A powerful reminder that choices are thoughtful, painful and ultimately deeply personal decisions. Thank you for sharing your story and for fighting to keep this option available for other families.

This is awful, but I am sure if you keep sending letters and making phone calls that you will eventually be able to choose what healthcare you recieve. good luck!

Tiffany, my family and I went through a very similar situation this summer. We had to terminate a twin for reasons similar to yours, and our one son is due in six weeks.

I'd never even considered the possibility that I might have reason to terminate a pregnancy, prior to this recent experience. After all, I'm happily married with a steady job and stable home life... but sometimes life just throws you curve-balls.

The only thing that got us through this summer's terrible ordeal was the sense that we weren't entirely helpless; that we could take action to try to save one baby's life. It's horrifying to think that anti-choice movement would take away that one source of hope and solace.

Thank you for sharing your story. It's very powerful.

But. Does it really piss off anyone else that the pro-choice side has to rely so much on stories of heartbreaking but life-saving decisions made by women that were hoping to have a baby? Why can't we just say that end-of-story, bottom-line, fuck-it-all, WOMEN SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE DECISIONS FOR THEMSELVES, AND BE ABLE TO SAFELY ACT ON THOSE DECISIONS?

I hope that someone else can refine my ideas, because I believe that I'm not the only one thinking this. I'm just having a really hard time stating it right now.

@IndecentIdealist - Yes, I get pissed off too. The pro-choice movement feels as though it has to show women who wanted to have children and were stopped by a "force of nature" or "act of God", and then had to make a choice that everyone can understand, if not agree with. I believe that this is due to the fact that to be a "bad mother" is, in our society, to be a "bad woman", and it's still hard to sell the idea that "bad" people ought to have rights (condoms in prison and injecting rooms are similar, for example).

Perhaps, then, the way to combat this is the same way that we combat all other forms of oppression - we reiterate as strongly as we can that it is possible to have an abortion and still be a good person, even if the abortion ends a healthy pregnancy.

There is a long way to go until we can convince people of that, and until we do, I will support the campaigns that the pro-choice movement has developed. Even though the situation that I found myself in is very rarely covered (I wasn't raped, the pregnancy was perfectly physically healthy etc.), it is better that people are fighting for women's rights, no matter how they do it, than not at all.

It bothers me too that the only way we can fight this is describing cases where one twin would die, or the mother's life was in danger, or sometimes, rarely, if she was raped.

My religious beliefs would require me to abort a child I knew was going to be born deformed or mentally handicapped before it gained a soul (which I consider viability), so that soul could have a better chance at reaching enlightenment in a healthy vessel. To knowingly force severe problems on a child would be a horrible sin. Yet no one ever talks about those problems because they aren't problems white Christians who desperately want a baby have.

I am in awe that this woman shared this powerful story with us. I appreciate her courage.

My son was born disabled, but we had no prior knowledge. Would I have aborted him? I don't know. I think we have to stay away from these kinds of arguments (for example, Brianna G, is my son doomed not to achieve enlightenment because he is not a healthy vessel? and arguments that lump white Christians - or gay men or black Muslims - together) because the point is simple: families have the right to make their own choices about their own private health care.

Too often debates are swayed by slightly off-topic ideas which would be helpful in dialogue but aren't pertinent when someone's rights are in jeopardy. Especially in the current political climate, we've got to learn to stay on point. Health care is a right, not a privilege. Until Americans really get that, we're all going to keep sinking in a big mess.

But. Does it really piss off anyone else that the pro-choice side has to rely so much on stories of heartbreaking but life-saving decisions made by women that were hoping to have a baby? Why can't we just say that end-of-story, bottom-line, fuck-it-all, WOMEN SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE DECISIONS FOR THEMSELVES, AND BE ABLE TO SAFELY ACT ON THOSE DECISIONS?

Absolutely. Women shouldn't have to get approval from strangers in order to validate their decisions. As powerful as individual abortion stories are, it's really nobody's fucking business. Would Ms. Campbell even be telling us about her experiences if her state wasn't trying to pry into her life and the lives of her family members and take away their right to make personal health decisions without government intervention? Probably not.

Aerin: He might be able to, but according to my religious beliefs he's at a natural disadvantage. More likely he will have to wait a few lives to do so, but that's not unusual for many people. It's not that I wouldn't love and raise a child if they turned out to have a problem-- of course I would. Indeed, if I only learned of a problem after I believed they had a soul already, I wouldn't abort. But since they are put at a disadvantage, particularly if they are mentally disabled, if I could prevent my child's soul from inhabiting a body which has problems, and instead allow it to inhabit a better one, I am morally bound to do so, just as if a parent who had a way to cure a child's health problems is morally bound to do so.

It's just my personal religious beliefs. I believe by an impaired body I would be giving my child a better chance at life. Unfortunately, this belief does not fit in with Christian doctrine, which requires only faith in God and following his teachings in this life rather than deep introspection and deep understanding of the ways of the universe over many lifetimes. Thus, it would not appeal to Christian voters at all and could never be used as an argument-- and indeed, it is used for an argument to BAN abortion.

Thank you for telling your story. You are a brave and caring person for sharing such a personal and maybe painful experience with us.

I totally agree that abortion for any reason should not be stigmatized. It does bother me a bit that our pro-choice movement tends to highlight medically necessary abortions when combating drastic laws like the one proposed in South Dakota.

However, I see it as a gradual approach aimed at people who think all abortion is wrong. We can't change their views completely all at once. We have to put a few cracks in their looking glass first. Two accomplishments here:

1) Even people who "never ever EVER thought" they would want an abortion (and may be more likely to impose that viewpoint on others) are forced to reckon with the idea that there are circumstances where they themselves might need an abortion. True, this doesn't necessarily lead to a total pro-choice conclusion, but I think it plants the seed of doubt just enough to get people thinking: what if something like this happened to me? Am I really so sure that abortion is as bad as I say it is?

2) It opens anti-choicers' eyes to the fact that not all abortion-seekers do it for so-called "convenience" or "selfishness" (a characterization with which I vehemently disagree, but I don't deny that many people think that way). It introduces a grey area in their black-and-white viewpoint. Again, tweaking their world view may lead to more dramatic change down the road. At the very least, in places like South Dakota where most abortions are at risk, it personalizes the situation with a woman in a scenario they can identify with.

I am so glad you had the right to make that decision for your family. An acquaintance of mine had twins with the same condition. She and her husband decided to carry the babies to term. She lost both of the babies at birth and days later died from complications of the birth.

A husband didn't just lose his two twin boys. He lost his wife and we all lost a wonderful friend. They had choice, too. Let's keep it that way.

What metabonbon said.

Also, we have to bear in mind that late-term abortions are used by the anti-choicers as the thin edge of the wedge.

The anti-choice movement loves trying to shock people by talking about "partial birth", "ninth-month abortions", etc., and implying that women do this out of spite or something. They try to tug the public's heartstrings by asking, "Why would anyone decide to kill this poor almost-born creature?" The way to combat that particular tactic is to tug the public's heartstrings in the other direction -- say, "This is why," and tell stories like Tiffany Campbell's.

"It's not fair to women. I trust women, the woman who is really struggling with this, to be the best person to make the decision."

I love that pastor who spoke in the video.

This is a very powerful video, due in large part to Tiffany Campbell's story which demonstrates that abortion rights are important to all women and all families, regardless of whether or not they ever thought they would be. It's sad that heart-wrenching personal stories are needed to defend reproductive rights when they ought to be entirely personal, as AnUnfunnyFeminist and Indecent Idealist pointed out, but I'm glad that there are people like Ms Campbell who are strong enough to share their personal stories in the meantime if that's what it takes.

The thing is, these ads do provide situations where the average pro-lifer would admit the families need the right to choose. Unfortunately, they already tried that, when the original ban made no exception for rape or incest or injury to the mother's long-term health. So that bill was shot down, and then it was refined, so it would still limit abortions but allow them in cases of rape or incest.

I think the reaction to this will not be "all abortions are the right of families to chose" but rather, "let's refine the law again, so this woman is covered, and eventually all the pro-choice people will have left are people who are aborting for less socially acceptable reasons." And that way they could get it passed. I don't know what the answer is, but this is a concern to me.

Brianna, your argument, regarding your personal religious beliefs are very interesting and a compelling argument in favor of pro-choice, potentially through the third trimester, even. I'm only curious about when you, personally, believe that the soul enters the body, for no particular reason, just feline curiosity, let's say.

Personally, I hold the belief that abortion should not be used as a means of birth control. Beyond that, the issue should be between the woman, her doctor, and her god (or lack thereof). Period. This would completely cover the lead story in this post, as there are clear medical reasons regarding the possible viability of abortion in this case.

Someone commented earlier that pro-life people like to bring up partial-birth abortions, but then they turned around and cited the lead story as an example of why that type of abortion would be used. For one, partial birth abortion would have done NOTHING for this woman. For two, partial birth abortion has absolutely NO HEALTH BENEFIT FOR ANYONE INVOLVED, EVER. There is no medical reason one of these procedures should be done, it's harmful to the woman, emotionally and physically, and I guarantee the baby doesn't turn out well in the end.

Also, as a pro-life person, I too, am offended by the use of these sorts of stories to promote the abortion issue. For me, it's like, a 'duh' situation. Of course the woman should do what she thinks is best for her children. Whether I agree with her choice isn't the issue, she should have the right to decide what's best. Like I said, it's really a 'duh' story. Not everyone would choose the same thing she did (as one commenter related) but they should have the right to make that choice.

The problem that many pro-life people have with abortion is when it IS used by people for 'convenience' or 'selfishness'. One commenter tried to dismiss these arguments entirely, I think it's important to point out, in this debate, that there ARE people who have abortions for THOSE reasons. That does NOT mean that I believe everyone who has an abortion is doing it for one of those reasons. However, those cases are a big issue to the pro-life community.

I'd like to hear someone's pro-partial-birth abortion argument. It sounded like at least one person who posted here had an issue with that, and sounds like others may believe that any abortion of any kind should be allowed at any time. I just want to know, what benefit is there to partial-birth abortion?

Responders, please don't belabor the 'right to do with their own body what they want' issue, I've heard that one, too many times, it never worked to convince me. I'm hoping for a new viewpoint, please. Remember that I believe that life begins at conception, so it's not the woman's body I'm concerned with (entirely), it's also the baby's body/life I have concern for. While you have the right to do what you want with your own body, you do not have the right to do what you want with someone ELSES body. (that last comment not withstanding existing laws regarding suicide attempts, which totally debunk the right to do what you want with your body issue, but that's an entirely different point)

It's my belief, and I have no proof, that MOST pro-life people would sympathize with this woman's situation, and see why she believed what she was doing was the right thing. I seriously do not believe the majority of pro-life people want to ban abortion entirely, specifically in cases like this, or where the health of the potential mother is an issue. We're all humans, some of us are reasonable.... but there's always the fringe/radicals who will stick to their view even with all the evidence in the world telling them they're wrong. They see what they want and nothing more, and there are those kinds on BOTH sides of almost EVERY debate. It's an astonishingly human quality to have differing oppinions. Empathy is also an exclusively human quality, and that's what this post is all about.

