who supports right to choose

[marjon9 6]

Any scientist who tells you that the inception of human being's life is at some time other than conception is lying, trying to evade the issue, or trying to support a political agenda.

Now, there's an argument that is sure to change minds and bring people to your cause. Does arrogance and disrespect really get you where you want to go?

Regardless of whether you are right or wrong about any point, do you really not see the value of an attractive presentation? Your presentation is so repellant that I think it is fair to say that you literally encourage abortions every time you speak.

[gadgetlady 4]

Now, there's an argument that is sure to change minds and bring people to your cause. Does arrogance and disrespect really get you where you want to go?

Regardless of whether you are right or wrong about any point, do you really not see the value of an attractive presentation? Your presentation is so repellant that I think it is fair to say that you literally encourage abortions every time you speak.

Welcome back! I thought you were too bored to continue.

Why do I display arrogance and disrespect when I bring up scientific facts?

I guess the real problem is you can't dispute my arguments so you fall back on attacking me with the ludicrous statement that I encourage abortions with my scientific facts.

[marjon9 6]

Welcome back! I thought you were too bored to continue.

Why do I display arrogance and disrespect when I bring up scientific facts?

I guess the real problem is you can't dispute my arguments so you fall back on attacking me with the ludicrous statement that I encourage abortions with my scientific facts.

You don't display arrogance and disrespect at all when you bring up scientific facts. But you definitely do display arrogance and disrespect when you make the statement that all scientists who express a certain view are "lying to support a political agenda." Accusing a scientist of "lying" is not really a "scientific fact," now is it.

But it does not surprise me at all that you refuse to actually confront the issue I raised, and instead seek to obscure it by changing the subject and making irrelevant comments in response to what I said.

Actually, I welcome the relentless barrage of pro-life hysteria that some on this forum continue to spew. It is one of the best tools in the pro-choice arsenal to make sure that the fewest possible number of people will ever agree with your side. Keep it comin'!!

[gadgetlady 4]

Methinks you just like to argue. Facts are irrelevant to you as long as you can accuse or attempt to intimidate. I didn't name any particular scientist and call him a liar. I said "Any scientist who tells you that the inception of human being's life is at some time other than conception is lying, trying to evade the issue, or trying to support a political agenda."

So can you demonstrate to me a time other than conception when, scientifically, a separate human being is created? Not "I think" or "people disagree", or "nobody knows", but scientifically -- when is the separate DNA of a separate person in evidence?

Yup, I'm driving women to abortion clinics in droves with my arguments.

[marjon9 6]

Methinks you just like to argue. Facts are irrelevant to you as long as you can accuse or attempt to intimidate. I didn't name any particular scientist and call him a liar. I said "Any scientist who tells you that the inception of human being's life is at some time other than conception is lying, trying to evade the issue, or trying to support a political agenda."

So can you demonstrate to me a time other than conception when, scientifically, a separate human being is created? Not "I think" or "people disagree", or "nobody knows", but scientifically -- when is the separate DNA of a separate person in evidence?

Yup, I'm driving women to abortion clinics in droves with my arguments.

As I have stated many times, I do not believe that this is something that is susceptible of scientific proof. We all see the same "facts," and we all see the same "science," but these things mean different things to different people. In my view (as you know I have stated repeatedly), the point where life begins is a matter of conscience, not science.

Ah, but what about the different DNA, you argue. Again, that changes nothing at all. We all see the same facts, and we all see the same science. We simply interpret these things differently. No amount of "science" is going to change that. The "science" is there. We just disagree about what it means.

The pro-choice people look at this scenario and say, "we respect you and your point of view, but we respectfully disagree." In contrast, the hysterical pro life bunch looks at this scenario and says "you are all a bunch of insincere, selfish liars who put your own convenience ahead of the life of a child, you will say anything to forward a political agenda. How can we respect a bunch of evil, blood-soaked baby killers...." etc. etc.

Yes, gadget, like it or not, you and your ilk are, indeed, driving women to abortion clinics in droves with your arguments.

[anonemouse 1]

So can you demonstrate to me a time other than conception when, scientifically, a separate human being is created? Not "I think" or "people disagree", or "nobody knows", but scientifically -- when is the separate DNA of a separate person in evidence?

Which do you want to know? The separate DNA or the separate person? Those are two different things. Logically, the creation of a separate person would entail that the two people are entirely separate (i.e., they can live apart from each other and one does not depend on the other for life).

