is born...not extracted from the mother's body. When the mother has the baby through the process of giving birth then the baby has the protection of the law. The senerio you are playing out says that the procedure would be the same as abortion, but it isn't. The government does not have the right to dictate if a woman must be a mother or must birth a child even if she doesn't wish to...Would it be okay if the government looked at a woman and said...we're going to go ahead and have you get your uterus removed because you shouldn't have kids...?

[gadgetlady 4]

I think you answered your own question here. When the baby is born...not extracted from the mother's body. When the mother has the baby through the process of giving birth then the baby has the protection of the law.

I didn't answer my own question. That's why I was asking you to answer it. So it is the physical act of giving birth, whether induced, emergency, c-section, natural, etc. that bestows the right to life on the baby? And prior to this method of delivery, whether natural or not, the baby has no right to live and is at the total whim and mercy of the mother?

The senerio you are playing out says that the procedure would be the same as abortion, but it isn't. The government does not have the right to dictate if a woman must be a mother or must birth a child even if she doesn't wish to.

The government doesn't dictate when a women becomes a mother. She is a mother when she becomes pregnant. What I'm advocating is the protection of the baby she is pregnant with, not forced motherhood. Motherhood exists at the time of conception.

Would it be okay if the government looked at a woman and said...we're going to go ahead and have you get your uterus removed because you shouldn't have kids...?

Absolutely not. The government has no right to intervene in a woman's decision about her own body. The only time they have the right to intervene is when another person's body is involved.

[rodriguezequal 3]

I'm pretty sure that when a women is pregnant they use the term mother to be...not mother...and yes you did answer your own question when you asked it you said, but I know you answer will be....