Having an abortion does not, by default, make you a bad person. Neither does having a gun doesn't make you a bad person. Using that gun to commit a crime, however, is another issue... Just think about it, everything in moderation. Not everything is black and white, and not everything is gray. SOME people use abortion in ways that at least some of the people posting here would probably disagree with, when faced with the facts of the situation. Just because you CAN, doesn't mean you SHOULD.

To the author of the lead post: I'm glad your baby was born healthy, and I'm glad you're happy with your decision. I think you're right that the law should not ban abortion outright, that goes way beyond what I believe should be the standards. Like was said; Let God be the judge.

Now... let the flaming begin :) I'm the only pro-life poster I see around here, so I'm surely in for it.

I personally believe it's sometime around 24 weeks, the point at which the fetus could potentially survive outside the body-- viability, basically. I know others with similar beliefs to mine who consider it to happen when the baby breathes for the first time, as the soul enters with the breath. I would, however, be okay with "rescuing" babies who had to be delivered before they were full term but after they were viable, if it wasn't pretty much futile care, as long as the mother still has the ability to remove the baby from her body if she needs to.

Most people would only consider "aborting," or more likely delivering too early and then allowing the too-young baby to die, in cases of extreme health concerns, such as the mother needing to undergo a dangerous treatment immediately, or in cases where the fetus is essentially already dead or going to die immediately and the risk to the mother isn't worth carrying a dead baby to term. I've actually never heard of cases other than those extreme ones; doctors wouldn't even consent to an abortion that late unless there was an extreme situation, since at that point unless there is a health reason for the mother or the baby's already dead and it could cause severe emotional trauma to the mother to continue, it's more of a risk to induce early than it would be to just wait until you were closer to viability and give the kid up for adoption. But there are cases where a woman has to deliver NOW so she can, for example, undergo an emergency organ transplant or excise a large fast-growing tumor from her abdomen; in those cases she sometimes has to deliver even knowing that the baby will die or be profoundly disabled their whole life, and sometimes chemicals are used to hasten the baby's death and end their suffering, if they're previable but close enough to viability to survive for a few hours.

Abortions are more dangerous than hormonal birth control. That's a fact. Thus, naturally, no one is saying abortions should be used for birth control, because while they are generally safe, there are more risks involved than taking the Pill or using a condom. Plus, it costs more and is more painful. Anyone who thought they would use abortion as birth control undoubtedly changed their mind the first time they did it, because it's like the worst cramps of a woman's life. That's why it's usually used when birth control fails and the woman is completely and utterly unable to have a baby at that point, for physical, mental, emotional, or financial reasons, and often even carrying the baby to term would crush her financially (no health insurance) or emotionally. These aren't women who could raise a kid perfectly well but just decide they'd rather spend the money on shoes. Even if that's how it seems, chances are they know they would make a terrible mother, they know they wouldn't take care of an infant, and they know that would start before they gave birth, so the child would probably be born with problems. It's like choosing not to have a child because you know you would abuse or neglect it-- and the child wouldn't have any other option of a place to live, no other choices.

If you believe the blastocyst's life begins at conception, that's fine. You can believe an embryo, blastocyst, or fetus have a soul and still acknowledge that they don't have MORE right to the mother's body than she herself does. After all, their body is their own, but the mother's body is her own, too, and she has a right to do as she wants if it would be legal for her any other time; we can't remove rights from her simply because she's pregnant, or we are not only valuing the fetus, we are placing it ABOVE the mother, and at the same time not giving the mother the ability to not be a mother, as a normal parent can (parents can give up children for adoption, pregnant women are stuck). Because we cannot know why the women are ultimately making this decision without knowing their inner hearts and souls, and we cannot protect fetuses and embryos from the actions of the mother without stripping her of her rights, and we cannot treat the mother as a normal parent because we cannot remove the child from her custody and give it to another, we can either force women who aren't in real danger to carry to term (and all pregnancies are a real danger unless the woman is ridiculously healthy, perfectly proportioned for birth, has between one and three pregnancies before but no more, is between 20 and 35, wasn't exposed to any potential toxins, and the fetus is perfectly healthy as well) but let them drink, smoke, and eat seafood as much as they want until babies are born deformed and mentally disabled, or we can chose the more humane option and allow them to euthanize the babies before the brain is developed enough to acknowledge what is happening or understand the concept of pain enough to feel it in more than a primitive stimuli-reactive way.

"While you have the right to do what you want with your own body, you do not have the right to do what you want with someone ELSES body."

... which is why I have a problem with the stance that an embryo has the "right" to take over a woman's body. It sounds like your argument is that the woman is less important than the embryo.

I use the metaphor of an organ-transplant patient: many people would be happy to donate a spare organ to someone they love, but I think we would all object to any law that said you had to. A pregnant woman essentially donates her whole body to the critter, and although it's temporary, there are major health, emotional, financial, and social implications to carrying out the pregnancy, even in complication-free situations. A lot of women gladly do this every day because they want to. But the government should not force anybody to do it.

It's none of my business why a person would want to have an abortion, and I support that person's ability to do what they feel is best for their situation. But there's this myth that women are just going out and having abortions all the time, for fun, because it's so simple and easy today. It's not. It's a pain in the ass, it hurts, it's expensive, it knocks you down for a few days. I'll hazard a guess that, given the choice, most abortion seekers would have preferred that a form of contraception had prevented the pregnancy in the first place. But mistakes happen, and things don't always work the way you want them to, and I thank my lucky stars that I still have an alternative if the condom breaks or the pill fails.

Great post. I have just written over on the community side about the chance coming up for essentially the first time to make abortion available to women in Northern Ireland.

"...partial birth abortion has absolutely NO HEALTH BENEFIT FOR ANYONE INVOLVED, EVER."

First of all, let's call the procedure by its proper name: Intact Dilation and Extraction. As pointed out in this article, "partial-birth abortion" is a vague, non-medical term invented by the pro-life lobby, and it causes trouble for medical practitioners every time it is written into law, because it makes it unclear about exactly what is and is not outlawed.

An Intact D&E is done for similar reasons as the abortions of Ms. Campbell and Ms. Voss: the fetus has been found non-viable. If this is discovered early enough, a doctor can do a Dilation and Evacuation, but if it isn't, a D&E must be done.

Sometimes, the mother in these heartbreaking circumstances wants to be able to briefly hold the body of the baby she wanted so much, but couldn't deliver. With an intact D&E, this is possible.

In places where intact D&E is outlawed, there is an alternative: non-intact D&E. This is far more risky to the mother, as she risks bone fragments in the uterus. And, of course, there is no way that she can hold the remains to say farewell.

"Personally, I hold the belief that abortion should not be used as a means of birth control."

Please explain what you mean by this. Do you think that women should be punished with childbearing if they aren't "careful enough"? What kind of life would there be for those children who would exist as the direct result of such object lessons?

TheBlackPanther, D&X (there is no actual medical procedure known as "partial-birth abortion", so I assume that's what you're referring to) is actually significantly safer for the woman. That's because the alternative involves dismembering the fetus in the womb, and sharp instruments inside a uterus = much higher change of perforation, which is a ticket to all kinds of nasty & dangerous infections.

While you have the right to do what you want with your own body, you do not have the right to do what you want with someone ELSES body.

Exactly - which is why I assert my right to prevent an embryo or fetus from doing things to my body, and thus my right to use force if necessary to stop them from doing it.

Whoops, I think Mags is right -- Dilation and Extraction is usually shortened to D&X, Dilation and Evacuation to D&E.

Black Panther,

metabonbon, ShifterCat, and others have already addressed your points in a way I might. But I want you to know that I was "no ifs, ands or buts" Anti-Choice until about a year or two ago; then I was undecided; and only this year did I become Pro-Choice. Let me tell you why:

1. I used to think any law was merited to prevent violence to any creature (and I do think unborn fetuses should be called "creatures"--sort of a middle-ground between "zygote/fetus/embryo" language and "baby/human/person" language.)

But since then, I've realized that there is something worse than mere violence: Misery.

Delivering an unwanted child into this world is, IMO, akin to Torture--certainly for the child and often for the mother as well. Forcing a woman to carry a creature and give birth to a human is every bit as morally reprehensible, IMO, as FGM, hacking off of limbs, domestic abuse, rape, or electric shock.

Forcing a child into a world in which at least one and possibly many people are hostile to it is also foul. And yes, I understand that many people grow to love their unwanted babies, and that kids can grow into well-adjusted happy adults after horrific childhoods. But, truly, that's not how every case turns out, and why would we consider it acceptable to take the risk? What the heck is wrong with a society that would do this to potential human beings?

Having an abortion is often, IMO, thus MORE RESPONSIBLE than NOT having one.

I want to do damage control on the misery of this world; I know it can never be elimated, but let's stop it when we can, at least, yes?

2. I have also relinquished my idea that preventing violence/death to a creature is worse than a creature taking over a sentient human's body. Who are we to make that judgment? I repeat what has been stated above:

If an already-born person--even a helpless, cute little third-grader, say--tried to use my body as its host, I feel that I should legally be allowed to exert the doctrine of Self-Defense and do bodily harm/death to the other person. in many cases, bearing a child is even more torturous than the sci-fi/Alien scenario of parasiticism--after all, a child will impact your ENTIRE LIFE, from your personal safety, to your income and life earnings, to your current and future relationships, to your mental and physical ealth.

3. I, like you, used to scorn selfishness, especially, interestingly, in women and mothers. Oh, the scorn I had for women who remarried quickly after a partner's death, or who took vacations and left the kids at home, or who--gasp!--left their unhappy families for a while to "find themselves."

What a censorious and unfeeling person I was, to righteously scorn people for trying to do what was best for themselves.

IF it is better for a woman to NOT have a child--if it improves her happiness, her emotional and mental heath, her quality of life, her standard of living, her comfort--then JUST WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT?

Now, given all this, I believe there should be laws to keep the pain and suffering of aborted creatures--like euthanaziations of animals--to a minimum, at least as much as is possible. Similarly, if I were defending myself against a born creature trying to do my body harm, I would shoot them once rather than multiple times.