[gadgetlady 4]

Yes, gadget, like it or not, you and your ilk are, indeed, driving women to abortion clinics in droves with your arguments.

But I thought NOBODY wanted to have an abortion? So how could I be driving them in droves with my arguments? If they didn't want to have one, nothing I argued would convince them otherwise. You're just being silly and contradicting yourself.

[gadgetlady 4]

Which do you want to know? The separate DNA or the separate person? Those are two different things. Logically, the creation of a separate person would entail that the two people are entirely separate (i.e., they can live apart from each other and one does not depend on the other for life).

Are you saying that when a mother is pregnant she has two sets of DNA? I'm confused. Obviously she is carrying the other being in her womb, but it IS a separate being in the sense that it is not HER, it is ITSELF.

[396power 2]

Some of you do not believe in a woman's right to an abortion. Some of us do believe that women should be the ones to make decisions about their reproductive organs.

Many posts have been made back and forth. The pro-lifers (I'm always confused by the use of that term by anti-choice people because I consider pro-choice or pro-abortion people to be pro-life), are adamant and firm in their beliefs. They want abortion of any kind to be illegal. They believe that they are quite capable of making decisions for all women with regard to whether every pregnant woman should be compelled - forced, by law - to carry that potential human being to full term. (If the fertilized egg is physically capable of becoming a baby.)

I would like for those people who present themelves as being the only right ones in this argument, to consider something that makes more sense to me than any African-American slavery or Hilter analogy.

What if the pro-abortionists became a huge majority in numbers and they spewed hatred toward any woman who became pregnant out of wedlock because they believed it was incredibly wrong for an out-of-wedlock pregnant woman to go to term with the pregnancy and subsequently give birth. What if the vast numbers of pro-abortionists worked hard to prove that the world is over-populated and that over-population contributes to global warming and to the eventual end to civilization as we know it. What if that argument was so compelling and popular that the law was changed to reflect that belief. What if the new law required that any woman who was unmarried and became pregnant must have an abortion. How would you feel if that became the law of the land?

Well, pro-choice people feel that is the same kind of power you are wanting to wield over all women in this country. The pro-choice beliefs and new law would require women to do something you totally do not believe in, to us that is no different than your efforts to require women to do something that we just as strongly do not believe in right now, today.

They are not making decisions about thier own reproductive organs. They are making decisions about another beings organs! If they would have made a choice about their own reproductive organs in the first place, Most of them would not need to make a choice too have an abortion!

[396power 2]

And your wording of "completely separate being" is actually key to a point I would like to make. Is a being really "completely separate" when it has to be incubated by another being to survive? If a fetus were truly a "completely separate being," it would be able to survive outside its mother's womb. It can't, therefore, it isn't.

Well I guess you are not human either. You also have to be incubated to survive. If you did not live in this atmosphere you would not survive, Right? But you have things you need like air,gravity,ozone layer,ect ect.. Just like the baby gets oxygen from its mother,protection from falling from amneotic Fluid and protection from the sun (wow a mother is kind of like our atmosphere<grin>.

[396power 2]

As a scientist, I respectfully disagree. Science does NOT point to a creator. And as a scientist, I've learned to disregard the opinions of people who say "evolution is just a theory." It shows that they know nothing about science and probably nothing about evolutionary theory. Let me let you in on a little secret: A scientific "theory" and a common-language "theory" aren't the same thing. A scientific theory is backed up by lots and lots of evidence. Otherwise, it would be called a hypothesis. A common-language "theory" has basically the same definition as "idea." It's a possible solution, with little or no evidence supporting it. A common-language "theory" is the same as the scientific "hypothesis." Evolution isn't called "the hypothesis of evolution." It's called "the theory of evolution."

Just to let you know, If it was not a theory It would be a law. It can not be proven so it is a theory!

[Carlene 12]

I just thought I'd throw this into the mix...

In the rare instance of conjoined twins, the decision of whether to separate them or not is generally left up to the parents, and often one of the twins is sacrificed to give the other a chance to live a normal life. To my knowledge, this matter has never been legislated - probably because it is such a rarity. But would you say those parents who opt for surgical separation, when there is a 100% chance that one of the children will die, are murderers? Or should they allow no intervention, even if it means that neither twin will survive?

I realize this isn't the same thing as abortion, but it does parallel a bit the discussion of whether two people who cannot live as separate individuals have equal rights.

[Daffodil 0]

Neicyrenee, I just wanted to say how much I appreciate your cool-headed approach to this. You are completely respectful of other people and their opinions, and it truly is refreshing.

