Truly inspiring. I'd like to know what pro-choice advocates have to say to her and if they have the gall to say to her face that she had no right to live. At 7 1/2 months, there is a viable fetus who can survive without the mother. There is no longer a "woman's choice" for abortion. The woman already made the choice to carry the baby this long. I'm pro-choice - sensible, informed pro-choice. To put me in a camp that would "say to her face that she had no right to live" is a red herring on the entire issue. i agree completely with the above commenter. 7.5 months is a little late to be changing your mind. and why would i ever tell anyone they don't have a right to live? that's not what being pro-choice is about. Actually it is what the pro-choice stance is. Is a fetus not a baby? Even if you don't consider it to be a person or alive you are still saying that only the babies the mother wants are the ones that are allowed to live. A fetus is a baby in various stages of development. Before the brain stem/brain develops, it's a mass of cells with potential and no consciousness. After that, the morality issue comes into play. No one is saying that "only the baby the mother wants are allowed to live." In this case, the mother carried the child close to full-term. It's ridiculous to compare that with a standard abortion. Pro-choice means informed, responsible decision-making. It's not "well, pregnancy isn't convenient for me this month." There will always be people who abuse the process due to pure selfishness. But the majority make an agonizing decision, and I cannot, will not, judge their circumstances. I am not judging either and therefore I expect the women who are considering abortions not to judge whether or not their baby is good enough to live. You can find some abortion statistics here: http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html Here's a small piece of it: "Why women have abortions 1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient)." So, this would be a better alternative for the baby of a woman who doesn't want to be a mother: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3059413 well spoken argument, wiccantexan. Thank you, kalibrooke. For the record, I'm pro-choice but personally could not go through an abortion. It's just not in me. However, if I were in circumstances where I knew the baby would be likely killed due to abuse, etc, I would certainly want the option open. Sane people who don't want to be a mother give their babies up for adoption. So adoption is just not an option. Just giving the baby the chance to do something with his/her life is completely out of bounds. Sane people who don't want to be a mother put their babies up for adoption. i completely concur, wiccantexan... i don't want to judge others as i'm not in their shoes. Sane people who don't want to be a mother give their babies up for adoption.Uh huh. So the abused wife will just explain away a full-term pregnancy missing baby with, "oops, sorry, I misplaced it." Who ever said that a woman considering abortion was always in a sane situation? So 2 negatives = a positive? Isn't there some personal accountability in a situation like that? How can a person predict a thing like a child being killed from abuse before it is even born? Exactly. Well said kvk. sane women who don't want to be mothers take every precaution they can not to be, but no birth control is 100%. i cannot imagine carrying a baby to term and then giving it up. i find that a much more upsetting emotional situation than having an abortion. not only would i spend the rest of my life wondering about that child, but that child would probably also wonder about me and why i wanted to give it up. this isn't a perfect world and there are no perfect solutions. I find that a much more upsetting emotional situation than having an abortion.You highlight one of the problems perfectly that many of us pro-lifers have with "pro-choicers" that is a PERSONAL feeling. i'm certainly not speaking for all pro-choice people out there. and that's not the only (or even the main) reason that i'm pro-choice. i don't want to judge others as i'm not in their shoes.You can't think of a gazillion situations where judging others is quite acceptable and needed? You are telling me that if you saw a woman beating her child with a baseball bat that you are going to say to yourself "Well I don't want to judge, I have no idea what the mother is feeling" and keep on walking? Bullshit, you are going to call the cops. And in my view mothers killing their children is one of those times others do need to judge. How can a person predict a thing like a child being killed from abuse before it is even born?A woman who's had it happen before? How can you possibly generalize circumstances that are highly individualized? I guess no one has stopped to consider what the conditions were that made the mother choose abortion. Was she sick? Would giving birth have killed her? Which life is more important? Would you yourself die to give your unborn child a chance? (I'm just asking questions, and I hope that everyone here is mature enough not to flame me.) Did the doctors predict that this woman was going to have some kind of 'defect' anyways, and that it could be better to not make the kid suffer? Did the mother believe in reincarnation? That could effect someones choices, I think. If they couldn't provide a decent life for the child, or there was some other circumstances that preveted her from going full-term, and... I really actually dislike the "pro-choice" or "pro-life" labels, as if we who support the choice have a blatent disregard for human life in general. But to feed your curiosity, I'm a reasonable pro-choice advocate who is middle class, Caucasian married to a Mexican male, career Civil Service woman with 2 lovely daughters. I've also wondered for a long time how many pro-lifers are middle class or better, and Caucasian.And/or male. Just a wondering I've had for a long time.Goto this clip: http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/80C5B239-DB22-4357-8AE2-A05C46FC5204/ And visit the source for some statistics that might interest you. The one statistic I would most like to see is the number of pregnant men who chose to have a safe legal abortion when they have an unintended pregnancy. <<Pro-choice means informed, responsible decision-making.