But to deny people control over their own bodies and futures and very lives? TO force into existence more people in a world already overloaded with suffering ones?

This bewilders and stuns me. I find it far more immoral than abortion.

"...abortion should not be used as a means of birth control."

Abortion prevents birth... therefore it IS a form of birth control. Is it the most responsible primary method of birth control a person can use? Perhaps not. But it IS birth control, and it can't be used as anything else.

Well, those are very interesting arguments, some I've never heard before.

Regarding the anti-birth-control issue someone asked about, as an example, I'll use a terrible one, which doesn't relate to most women who choose to have abortions... Those women who are in the business of selling their sexual abilities often end up having abortions because of the lack of preventative measures used in that business. These women are using abortion as a method of birth control instead of using something that would prevent the pregnancy to begin with.

Some of you expressed that the mother should have the right to stop the baby from doing things to her body. The issue I have with this is that the potential mother has the ability and right to choose to not be a mother, but if that's what she wants, she should use contraceptives instead of killing the baby after it's conceived. The baby doesn't 'choose' to take on a symbiotic relationship with it's 'host', it's forced into that situation, and then killed by the actions of the person who put them there. Some people (not all, of course) are not 'careful' at all. It was mentioned that there's a 'myth' of women having abortion after abortion. I happen to know someone who has had 5 abortions so far, and seems to believe that it's the preferred method of keeping herself from having a baby, rather than using a method that prevents the pregnancy to begin with. So, it's not entirely a myth, those people do exist. THOSE are the cases that I would like to address, not the ones where the mother's mental/physical health is an issue. Like I said before, not everything is black and white and not everything is gray.

Some others of you made points we're just going to have to disagree on. Very nice to have the discussion though, and many of you spoke your points very eloquently. Thanks again for letting me speak my mind :)

Panther - Happily not going down in flames

"The issue I have with this is that the potential mother has the ability and right to choose to not be a mother, but if that's what she wants, she should use contraceptives instead of killing the baby after it's conceived"

Most women do exactly that. Contraceptives are not always effective. It's like a woman who was not trying to adopt a kid and even told her family she refused to adopt a kid if they died and us giving her a kid anyway and telling her she has to take care of it, at least for 9 months. In other cases, the woman or girl had no access to contraceptives, due to lack of insurance and/or an abusive relationship, or was given abstinence-only education and didn't know about them.

"I happen to know someone who has had 5 abortions so far, and seems to believe that it's the preferred method of keeping herself from having a baby, rather than using a method that prevents the pregnancy to begin with. So, it's not entirely a myth, those people do exist."

Good sex education might help this, but if the women are determined to have repeated abortions and refuse better medical intervention, that would pretty much constitute Munchausen's. I would strongly support keeping detailed medical records that would allow doctors to talk to such women, find out if there's an education issue-- and if they still insist on not preventing pregnancy and getting abortions despite the fact that it hurts and is more dangerous than birth control, they should be referred to Psych.

As for prostitutes, education and prevention are the best things for them, and the problem is almost entirely due to lack of empowerment, lack of access to birth control, and lack of education. I would hardly blame a woman who didn't use birth control because she couldn't afford the Pill and she would face violence or loss of employment for insisting on barrier methods. That's not a perpetrator, that's a victim. I would put such a person in the category of a woman who was pregnant from an abusive relationship, similar to rape and incest clauses, and would hope that when she went for an abortion the doctor and nurses made every effort to get her help. While some prostitutes are doing it for reasonable, good reasons, and may even like the work, those types of women almost universally use good protection.

If the only abortions you are really concerned about are those where the woman repeatedly aborts rather than get good birth control, I agree, those should be prevented, because a woman like that needs either education or psychiatric care.

And remember, pro-choice groups are trying to prevent them too. That's why we want comprehensive sex ed, access to birth control, and free birth control for people who can't afford insurance or whose insurance doesn't cover it.

"The issue I have with this is that the potential mother has the ability and right to choose to not be a mother, but if that's what she wants, she should use contraceptives instead of killing the baby after it's conceived"

Most women do exactly that. Contraceptives are not always effective. It's like a woman who was not trying to adopt a kid and even told her family she refused to adopt a kid if they died and us giving her a kid anyway and telling her she has to take care of it, at least for 9 months. In other cases, the woman or girl had no access to contracpetives, due to lack of insurance and/or an abusive relationship, or was given abstinence-only education and didn't know about them.

"I happen to know someone who has had 5 abortions so far, and seems to believe that it's the preferred method of keeping herself from having a baby, rather than using a method that prevents the pregnancy to begin with. So, it's not entirely a myth, those people do exist."

Good sex education might help this, but if the women are determined to have repeated abortions and refuse better medical intervention, that would pretty much constitute Munchausen's. I would strongly support keeping detailed medical records that would allow doctors to talk to such women, find out if there's an education issue-- and if they still insist on not preventing pregnancy and getting abortions despite the fact that it hurts and is more dangerous than birth control, they should be refered to Psych.

As for prostitutes, education and prevention are the best things for them, and the problem is almost entirely due to lack of empowerment, lack of access to birth control, and lack of education. I would hardly blame a woman who didn't use birth control because she couldn't afford the Pill and she would face violence or loss of employment for insisting on barrier methods. THat's not a perpetrator, that's a victim. I would put such a person in the category of a woman who was pregnant from an abusive relationship, similar to rape and incest clauses, and would hope that when she went for an abortion the doctor and nurses made every effort to get her help. While some prostitutes are doing it for reasonable, good reasons, and may even like the work, those types of women almost universally use good protection.

If the only abortions you are really concerned about are those where the woman repeatedly aborts rather than get good birth control, I agree, those should be prevented, because a woman like that needs either education or psychiatric care.

And remember, pro-choice groups are trying to prevent them too. That's why we want comprehensive sex ed, access to birth control, and free birth control for people who can't afford insurance or whose insurance doesn't cover it.

Sorry for the doublepost.

I am so glad that Blackpanther is not here to flame me. I do not know where you got that idea that anyone will flame you, although I personally felt flame by you. Which I am very offended by, but I do not want to dwell on the flaming that I had receive from you.

It seems to me that your opposition to abortion is really base on your personal experience with abortion. (Thank you for not flaming me on this).

"The issue I have with this is that the potential mother has the ability and right to choose to not be a mother, but if that's what she wants, she should use contraceptives instead of killing the baby after it's conceived" (Once aging, I hope you do not flame me for this).

This had nothing with killing. Birth is a form of abortion unto itself, given that the mother aborts or gives "birth" to the fetus after 9 months of carry to term. (Please do not flame me for this)

If by your logic, the fetus is a life unto itself, than it shall be able to survive no matter at which point the mother chose to give "birth/abortion".

If a zygote is similar to that of a 9 month old born child, than it shall not require the enslavement of women but had the ability to survive on its own will.

She is not choosing to "kill the baby" after conception, she choosing to allow the baby the freedom to be its own individuals but at a stage that would make it difficult to survive on its own.

Certainly, you would not call tell a woman who just gave birth that she kill her baby, correct? No, if a zygote is consider similar to that of a 9 month old born baby, than it do not require a woman uterus to survive.

If a zygote is similar to a 9 month born baby, than why do it need a woman's uterus to survive? If it is consider human, than surely it do not require a woman uterus to survive does it?

I am sure that you do not require your mother uterus to live each days do you? (I hope that you don't flame me for this)

Slavery ended in 1864, there is no need to reinstate slavery for women because of their gender? (I really hope that you do not flame me for this as I am only expressing my opinion and meant not to flame you).

The 14 amendment already said that any person "born" within the USA or naturalized in the US are entitle to equal protection under the law nor shall any person be force to undergo in volunteering servitude unless imprison or otherwise.

Shall we force in volunteering servitude among women because of you believe that irrespirable women should be punish?

You certainly support abortion in regards to saving a woman life? What about the fetus that is killing its' mother? Should they also have the right to decided if they should be terminated even if they will kill their mother?

Or should their rights to life be ignore and their freedom to choice life be denied because you believe that their life is not worthy of value because they grew in the tube instead of the uterus?

Should their right to life and compassion be throw out the trash because their continue growth will kill the mother?

You must be consistence with your belief. I find it difficult to believe that you are Pro Life given that you had no compassion of the innocent life in the womb if it might cause the death of the women.

I do not believe that you are prolife because you do not have pro life compassion for innocent life that are not developing correctly but shall cause the death of the mother.

Let your flaming begin. I hope I do not offend you, which is not my point but just expressing my opinion.

The problem with the adopting mother is that, she keeps filling out the adoption papers, even if she's filling it out in a way that reduces her chances of becoming an adopted mother.

Someone who's choosing to have a sexual relationship, even if they're using contraceptives, is like that woman filling out the adoption form. They make all indications they don't want the baby, but continue to partake in the action which is supposed to result in just that, a baby. Sometimes the system hiccups unexpectedly, and all of the sudden, the fun times are over.

but I didn't really want to get into that... I'm pretty sure abstinence is almost a swear word around here. (just kidding!)

Everyone should be allowed to make their own decisions, but shouldn't be absolved of responsibility for the results of those decisions. In my opinion, anyway. Luckily I don't count much. :D

Thanks again for the great discussion, very nice.

to lgrf4evr

Actually, I didn't say that I personally would approve of the mother aborting the child if her life was in danger by it. I said that I believe she should have the right to choose to do that, if she believes that's what's right. That doesn't mean I agree with her decision, either way.

As for the question of why the baby can't survive outside of the womb. It seems similar (not exactly the same, as there is no 'host') to a caterpillar turning into a butterfly, it wraps itself in a protective cocoon while it's developing into something that can survive the environment. If you release that caterpillar from its bonds before it's ready, it doesn't survive either. That doesn't mean it isn't alive in that cocoon, it just means it's not prepared for the world out there and needs time to develop.

I'm terribly sorry that I offended you with my original post, I tried to keep my comments non-personal and just express my feelings on the issues that were brought up. Hopefully I was more successful in my attempt this time.

Oh, Brianna, you mentioned the possible need for a Psych visit for the woman I mentioned before.

I tend to agree, cases of birth-control-by-abortion are possibly indicators of bigger underlying problems the woman may be having, and should probably be referred to psych for evaluation. Even though this particular woman doesn't seem all that unstable, anything's possible. Abortion is harmful, and dangerous, and shouldn't be used by anyone on a whim or without serious forethought, which seems to be what she's doing.

A quote from her regarding the issue: "I found out I'm pregnant again. Oh well, I'll just go get an abortion."

Like I said, she doesn't seem upset about the issue but you mentioned Munchausen's, which is an interesting theory I hadn't thought of before, and could be manifested and displayed in just this sort of way.

Panther - I'm not a doctor, I just play one online.