Like other people have said, honey draws more flies than vinegar. Your approach to this is much more likely to draw converts than some of the other styles in evidence. People aren't attracted to the ideas of people who call them murderers. That's a cold, hard fact.

You have respect for our position, and I can honestly say that I respect your position also, if for no other reason than the fact that you are polite and respectful of the people around you (and not calling them murderers or saying that their opinion is a "stain on them").

OK, let's say you hear someone passionately advocating murder, rape, child abuse...would you not strongly and vociferously condemn that person? Or would you be "polite and respectful " towards them? When a judge metes out a sentence to a convicted killer or rapist or terrorist, does he not call the person, or at least the deed "evil"? C'mon, folks. Let's not be politically correct to the point of ridiculousness. YOU feel strongly about murder, rape, car jacking, child abuse...I feel that abortion is most assuredly murder ! Why should I act so polite and respectful about it? It's because you have convinced yourself that abortion is just a choice...like buying a Buick instead of a Jeep, having blonde hair instead of brown...that you speak the words abortion and respectful together amazes me. Who respects the human rights of the child-to-be?

[marjon9 6]

OK, let's say you hear someone passionately advocating murder, rape, child abuse...would you not strongly and vociferously condemn that person? Or would you be "polite and respectful " towards them? When a judge metes out a sentence to a convicted killer or rapist or terrorist, does he not call the person, or at least the deed "evil"? C'mon, folks. Let's not be politically correct to the point of ridiculousness. YOU feel strongly about murder, rape, car jacking, child abuse...I feel that abortion is most assuredly murder ! Why should I act so polite and respectful about it? It's because you have convinced yourself that abortion is just a choice...like buying a Buick instead of a Jeep, having blonde hair instead of brown...that you speak the words abortion and respectful together amazes me. Who respects the human rights of the child-to-be?

The difference, Daffodil, is that society is virtually unanimous in its conclusion that rape, murder, car jacking, child abuse, etc, are horrible crimes that require vociferous condemnation. Abortion is not like that. Society is divided. Indeed, your view is in the minority. This makes a difference.

As I understand it, your goal in this situation is to convince people that you are right. If that is your goal, you are simply not going to accomplish that goal by calling them murderers, and by refusing to acknowledge that thoughtful, intelligent, compassionate people do, in fact disagree with you.

It's not about political correctness. It's about results. You should feel free to vociferously condemn abortion all you want. I don't think anyone is telling you that you should not. But if you want results, if you want fewer abortions, you are not going to accomplish that result with a style that basically tells everyone who disagrees with you that they are evil, insane, blood-soaked murdering baby killers. That is such an extreme position that it is going to have a tendency, if anything, to push people to the other side.

I understand your position and respect you for it. I don't feel any need to call you a monster (even though I believe that the pro-life movement wants to cause changes in this country that would be unspeakably horrible for the women of America). Why is it that you are unable to respect people who disagree with you? I fully understand the passion you feel in your position, but I don't understand at all why you are unable to see that very compassionate and thoughtful people of good will truly do see things differently. I think it is a mistake for you to refuse to acknowledge that people who disagree with you deserve respect. No one is asking you to change your mind, but you should at least be willing to acknowlede that the majority of the population of the United States, who disagree with you, are not bloodthirsty monster baby killers.

[Daffodil 0]

They are not making decisions about thier own reproductive organs. They are making decisions about another beings organs! If they would have made a choice about their own reproductive organs in the first place, Most of them would not need to make a choice too have an abortion!

I am continually amazed by your view of moral relativity. It's like you believe NOTHING is inherently wrong and everyone should be allowed to do whatever makes them feel good at any given time and whatever you want to do is peachy-keen and don't dare anybody tell you that it is wrong... Your words:"would require women to do something you totally do not believe in, to us that is no different than your efforts to require women to do something that we just as strongly do not believe in right now, today". So because an act, be it abortion, or rape, or thievery, or child abuse, is what YOU want to do then it's all right? Or conversely, if there is a crime you don't believe should be criminal, say extortion, then anyone making you abide by an anti-extortion law is forcing you to behave in manner you don't like? Life isn't all about you and your whims and desires minute-to-minute! Pro-life people believe abortion is the taking of a human life. Just as you hopefully would condemn taking the life of a 3 day old newborn, we condemn taking the life of a gestating human-to-be. Yes, I want to criminalize the taking of human life, regardless of it's stage of development. It's tough to sugar-coat those words for the sake of not "hurting anybody's feelings".