You didn't come on here screaming, "You're all babykillers!", TheBlackPanther, so we're not flaming you. You do seem to have gotten most of your ideas, not to mention some misinformation, from anti-choicers, and that's a problem we want to address.

"I happen to know someone who has had 5 abortions so far, and seems to believe that it's the preferred method of keeping herself from having a baby, rather than using a method that prevents the pregnancy to begin with."

Here's a question: Do you actually want this woman to have a baby? Never mind raising one -- could she be trusted not to smoke, drink, or take drugs while pregnant? Would she make sure to go in for regular pre-natal care? Does she even have the resources to get proper pre-natal care? For someone who goes in to get repeated surgery instead of employing preventive methods, I rather doubt it.

"Someone who's choosing to have a sexual relationship, even if they're using contraceptives, is like that woman filling out the adoption form. They make all indications they don't want the baby, but continue to partake in the action which is supposed to result in just that, a baby. Sometimes the system hiccups unexpectedly, and all of the sudden, the fun times are over."

See, this is the kind of logic which makes us say: "The anti-choice crowd isn't really interested in babies -- they just want to control women's sexuality." The implication here is that if a woman has sex and gets pregnant, she should be punished by being forced to give birth.

First of all, having an abortion is not "avoiding responsibility" -- it's taking responsibility. The woman has decided that she can't properly provide for a baby (or another baby) at this time, so instead of burdening an already-strained system, she makes a decision (with some risk to herself, I might add) to terminate the pregnancy.

Second, as I asked before, what kind of life would there be for the child who results from this object lesson? Anti-choicers love to ask "What about the baby?" -- well, what about unwanted children born into poverty and resentment, just so that some social conservatives could pat themselves on the back for teaching Mommy that sex shouldn't be fun?

(The "Jane Roe, crime stopper" section of Freakonomics gives us a hint of that.)

Also, you keep saying, "kill the baby". It's not a baby -- not yet. It's either a zygote, a blastocyst, or an embryo. Later on it's a fetus (and we've already discussed the tragic necessity of late-term abortions), but most abortions are done before that.

The anti-choice crowd loves to call abortion "murder". But murder isn't simply the killing of a living thing -- if that were the case, we'd be mass murderers every time we brushed our teeth. Murder is the killing of a sapient being. Something that doesn't have a proper brain yet isn't sapient. Period.

Abortion is partly about a woman's right to control her own life. It is also about trusting a woman's judgment about what kind of world she can provide for a child at this time in her life, or ever, or on top of providing for any children she may already have. For that, we should look no further than this poem.

Hey Shiftercat, yeah sorry I didn't really respond to your question of 'what about the child?' before. I meant to, but got lost in all the other things. Btw, it's nice to know there's other gamer geeks around here.

Anyway. I personally have a strong belief in adoption. There are lots of people who would like babies who can't have them, the mother would be doing a service to those people just by allowing her baby to be born, not to mention to her baby by letting it live. Though that leaves an argument for forcing her into service for others, which I'm too tired to think of a counter for, at the moment, so I won't bother. We would probably end up in a stalemate on that argument anyway.

Your question about whether I want this woman to have a baby is a good one. I would stress adoption again, on this issue... She may or may not be a good mother, I can't really judge that based on what I know. However, if she felt that she wasn't fit to be a mother, she could put it up for adoption, and not have that problem.

I don't believe money is a particular issue in this case, but someone brought it up before, so I should probably touch on that issue. Again, adoption, many adoptive parents are willing to fund the entire pregnancy and medical bills. Honestly, I would even seriously consider government funding pregnancies that would result in the baby being put up for adoption, though that could lead to some other unsightly issues springing up, ones which probably don't belong in this discussion.

Honestly, I don't want to control anyone's sexual habits. I happen to think sex is fun. However, if pregnancy results from my actions, I'm not going to opt-out of the situation. Therefore, I AM careful about those endeavors. I realize that my actions may have consequences, I'm willing to face those consequences. If I don't want to face them, I don't do the action. Believe me, there have been times I wanted to, and didn't, because I didn't believe the other party was one whom I could continue a relationship with, if something like that were to happen.

Baby, zygote, blastocyst, or embryo call it whatever you want. To me it's all word games, the subject doesn't change because you call it something else. If my calling it a baby is incorrect then it shows my ignorance of language I suppose.

I think 'murder' is another one of those 'hot' words people like to throw around. It's a shock-and-awe word meant to get attention. Which is why I haven't used it, it doesn't change the meaning of the conversation, or advance it in any way. It just distracts and infuriates people, that's not my point in being here, I'd like to talk, and listen rather than just irritate and enflame.

Like I said before, there are some things we'll just have to agree to disagree on. You believe that abortion is (or can be) the act of responsibility. I happen to think that many times, it is the exact opposite of that. However, I'm willing to say that there may be cases in which it really is the responsible way to go, I just can't wrap my brain around any at the moment.

I really just wanted to inject a different point of view into the seemingly one sided conversation, really. I'm not here to convince you that you're wrong, and I didn't expect to be convinced of anything myself. I think talking and debating about issues is important though, and it can lead to middle ground in many cases, that wasn't visible before the conversation started.

I know that I've learned things about pro-choice viewpoints from talking with all of you and reading your responses. That's what it's all about for me... Listening to multiple viewpoints, getting everyone's opinion, even if I don't agree. It's the only way to work out solutions for hot-button issues like this.

You're probably right that most of my beliefs and information come from the pro-life crowd, but that's why I'm here. It's the best way to get the other side, go to the source. Everyone has a viewpoint, and just because it's different than yours, doesn't make it wrong. Many, many years online, dealing with people from around the world taught me tolerance for many oddities in humanity.

As for my worries of being flamed: I've had bad experiences, so I come prepared :) I try to stay non-personal, but not everyone is so capable. Here, in this case (and one other I've posted about on this site), I have found that responses are generally thoughtful, which is nice. I still come wearing flame retardant though. :)

The belief that sex is supposed to be only for procreation is very flawed in a monogamous society that values long-term relationships. Sex provides release, comfort, intimacy and closeness with a partner. Would you advocate abstinence among a married couple who could not effectively take care of any child, not even for nine months? Maybe you don't agree with premarital sex, that's fine, but please don't assume that sex is merely for procreation when in fact sex without (more, or any) children resulting from it is a powerful way to keep the divorce rate down, and keep couples together, and improve the health of both partners. The introduction of an unwanted child to the mix as a result destroys those advantages.

A woman who is using condoms and hormonal birth control every single time, including taking the birth control every day or using a patch, ring or shot administration, and abstains or uses a spermicide with condoms when she is on antibiotics, is less likely to get pregnant than a woman with a tubal ligation. The problem comes when they make mistakes or aren't informed, but if they are reliably using it it is reasonable to expect that they would not become pregnant.

"Abortion is harmful, and dangerous, and shouldn't be used by anyone on a whim or without serious forethought, which seems to be what she's doing."

Well, while I don't think a woman who accidentally gets pregnant because she took an antibiotic and her doctor forgot to tell her it would reduce the efficiency of her BC should have to jump through hoops, abortions are MORE harmful than preventative methods, so if a woman gets REPEATED abortions a doctor should take notice, similar to if a woman repeatedly came into the ER with stab wounds. Maybe she's just really unlucky and was being safe, but then again, maybe she really is hurting herself.

You stress adoption, but that's not an option for the first nine months. In that time a lot of abuse can go on. The baby can be exposed to all manner of toxins and traumas. A woman who chooses abortion probably is doing so because she KNOWS for those nine months she wouldn't be a good parent. As a result, she could abort and save the baby a lifetime of suffering, or we could basically imprison women during pregnancy and deny them access to anything which would harm their fetus. The people who are able and willing to adopt preterm babies with nicotine addictions, FAS babies, brain damaged babies... They are few and far between. Most such kids wind up in the foster care situation where they suffer their whole life, never are able to do anything with themselves. I consider aborting early and painlessly (via an injection to stop the heart, if it's beating) to be more humane than creating a baby with severe mental and physical problems due to bad parenting. Ideally we could remove the fetus and put them in a vat somewhere until they are done growing, but the technology isn't there yet, so there's no way to prevent what you surely would consider abuse without stripping all rights from a pregnant woman.

Also, keep in mind that since many people don't believe life begins at conception, and also believe there are times when they are morally obligated to abort, any ban on abortion would violate the first amendment anyway.

I do _not_ believe sex should be only for the purpose of reproducing. I agree it has many beneficial effects, both on the relationship of the partners and emotionally and physically to both people. Pre-marital sex bothers me, mildly... but not enough to stop me from doing it myself... *shrug* So I wouldn't suppose I could have any room to even think about demanding that of someone else.

There's that argument against 'using a female for the service of having a baby' that i referred to in my previous post. I knew it was out there somewhere. Obviously, there's little I could say in response to that.

I believe one thing, the mother's duty is to take care of her baby since she made the choice to involve herself in a sexual relationship, aborting the baby is the killing of a life, in my view.

While you believe another, the mother is being merciful by aborting a baby she has no intention of taking care of.

We disagree, simple as that.

Oh, and you're right about the differing beliefs and the effects it has on which laws and constitutional protections are valid to the issue. That's part of what makes this issue such a hot one, probably, there will always be people on both sides of the fence. It makes it difficult to find any sort of common ground and agreement on what's 'right' and 'legal'.

I'd like to re-state something I said in my last post, I don't think I worded it in a way that made my position really clear.

I think people should be able to have sex even if they don't plan on having a baby. However, I think if someone is going to have a sexual relationship, they should only do so if they are prepared for the potential consequences, a baby.

That's my belief, in a nutshell.

Soooo, make love, not war, hit the bed, not the floor... I think that's how it goes, anyway.

This discussion seems to be wrapping up to an end-point, as far as my part goes anyway. So
again, I'd like to thank everyone who responded to me. I truely appreciate the candor and discussion.

Panther - more enlightened than 2 days ago
(and you'll probably see me around in a post every once in a while, good day!)

"But to deny people control over their own bodies and futures and very lives? TO force into existence more people in a world already overloaded with suffering ones?"

Yeah, the solution is suicide. For the rest of us; we seem to like life no matter how much it might suck. The world is not overloaded. Not by a long shot. The world is overloaded in small portions and the rest is empty of humans.

"If by your logic, the fetus is a life unto itself, than it shall be able to survive no matter at which point the mother chose to give "birth/abortion"."

Do you think you can survive if I left you in an environment without other people's help? Now, for the hypothetical situation you'd have to remove all knowledge you have gained from others. I think you're not too far better off than the fetus.

"Baby, zygote, blastocyst, or embryo call it whatever you want. To me it's all word games, the subject doesn't change because you call it something else. If my calling it a baby is incorrect then it shows my ignorance of language I suppose."

Mostly it shows your ignorance of prenatal development. There's a reason I stressed the whole "non-sapient" thing. A baby and a zygote are two VERY DIFFERENT organisms; this is not semantics, it is medical fact.

"I think people should be able to have sex even if they don't plan on having a baby. However, I think if someone is going to have a sexual relationship, they should only do so if they are prepared for the potential consequences, a baby."

We've heard this argument before, all of us. Curiously, it comes most frequently from the mouths of virgins. Often it comes from males, who will never have to face the possibility of getting pregnant. And it never, ever comes from the mouth of someone who's not at least middle-class.

Learn to look beyond your privilege.

You keep stressing adoption as though it's a cure-all. There are a number of problems with that.

1. Many woman cannot afford to be pregnant, never mind raise a child. As well as the prenatal abuse that Brianna points out, there's the fact that pregnancy itself is a luxury that many simply cannot countenance. Put yourself in the situation of a woman who is uninsured and cannot spare any more shifts at her two part-time jobs. Or a woman whose controlling partner wants to have her tied down with yet another mouth to feed, and who isn't in a situation where she can leave him. Or a teenage girl in a strict fundamentalist family who fears she'll be thrown out if her parents discover she's no longer a virgin.

2. It can be a highly distressing thing to know that the creature you're carrying, that you might be growing attached to in spite of yourself, is going to be taken away. And that's not even taking into account the social censure that women come under when they have to tell co-workers and acquaintances that no, a baby shower is inappropriate because she's not keeping this one.

3. Most important: There are too many babies in the world already. The Earth is overpopulated. Even if every single child who has already been born was adopted by every available adoptive parent (and please note that there is a distinct preference for healthy white babies), there would still not be enough adoptive parents to go around. Abortion is like triage -- it is saving our limited resources for those who are already here, or who are a sure bet.

You can have quantity of life, or you can have quality of life. You cannot have both.

"You can have quantity of life, or you can have quality of life. You cannot have both."

You have just completely pissed on our intellect.

I am not a virgin.

I am _below_ 'middle class'.

I already said that if pregnancy resulted from my actions, I was prepared to take responsibility and deal with the consequences of my actions, so whether I was male or female makes little difference. I don't plan on having a relationship with someone who isn't ready to continue it, if pregnancy happens. (for the record, though, I'm male)

1. Like I said, adoptive parents will often pay for the entire pregnancy, along with supporting the mother, buying food, paying for rent, etc. They want a baby and can't have one for some reason, they'll pay nearly anything for it in some cases. So your argument of not being able to afford being pregnant sort of falls flat, for me..

2. Somehow it's more distressing to know that the baby will continue to live it's life, rather than not be given a chance at all? Sorry, you're losing me here. I would think the idea of eliminating (at least the potential for) life would be worse than handing it over to someone else.

3. I honestly do not believe the world is over populated. I live in a rural area, my nearest neighbor is 1/2 a mile away, there's plenty of room for more people on this planet. If you doubt that, look at China's population and country size, then look at the rest of the world's population, and landmass... PLENTY of room. Also, I believe your statistics are incorrect. There are many, many future parents awaiting available children to adopt and not enough babies to fill those requests.

Oh, and regarding the baby/zygote/etc comment...

My point was, no matter what we call it in conversation, we all know exactly what we're discussing. We can call it a peanut, if that truly makes you feel better than calling it a baby. It doesn't matter to me, they're all the same thing for the purpose of this conversation, an unborn child. Trying to remember the _current_ politically correct terms has never been a strong point of mine, so I gave up a long time ago. You even have 3 names for it... Which just strengthens the idea that there is no 'correct' term. Like I said though, I'm not above being ignorant, so... Whatever. *shrug*

Panther - Still not a doctor, or linguist

Oh yeah, before you bother blasting me for being a male and expressing my opinion on an issue I could know nothing about... I should probably let you know that I have quite a few female friends, who aren't virgins, and who are in the same economic class, who feel the same way I do.

Gross generalizations are dangerous things.

Glad I brought marshmallows, since it seems there's going to be a fire after all.

Actually, just to finish covering bases... I can think of 5 of them just off the top of my head who have at least 1 child, 4 of them have multiple children (one of those is actually a 'middle-class' person though). So even if I'm ignorant of the effects of pregnancy on the human body and emotions, I'm pretty sure they have a decent handle on that particular situation.

Once upon a time, I went to a fake pregnancy center, one ran by staunch anti-choicers, for a pregnancy test. I nearly walked out without my test results, they offended me so badly. I had given birth to my second child just a couple months before, after a rather stressful pregnancy of spending months fearing miscarriage and then prematurity, only to have the little stinker be overdue! My nerves were so thoroughly shot, and I was afraid that the single bout of lovemaking I'd had since had taken root.

So off I went to this horrible place, knowing that I would be seeking abortion should I be pregnant; knowing that I could not go through another pregnancy while nursing an infant and far from healed both mentally and physically. I would have been a horrible mother to somehow endure pregnancy while trying to raise an infant and a toddler. And they just lectured me on how wrong abortion was, on the lie that abortion increases cancer risks, on how God would turn his back on me (um, I'm not Christian...), on how silly I was to think once wouldn't be enough, and so on.

But I had to know and couldn't afford to get a pregnancy test for a couple of weeks and couldn't take the stress of thinking I'd have to go through all that again, so I stayed.

I briefly considered abortion instead of carrying my fourth child. I was on the pill, had gotten drunk and taken opiates (for headaches), and was going through a rough spot in my marriage before realizing that I was a couple of months along. I ended up continuing the pregnancy despite my concerns that I had possible caused great harm to my developing baby.

As a side note, I was rather flabbergasted that my honesty and concern ended up causing a mandated tox screen when I gave birth. Where are my privacy rights?!!!

I'm not trying to justify abortion or change pro-life thoughts. I just cannot stand those who do their best to guilt or condescend women into keeping a pregnancy without knowing the story behind the choice.

And perhaps another point I should make: while I was pro-choice even as a teen, I became far less judgemental about abortion after becoming a mother.

But I do now wonder what effect being a father has had on my husband's views on abortion, as we never really talked about it after having kids. We were both already pro-choice, so there didn't seem to be much point.

I congratulate you (blackpanther) on not being disrespectful like your fellow friend, TLS. I appreciate your disagreement with me without calling my intellects is similar to that of a fetus. I am glad I am talking to someone who does not engage in dishonest tactics.

About over population, the argument is that amount of food, water, and natural resources involve not the amount of people per a square inch. That is why war exists. I just read an article about how there is not enough water going on in many of the Midwestern states and many of the lakes, rivers, and springs are being dry out in order to provided water of desert towns. If your ideal of overpopulation is that everyone occupied every single inches of the earth, than I guess I sort of understand what you are coming from.

There are not enough natural resources to go for everybody and not everyone is rich enough to afford one acre of land and three mules because they are too busy working at two or three jobs sent their good paying jobs had been ship oversea.

http://www.overpopulation.org/

It seems to be that your opposition to abortion had came from the belief in personal responsibility, in that a woman (except for the father) should be force to take care of a child against her own will if she engage in premarital sins with a man. I wonder if you had the same attitudes with the father. Or shall he be given a medal for walking away?

Now, I do not know about your stand on other life issue, like the invasion of Iraq or the death penalty but I can say that you do not believe that all life is created equal. I am sure you support the death penalty and the occupation in Iraq?

Also about the adoption thing, there are babies being born but there is not enough people doing the adopting. There overcrowding children in public funding hospital and not enough prolife people lining up and down the street to adopted them. Those that do wants children preferred to adopt children from other foreign countries because it is too expensive to go to a private adoptive clinic and there is too much paperwork’s in the public clinic, not to mention that there is not enough funding and there is a lack of the “white” babies that stay there.

Also, the USA rank 27 in the world in infant mortality rates, which means that infants are being born prematurely because of in proper health care or because the mother was not able to afford the health that she deserved. Many of these children are stundded in their growth because of the deregulation of prolife corporations, who pollute our water system and contribute poisonous gas into the air. President Bush had cut funding for health care for women and he and his party came out against the SCHIP bill, which included prenatal and post natal care for pregnant women.

http://www.jointogether.org/news/features/2007/bushs-budget-plan-cuts.html

Now, I can understand your argument based on your personal experience but I support a woman right to chose for her own body how it shall be govern. Your demands to criminalized abortion in all cases except a woman health would (this is your correct stand right?) violate many of the following things:

The 13th amendment:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Your demand that a woman be force to carry to terms a child against her own free will violate the 13th amendment.

The Supreme Court had already decided in Skinner v. Oklahoma that an individual had the fundamental right to make a personal decision in regards to their sexual reproduction or creation.

The 1st amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There are whole wide ranges of people who are of religious background that do support a woman right to her own body. Why shall your belief triumphs others religious beliefs? Protestant churches, a few individual catholic churches, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, and (reform/orthodox) Judaism all agreed that they are personally against it but they would not force their views upon other women, and even they disagree at which point begins and recognized the existence of a woman right to her own body.

http://www.rcrc.org/

The Supreme Court had already concluded
“That government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion." "There is more than a fine line between the voluntary association that leads to a political community comprised of people who share a common religious faith, and the forced separation that occurs when the government draws explicit political boundaries on the basis of peoples' faith.”

Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet

From what I can understand, your argument to criminalized abortion would:

a. Force mothers to be more responsible, sexually and financially.

b. Create a respect for the sanctity of life

For the first reasons, many women chose to terminate her pregnancy because she cannot provide the financial, emotional, or psychological assistance for the life in the womb. Abortion is a syndrome of our society. It tells us that the born life was not worth living or that the community which born lives inhabit was so demoralized, that the women felt the best option would not to bring that life within the world which she inhabits. Instead of just trying to criminalize the syndrome, why not find the root cause of it?

For the second reason, banning abortion would not make it go away; it would just go underground, like the prohibition of alcohol increase the crime rates in the 1920. The rich and the middle class would just fly to other foreign nation to get abortions but it will also not prevent the poor and the lower class from getting an abortion either. They would just resort to more dangerous methods, like a butcher or worse, self induce abortion by a coat hanger. Is that what you really want? For women, mothers, sisters, daughters, nieces, and aunts to die from self induce abortions?

It is not the role of government to force by law what the church had failed to do by faith. All the legislation and criminalization of abortion would not be able to enforce a person to value life, if that person lives in a society that value money, a society that kill for oil, or let others suffered in the street out of sheer greed of personal enrichments.

I am glad that you did bring the marshmallow because you were the one who started the fire.

lgrf4evr, you have covered the issues of adoption and overpopulation much more thoroughly than I could have.

"So your argument of not being able to afford being pregnant sort of falls flat, for me..."

I notice you didn't bother to address the proposed cases I brought up in which finances weren't the sole concern: "a woman whose controlling partner wants to have her tied down with yet another mouth to feed, and who isn't in a situation where she can leave him. Or a teenage girl in a strict fundamentalist family who fears she'll be thrown out if her parents discover she's no longer a virgin."

Something I forgot to add earlier on the subject of "affording" pregnancy: even a healthy, normal pregnancy takes a physical toll on the mother. I've never been through this myself, but I recall other threads here where mothers have talked about chronic conditions resulting from otherwise healthy pregnancies, and about strain and fatigue. They all said that while they were happy to go through it for children they wanted and were willing to care for, they would have hated being forced into it.

Not to mention that most women who have abortions aren't staunchly child-free -- many of them have children already, and others want a child later, when they can raise it properly. It makes sense for them to want to save their physical resources for the children they are actually going to look after.

"Somehow it's more distressing to know that the baby will continue to live it's life, rather than not be given a chance at all?"

For some women, it would be, yes. For exact reasons why, I'd rather let someone who's actually been faced with such a decision answer. But since, as you are kind enough to qualify, it is a potential human being we're talking about, the physical and psychological welfare of the already-existing human being -- the woman -- should take priority.

"I have quite a few female friends, who aren't virgins, and who are in the same economic class, who feel the same way I do."

It is an unfortunate fact that some women won't trust other women to judge what's best for themselves and their families.

"My point was, no matter what we call it in conversation, we all know exactly what we're discussing. You even have 3 names for it... Which just strengthens the idea that there is no 'correct' term."

I think you are confused -- which isn't surprising, if you've spent a lot of time listening to people who equate a clump of cells that's just beginning to differentiate and a suckling infant, and try to get people to have the same emotional responses about both.

My point is that the human organism at seven weeks and seven months of development is radically different, and must be considered differently. When the anti-choice lobby weeps and gnashes its teeth over something indistinguishable from a heavy period, we should recognize this for what it is: superstition and manipulation.

"I'm not above being ignorant, so... Whatever. *shrug*... Still not a doctor, or linguist"

I'm neither a doctor nor a linguist either, Panther. What I am is a person who decided a long time ago that abortion was too important and universal an issue to remain ignorant about, and who therefore decided to learn everything she could about the subject -- even the parts that turned her stomach.

I believe that an uneducated opinion is worse than useless -- it's dangerous. So if you're going to argue about something, learn about it, and be willing to learn more. And if it's a subject you know you don't know enough about, listen to those who do.

This is why you don't see me making impassioned rants about road safety.

"I think you are confused -- which isn't surprising, if you've spent a lot of time listening to people who equate a clump of cells that's just beginning to differentiate and a suckling infant, and try to get people to have the same emotional responses about both. "

No, I think you're the confused one. You're the one that wants to use a different name for what we're talking about because you believe that somehow calling it a baby is some plot by me to inject emotionally hot-button words into the discussion. YOU are the one who is trying to manipulate the emotional impact of words used in the conversation, not me. YOU are the one that brought up 'murder', not me. YOU are the one who brought up the different name for 'partial-birth-abortion', when it was obvious what we were talking about. So who is the one trying to inject the emotion they want into the words being used in this conversation?

I clearly stated, and tried my best to mirror in my comments that I was NOT trying to inject emotional 'words' into the conversation, because I don't believe it's productive. My point was. I'm not here to inflame to begin with. I even said, if my use of the term baby was wrong, that's fine with me because I know that I don't have all the knowledge of all the subjects and all the definitions of all the words in the language.

MANY expecting mothers refer to the unborn as 'my baby'. So I see nothing wrong with referring to it in the same way, I was trying to keep it simple... yet you continue to bring up how IMPORTANT it is that I use the proper words... get serious here, I'm not taking a freakin' test... There's no diploma in it for me if I get the words right. You're taking apart the language I'm using instead of talking about what I was _actually_ trying to say.

The point here is... You really should consider not being so bent out of shape about which words someone uses when talking about a subject, it distracts from the conversation and leads down this nasty road of emotional responses that I wanted to avoid. It's otherwise known as 'nit-picking' in some circles.

Honestly, it doesn't help your argument if you're spending your time tearing at the discussion word by word instead of talking about the intended message those words are meant to convey.

You'll notice, Brianna called it a baby too.

For the record, it's my belief that this is the only 'rant' I've brought to this conversation.

as for the woman in the bad relationship, the abortion isn't going to help, he'll just get her pregnant again...

and I believe the parents have a RIGHT to know what THEIR child is doing

"But since, as you are kind enough to qualify, it is a potential human being we're talking about,"
actually, I qualified it both ways, since both sides see it differently, it's a point of disagreement, obviously.

"It is an unfortunate fact that some women won't trust other women to judge what's best for themselves and their families."

and yet, somehow it was important to point out that virgins, men, and middle-upper class people are the ones who say these things.... If you're not going to listen to the group most likely to influence you, what's the point in bringing up all the ones that have no chance? I was simply pointing out how the statement you made wasn't really relevant, given my situation and access to qualified individuals.

"I believe that an uneducated opinion is worse than useless -- it's dangerous. So if you're going to argue about something, learn about it, and be willing to learn more. And if it's a subject you know you don't know enough about, listen to those who do."

I do. Otherwise I wouldn't still be reading this thread, I wouldn't bother talking about it with people who have knowledge of pregnancy, and abortion, first hand.

Just because I call it a 'baby' instead of a 'zygote' or whatever the other terms were you brought up, does not mean i know nothing about the subject. It simply means I don't know the proper definition of the words. That hardly makes my arguments invalid.

I know people on both sides of the issue. I know people who've had abortions, people who refuse to have them, people who might consider having one. I don't think those who had abortions are evil, or even mean, uncouth, whatever you want to say... They're just human beings, who made a decision I don't happen to agree with. I don't try and make them feel bad for the choice they made, it can't be undone now anyway, and it's not my job to convince them they're wrong.

My point in coming here was to get more information about the topic of abortion, not medical terms, from more sources.

I have no idea who TLS is, they aren't a friend of mine, I don't even know if they share my view on the issue. However, you terribly mischaracterized what they said about you. They did not compare your INTELLECT to anything. They basicly said that if you were dropped into the middle of the ocean with no floatation devices, thousands of miles from any landmass, your chance of surviving the environment you were unprepared for was about the same as the infants chance of surviving the world it was unprepared to enter when released from the womb early.

They also pointed out, as I believe, that the world is not overpopulated, but AREAS of the world are overpopulated. The streams and things being sucked dry is true, but that's because California has more population than it can sustain. It's one of many isolated cases of overpopulation.

I believe the male in the relationship holds just as much responsibility as the female in the relationship. Neither gets a pass by me.

I'm just going to let the Iraq and death penalty issues pass, they are completely unrelated to this conversation, and only serve to create even more confusion in an already complicated issue.

Like I said before, the different opinions about when life begins, change which laws should be considered when discussing this issue. So I wont get into that part of your post either.

"Why shall your belief triumphs others religious beliefs? "

I don't believe it should. You'll notice, in my first post, I referred to Brianna's belief system as a very good argument in favor of abortion.

"Instead of just trying to criminalize the syndrome, why not find the root cause of it?"

I can tell you the root cause of babies. Sex.

"I am glad that you did bring the marshmallow because you were the one who started the fire. "

It seems you don't understand what I meant by 'flaming'. Personal attacks instead of talking about the issue, is called flaming.

(which, by the way, means i never could have flamed you with my original post, since you hadn't even commented on the issue before that)

On that note, I'll go back to your original post and comment on some things:

"This had nothing with killing. Birth is a form of abortion unto itself, given that the mother aborts or gives "birth" to the fetus after 9 months of carry to term. (Please do not flame me for this)"

This seems to be another play on words. We are talking about abortion, as in, kill the unborn. Not just 'allow' it to be 'free'. So your assertion that birth and abortion are the same makes no sense.

"Slavery ended in 1864, there is no need to reinstate slavery for women because of their gender? (I really hope that you do not flame me for this as I am only expressing my opinion and meant not to flame you)."

Again, the mother decided to partake in behavior that had consequences. She made the choice, so she's responsible for the consequences. That means it's not 'slavery'. But, like I said before, given the different opinions on when life begins, we probably will never agree which is more important, the life of the child, or the freedom of the mother.

"The 14 amendment already said that any person "born" within the USA or naturalized in the US are entitle to equal protection under the law nor shall any person be force to undergo in volunteering servitude unless imprison or otherwise."

The 14th amendment ACTUALLY says this:
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Like I said before, the difference of opinion on when life begins means that this can be interpreted in many ways. I'm just posting it here for posterity.

"You certainly support abortion in regards to saving a woman life? What about the fetus that is killing its' mother? Should they also have the right to decided if they should be terminated even if they will kill their mother?"

I already stated my opinion on this matter. I think the mother should have the right to choose if her health is an issue.

"You must be consistence with your belief. I find it difficult to believe that you are Pro Life given that you had no compassion of the innocent life in the womb if it might cause the death of the women.

I do not believe that you are prolife because you do not have pro life compassion for innocent life that are not developing correctly but shall cause the death of the mother. "

Please do not assume to know what's in another person's heart and mind. Also, you're demanding that I be consistent with my belief. It's mine, I think I have the right to do what I want with it, and I don't think anyone here will disagree with that. (and there's no question of whether my belief has a life of it's own that is destroyed by my possibly mixed feelings, so don't bother with that argument, kthnx...)

TLS: The earth can support MAYBE three billion humans long-term and still be able to sustain other life. The earth isn't ours, we don't have the right to destroy every other species in an everlasting attempt to expand. Besides, agriculturally, we can't sustain our current population. Those people who say the US's trash could feed the world? They lie. We can't feed the people who are here today, let's not make more. Each person may only need a small amount of land to live, but they need HUGE amounts of land to grow the meat and vegetables they eat, and only a tiny fraction of the wordl is suitable for farming.

Tha Black Panther: Adoptive parents won't pay if the mother is black, eats poorly, uses drugs, parties, has a poor health history... They don't invest in a child's future when the chidl is probably going to be unhealthy, mentally retarded, and not look like them. I have talked to potential adoptive parents. They want a baby desperately and will go overseas for one-- but one with FAS? Brain damage from trauma? HIV? Family history of schizophrenia? Not a chance. Needs to be healthy and in many cases it also needs to have the same race as the parents. I recently learned that since my kid would inevitably be bipolar, giving such a kid to an adoption service would mean I could a) lie about my and my S/O's health history, thus guaranteeing they would not know how to handle my kid, and the kid would go untreated until their bipolar disorder got past the manageable point, or b) tell them, and know my kid would NEVER be adopted, and would be bipolar under the government's care, so be even LESS likely to get help.

Adoption is a good option for healthy white people who are able to take care of a kid for 3/4 of a year. I would encourage such people to offer children for adoption for the sake of the adoptive parents. For the rest of us, though, adoption is NOT a good choice and is cruel to a child.

The thing is, we don't care if you don't want an abortion. We want 1) Abortions to be legal for those who believe that they are the moral choice in certain situations, aka religious freedom; 2) Children who get pregnant to be protected from their parents abusing them and forcing them to abide by a moral value set that is not their own at great personal cost (many fundamentalist parents can be emotionally abusive if their daughters are pregnant, even if they understand enough not ot be physically so); 3) Women who miscarry to not have to be investigated during that difficult time for possible "criminal" activities; 4) Women and families to decide FOR THEMSELVES when there is a sufficient health issue to warrant an abortion, instead of a council of doctors.

I don't think parents should be told unless there's reason to believe the child was raped and the law needs to get invovled, because the risk is very high that the child will be abused emotionally before and physically afterwards, and may not be allowed to make their own decisions based on THEIR religious beliefs and THEIR health. Many parents might consider a 50% chance of their kid dying to not warrant an abortion, but maybe the child would consider that to be significant enough; parents by neccessity are controlling over a minor and can coerce a child into deciding something they may not want. At the same time, in reverse, parents have in the past coerced children into GETTING an abortion when they were informed their child was pregnant, even when the girl beleived she was committing murder. Telling parents basically removes any right of a child to have their own religious beliefs and have any say in the direction of their own healthcare, which by teenagerhood probably should be a right.

Of course, if a 9 year old gets pregnant the parents should probably know, but a 15 year old, maybe not. The law will need to be nuanced and take into account the teenager's rights to religious freedom and control over their own health as well as the need of parents to get involved IF their child is being sexually abused.

I don't need to convince you that a fetus isn't a person or that abortion is okay, I just want to help you come to understand that it needs to be legal and accessible for the gray area cases and those who are not of the same religious beliefs as you are. You seem to understand that, so hopefully you would be willing in the future to not support anti-abortion laws, like this South Dakota ban, unless they were carefully worded to reduce the incidence of abortion without actually removing rights from women and families. Most people would support those who chose to work towards reducing the incidence of non-medical abortions in practical, real ways as long as they didn't do so by banning all abortions.

"...you believe that somehow calling it a baby is some plot by me to inject emotionally hot-button words into the discussion."

If that assumption was wrong, then I apologize. But I must explain that you can't be surprised that I might assume that. As I said, the anti-choice movement does this constantly, and you had already revealed that you'd received a lot of misinformation from them -- like the belief that there could be no good reason for getting a late-term abortion.

"Just because I call it a 'baby' instead of a 'zygote' or whatever the other terms were you brought up, does not mean i know nothing about the subject. It simply means I don't know the proper definition of the words."

...But ignorance is fixable, and a link is right there.

"MANY expecting mothers refer to the unborn as 'my baby'."

Of course they do. Hell, if I got voluntarily pregnant, I'd refer to it as "my baby" too. And if someone pointed out that it's not actually a baby yet, I'd say, "I know, but it's my prerogative to be sentimental about the creature in my own womb."

Brianna G has already made eloquent statements on the subjects of adoption problems and teen pregnancy.

"as for the woman in the bad relationship, the abortion isn't going to help, he'll just get her pregnant again..."

But in the meantime, she might be able to get enough money into the separate bank account she started to get herself and her children out of there without leaving any trail he can follow.

"Most people would support those who chose to work towards reducing the incidence of non-medical abortions in practical, real ways as long as they didn't do so by banning all abortions."

I'm not sure what you mean by this, Brianna G. Surely you don't mean that a court should decide what is or is not the "right reason" for a woman to abort. Or did you just mean increasing the availability of preventive birth control?

"Or did you just mean increasing the availability of preventive birth control?"

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. I know many people who don't believe in abortion OR premarital sex but know that to prevent the first, the best way is to accept that the second happens and try to make sure the unwanted pregnancies don't happen in the first place.

Courts deciding when women get to abort is the primary reason Roe v. Wade was needed. Nothing like having a council of doctors tell you, well, there's a 80% chance of giving birth killing you or causing massive brain damage, but that's not enough for us, so you have to carry to term.

Black Panther, I wanted you to know that you are not the only 'pro-lifer' on board. I've posted on another thread here and am a true promoter of life. As far as some people accepting abortion as a form of birth control, I personally find it deplorable because I know some women that have had 6, 7, 8, 9 even 10 abortions.

The truth of the matter is that we in America have become greedy and selfish. We point the finger at all of the things that are going wrong in this country. Some say, the Republicans are making deals on the side with big business. Or they'll say the Democrats are lining their pockets with money from mortgage companies with bad business practices. Remember, a society is made up of individuals and if the individuals continually promote beliefs and practices that stem from selfishness, then we end up with a society in shambles. Ask yourself, "What have I personally done to contribute to the culture of selfishness and greed here in America? Have I made sacrifices even though others may never know about it? Have I put the needs of someone else above my own?" Only each of us as individuals can answer that question, but with the condition we are now in as a nation I strongly suspect that the answer would be 'no' from most.

IDEAS HAVE CONSEQUENCES! It may seem like it's a decision that affects only you, but for 35 years more than 50 million babies have been aborted. Our economy is suffering and our population of youth has decreased. Is that a direct result of our killing our progeny? We are all familiar with the difficulty in the ability of families being able to adopt. Is that another result of our killing our hope for the future?

As far as my former statement about birth control is concerned, the argument that it is not 100% effective is not a very good argument. Because we have so abandoned what we as a people had accepted for thousands of years, (waiting until after marriage to have sex) we have foolishly fallen into the belief that having sex is a right and a necessity. Yes it is a wonderful thing, but outside of marriage it becomes a real issue. The purpose of sex is for reproduction. So plainly put, if you don’t want to get pregnant, abstain. If you don’t abstain, understand that there is a possibility that you may become pregnant and have a plan in mind that doesn’t include ending a life. Sex is not like air, food and water; you can live without it. People want to have sex for the pure enjoyment of it, and I understand that, but we cannot remove the purpose of it so we end up doing the only other thing that we as humans can do when we are out of options; kill. So instead of sex promoting its true purpose, giving life, we have changed this beautiful gift from God into promoting death. Then we sit back and wonder what's happening to this country.

KrlyQ,

I appreciate your passion, but most of your arguments don't logically lead to the conclusion that abortion should not be legal.

1. You wrote: "Because we have so abandoned what we as a people had accepted for thousands of years, (waiting until after marriage to have sex) we have foolishly fallen into the belief that having sex is a right and a necessity. Yes it is a wonderful thing, but outside of marriage it becomes a real issue."

Statistics support that many abortions in this country are to women who are married. Being married does not confer a de facto protection from unwanted pregnancy. Thousands of married couples dread having a child, for various reasons, some of them including their utter inability to support one (see my arguments above on how bringing unwanted life into existence is a form of torture for all involved).

Waiting till sex to have marriage is not a way to reduce the need for abortion. The need for abortion remains, whether couples's unions have been officiated or have not.

Also, as a professional social scientist, I can assure you that mountains of hard evidence exist indicating that many people in history--even today in extremely repressive societies--did indeed find ways around the professed "marriage-only" standard of their societies.

2. "Sex is for reproduction only." You will not find much support for this view. Even the official doctrines of several major world religions have endorsed sex as a form of companionship between husband and wife.

You're entitled to your belief that sex is for reproduction only. In that case, you are free to limit your lovemaking with your husband or wife and to have sex ONLY without birth control and ONLY when you are actively pursuing pregnancy and have the shared goal of pregnancy. (For most middle-class couples, that would mean you have a minimum of several years of not having sex with your spouse.)

This also means that as soon as reproduction is impossible (i.e. the wife goes through menopause), you will cease having sex for the rest of your lives. Till death, to be clear.

But, please allow the rest of us the right to make the decisions about our own sex lives. Your view is not one that I share, and neither my usband or I would want any part of it.

Okra,
I would like to clear up something that I believe you misunderstood. I never stated that sex is for reproduction only. I stated that the purpose of sex is for reproduction. That is the purpose. It is enjoyable, but its purpose is for reproduction. It was made to be enjoyable so that we would continue to reproduce, because childbirth is not enjoyable and no one would do it twice if the sex was not so enjoyable. This ban/debate is not about taking away someone's sexual choices. Abortion has nothing to do with someone's sex life. It is the RESULT of someone's sex life. The statements I made were to show that people have choices before a pregnancy. They have been ignored because killing the unborn has been made too readily available to anyone for any reason. I made the statements I did about sex to prove a point. We have so foolishly convinced ourselves that we can't live without sex, (when the truth is we can) that we have come up with creative ways to justify murdering the unborn. Isn't it funny how the number of unwanted pregnancies increased after Roe v Wade? It's because the care that was taken by many to avoid pregnancy was cast aside since 1973. Take away legalized murder and people will utilize the other choices that have been ignored for the past 35 years.
I keep hearing about choice, but the choices that don't invoke ending a life are ignored as if they do not matter. There are a plethora of choices available to everyone at the age of sexual accountability. If a person chooses to have sex before he/she gets married, that is his/her CHOICE. Just for the record, I made that choice and have a 20 year old son as a result of that choice. I would never begin to TELL anyone how to conduct their sex lives. Whether a single woman wants to wait until she's married or wants to have sex with every man she dates, that is her CHOICE. If a married couple wants to have sex just for the shear enjoyment and intimacy, hang from the chandeliers, invite another couple into the bedroom or have sex sparingly, that is their CHOICE. The same unmarried couple also has a CHOICE as to whether or not they want to have children. If they don't, they have the CHOICE to use contraceptives or abstain. They have the CHOICE to have her go to a doctor BEFORE a pregnancy and have a tubal ligation. They have a CHOICE to have him go for a vasectomy. They have the CHOICE to do both.
The issue that most Americans have is that the federal government forced every state to accept killing the unborn at any time for any reason. We've allowed it to go on for 35 years, and we are not better off as a nation because of it; we are worse off as a nation. Most don't feel that murder should be a CHOICE.
Abortion was legal in some states before Roe v Wade. So women that wanted to abort had that CHOICE. But since a majority of American citizens disagree with the practice, we prefer to not have it be legal where we live. We prefer to raise our families in a community that considers ALL life sacred.
The question is should we have legalized this practice? If someone physically harms a pregnant woman and causes her unborn child to die in the attack, that person is arrested and sentenced for fetal homicide. But if that same woman went into a doctor's office and ended that same unborn child's life we call that CHOICE. Where is the sense in that? I'll tell you where the sense in that is; it's in the fact that we all know, somewhere deep down, in places that the 'pro-choice' activists don't want to acknowledge, realize and understand that the unborn is a human being worthy of the same protection as every other human being on this planet. A woman that is attacked is not carrying a child that is of greater value than the woman that goes to an abortion clinic. I'm sure there will be some who say that there is a difference, but it is because we have begun to try to decide WHICH lives are of more value that we have to deal with the foolishness of euthanasia and 'assisted suicide'. Many nursing homes are increasingly feeling the pressure to end the lives of the elderly and disabled because they are taking up bed space and have no worth in the eyes of society. I stated it before and will do so again; IDEAS HAVE CONSEQUENCES! The culture of death that we have propagated has caused a lack of respect for human life in many ways. This CHOICE that every woman wants to maintain for her own individual selfish purposes has affected our entire culture. The fact that I have to constantly watch for the possible shifting beliefs of the directors and staff at my mother's nursing home sickens me. She is there for help and assistance, but I have to be constantly watchful that the disregard for human life that we have cultivated in this country doesn't permeate the thinking of the staff the way it has for so many.
We've watched it go on for 35 years; ENOUGH!

KrlyQ,

Thanks for your response.

I'm glad to see you are consistent with your "life" stance by not supporting euthanasia. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you also strongly support birth control, revile the death penality/capital punishment in all cases, and reject all non-defensive acts of war. Anything else would not be consistent, and hence, not "life"-oriented.

In fact, let me pause on this issue of birth-control, because, despite your statement above that "this isn't about people's sex lives," sex figures heavily into your argument. It appears that, from your many endorsements of abstinence from sex as the only viable way to avoid pregnancy, that you prefer abstinence to other forms of birth control that would allow people to continue having sex while still avoiding pregnancy. (If I have misred your arguments, feel free to correct me).

If you are anti-abortion and yet also anti-birth control, your position has been irrevocably compromised.

Please don't come back with variations of your "people who have sex must accept the CONSEQUENCES of it" argument [paraphrase]. No, they don't. People *don't* have to accept the consequence of sex. And why should they?

Let's get real here.

Human beings have never limited themselves to their biology. Humans, apart from almost all other species, rely heavily on their minds and on the societies that form from them. That is precisely what it means to be human.

People who spend long hours out in the freezing cold or extreme heat might correctly expect the CONSEQUENCE of their actions to be death. And, for any other species, it is. But some people's ancestors found ways to fashion insulating clothing and homes. (My ancestors, from a very hot climate, found ways to ventilate their living spaces and to create various fans and such). And the people lived.

People who dive down deep into the ocean might expect to die from lack of oxygen. That is the normal CONSEQUENCE of being underwater without the biological apparatus (gills) to support oneself. But humans found a way to fashion an alternate apparatus to keep them breathing underwater. And the people breathed.

Examples abound of humans ingeniously fashioning safeguards against the CONSEQUENCES of their lifestyles. "Abound" is a misnomer, even: it is the very story of humanity.

So, while you are correct that actions have consequences, you are conveniently selective in the types of consequence-avoiders you choose to tolerate and those (i.e. abortion and perhaps birth control) you choose to denounce. Why is that?

On to my views:

I used to be not only Pro-Life in the official sense but also vehemently Anti-Choice. In fact, up until earlier THIS YEAR, I would still have agreed that an unborn human's rights should trump the rights of the born human's (the pregnant woman's). After much analysis of all sides of the issue, I now found that position untenable--indeed, oppressive and cruel.

Here is my position now:

I myself endorse life. I am pro-life (no caps) but also Pro-Choice (in the official widespread use of the term). I have strongly negative feelings toward abortion. I hate violence towards any creature, and it's even more disturbing towards a creature of my own species.

Pro-Choice does not mean Pro-Abortion.
Pro-Choice does not mean Pro-Abortion.

Pro-Choice endorses people being legally allowed to choose to CARRY THROUGH their pregnancy...or, alternately, to choose to end it.

Pro-Choice means the State--that Big Government that many people including most Republicans mistrust-- cannot force a pregnant woman to support with her body and vital organs a creature that she cannot abide there.

Pro-Choice means the human that has already been born and that is sentient and that is hurting is not held hostage to the one that is unborn and who has not yet entered this life or this world.

I want you to follow this through with me. Please.

When you were pregnant with your son (after Roe v. Wade), you WERE Pro-Choice, irrespective of what you may have called yourself. You exercised your right to decide that the unborn should stay in your body and that you and only you had that decision. For the government to come along and tell you "But you need to abort that baby because ____ [you're low-income; you're in poor health; you're a drug-user, etc.] would be an abomination and a recovation of the Pro-Choice position.

Why in the heck should the State--whether the federal one or one of the fifty if Roe were overturned--be able to do the opposite--to reach down with its powerful arm and force a woman to let a creature grow inside her and take over her life, her very future?

That's all Pro-Choice is saying.

And I understand that the Anti-Choice argument (remember, I've been Anti-Choice all my life) that the unborn is fully human.

Guess what?

The unborn being fully human is absolutely compatible with a Pro-Choice position.

It's quite simple: a born human does not have the right to use another person's body as its host. If a born human tries that, the "host" has the legal right to excercise deadly force--i.e. to kill--the person attempting to use her or his body against her or his will.

So, why should it be any different for an unborn human? The fact that a human is unborn does not give it rights over and above the other members of its species.

This is why when a woman *wants* to bear a child, the person who beats her is on trial for the abuse of the baby, as well. Why? Simply because she allowed the human creature to take up residence in her body, and she welcomed it. But if she rejects being a host to the creature--even when it's contrued as "fully human-- she must not be forced to carry it, or even to travel at great expense to a distant state that allows it.

Your preference to live in a "community" that decries abortion is NOT A RIGHT. You do not and must not have that right, Kyrly, certainly not when compared to the right of a walking, talking, thinking born human to decide what the heck happens to her own body and her own life.

Anti-Choice arguments privelege unborn humans above other humans, above the born ones.

And I just can't countenance that any more.

Although my antipathy toward the procedure of abortion remains (i.e. the suffering it causes a creature), I am equally grieved by the suffering a FORCIBLE PREGNANCY would inflict on a born, sentient, thinking, feeling human.

To ignore this suffering and to privelege the unborn over the born, to give the unborn rights unequaled and unmatched by any of those enjoyed by born humans, is to me a form of deepst cruelty. It is cruelty towards the woman who does not want to be pregnant and cruelty towards the human she will bear, who will enter the world unwanted. (And yes, if a baby is non-European or has special needs, it will be wanted by very few people on this earth).

I look forward to reading your thoughts.

My misspelling (twice!) of privilege was unforgiveable.

Chalk it up to typing with long nails.

Okra,
Don't worry about misspellings. We all do it. But don't you just hate it when your finger nail falls in between the keys while your typing? :)

You made some good arguments. However, I disagree with them, and can refute them. I will attempt to address as much as I can here without being too long winded. (I know; too late) You asked me to correct you if you misread me about my view on birth control. I support pre-pregnancy birth control. I'm not saying that I personally prefer abstinence to other forms of birth control. I'm just trying to point out the fact that we have become so depraved in our ideas about sex that too many people disregard abstinence as an unacceptable concept. I cannot understand how even the discussion of abstinence is usually met with disgust and/or disdain but killing an innocent child is not.

You wrote, "People *don't* have to accept the consequence of sex. And why should they?" Because that's what responsible human beings do. They accept the consequences of their actions. However, I must correct something about what I wrote previously. It may seem trivial on the onset, but if you give it a moment you'll see that it isn't because it's more of a philosophical statement. I wrote that IDEAS have consequences. Or put another way, belief systems or worldviews have consequences. The consequence of the belief that unborn children are expendable and have value based on someone else's say-so has lead to a culture that is questioning which other lives are expendable. It has lead to a culture where our youth value life less; hence the increase in juvenile crime and school shootings more specifically.

The examples you gave of people overcoming nature to avoid the consequence of death are examples of human innovation. None of your examples involved deliberately taking human life to over come the consequence of death. That's innovation and adaptation. I have an example of innovation and adaptation in reference to a young lady that had an unexpected pregnancy. I will spare you the sad story of how this young lady was duped into believing that the man in question was an upstanding citizen. Only that when she discovered that she was pregnant, she found out soon after what type of man he truly was. She was a college student and had every reason in the world to abort her baby, but did not. She states that her child is a pass around baby. She says that because she lives on campus and all of the girls in the dorm help in taking care of the baby. Some of the girls that graduated still come by with pampers, formula and things for the baby. They have all pitched in and helped this young lady. She says that her baby has 14 mothers. This is not a solution for everyone, but there is help for any woman that needs it; and places to go if she wants to give the gift of life to a family wanting to adopt.

You say that you previously classified yourself as pro-life and gave reasons why you held that view. You wrote, "I hate violence towards any creature, and it's even more disturbing towards a creature of my own species." Then why allow this practice to continue? You also wrote, "I am equally grieved by the suffering a FORCIBLE PREGNANCY would inflict on a born, sentient, thinking, feeling human." I'd like to make 2 points in reference to that statement:
1. No one FORCED her to get pregnant.
2. Her "suffering" is not permanent the
child's death is.
Which proves the point I've made previously (maybe on the other thread) that abortion is being used because the woman in question is being 'inconvenienced'. That is the selfishness that we have embraced in this country. I'm inconvenienced by my next door neighbor's dog barking all night but that doesn't give me the right to kill the dog or my neighbor.

"Your preference to live in a "community" that decries abortion is NOT A RIGHT." YES IT IS! "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Killing defenseless human beings is NOT A RIGHT!

I asked before (again, maybe in the other thread) why do you think pro-life advocates are putting up this fight; just to irritate women? Of course not. I don’t think the majority of people in this country are buying the argument that this is about a woman’s reproductive rights. That’s why abortion is such a contested issue. If the vast majority of Americans saw abortion as nothing more than the reproductive rights of a woman; if they viewed abortion as an issue that’s basically about women’s ‘privacy’, then there would be no great rift about abortion in this country; but there is. That’s because American’s aren’t buying the argument that abortion is merely about the woman’s reproductive choices because it’s about the baby who has no CHOICES.

I'll end here, 'cause this post is looong enough.

HI Kryly, thanks for your response.

I have started writing my response, but won't be able to finish and post it 'till later this weekend.