>> Have you ever been on the receiving end of Pro-Choice information and decision-making. I have and it is not the picture you paint. While you may indeed hold these beliefs...and I believe that you have been honest and genuine in what you have stated...the Pro-Choice agenda is not about informed decisions. If you believe they are, I am afraid you have been deceived. Planned Parenthood rejected my "choice" to not have an abortion...to keep my baby. They treated me horribly (I have posted elsewhere in here about this). Pro-choice is nothing but a deceptive term to make people that they encourage women to have information and make infor... Yes, I have. I was a 19-yr-old unwed mother who had to look at all options. So, I have been on the receiving end and it helped a lot. (BTW, that baby is now 24 and about to graduate with her Masters). bitdrifter, i certainly CAN think of a "gazillion" situations where judging may be acceptable and/or needed. this, however, does not fall into that category for me. i view this issue as a personal choice, and as such, i am not in the business of policing what a woman chooses to do with it (mind_sharp, i think you raise some good questions just playing devil's advocate). that said, i think that our laws regarding this choice are grossly negligent and that we have a long way to go with sex education (and i'm not talking abstinence only, people). i think that there are many women who are under-informed, and are not well equipped to handle making that choice (not to mention the repercussio... At 7 1/2 months, there is a viable fetus who can survive without theThe same is true at 6 months and even sooner. annmairi, i have stated this elsewhere, but i don't believe that your experience is or should be the norm. i am sorry that you were painted such a negative picture of what pro-choice is about as well as what planned parenthood is about, as neither of them should take away the choice to do whatever you feel is right. In the animal kingdom (we are animals y'know) Young that are born malformed or defective are known as food. Since we are civilized we can move past that and rescue our defective offspring. However, we must realize that by allowing the active genes to stay active we doom our species. Some animal parents will actually kill deformed offspring. Some animals will kill any offspring that are not theirs. Look at hippos and the rodent families. A squirrel will kill and eat it's mates offspring if it isn't theirs. Other animals will fail to care for or even abandon and banish some of their offspring in times of famine. We have the resources and the morals to allow our damaged or unwanted offspring... As a society we should make the facilities available to those who choose to use them. It should be covered under medical insurance just like any other elective surgery. We should also make alternatives easily available for those with questions. There is already a legal system in place to handle that...its called: Adoption. All of these agencies and facilities should be in the same building. There should be a crisis counselor agency that supports prevention and planned parenting in the same building too. At the facility the woman could get informed and make a decision and carry it out. The media should be banned from the premises. I hate the media! Check out the stats posted above by BitDrifter. I believe the percentage of abortions due to health concerns is (correct me if I am wrong) 7%. Also, rape related abortions (also a big argument of pc's) is at about 1%. Yes, I read that. Seems to me more people should visit the prevention and planned parenting offices. To quote that article: "All abortion numbers are derived from pro-abortion sources courtesy of The Alan Guttmacher Institute and Planned Parenthood's Family Planning" Why do you feel that information is so damn important? 99% of your comments on this topic concern percentage information. You must be a percentage nut. Here's a percentage 100% of me doesn't understand what you are trying to say. Haha I like how you couldn't disprove my point so you use mockery. Good try though. Oh and to answer your question, it is because statistics seem to be the only thing people listen to when they feel that religion is a big part of the pro-life argument. How can a person predict a thing like a child being killed from abuse before it is even born?How can you make that statement when a child is not a child until it is born? Will it not be a child if given the opportunity? Haha I like how you couldn't disprove my point so you use mockery.What the hell are you talking about? Since I agree with both sides where is the issue. I don't need statistics to make this decision. The decision is the woman's. Whether I agree or disagree with their decision is irrelevent. This whole debate was created because someone put their nose where it doesn't belong. It's 'media conditioning' and in the old days they would have been killed. If you must 'win' then congradulations...you win Will it not be a child if given the opportunity?If given the opportunity by the one who created it? That is HER decision now isn't it. It is her decision because, at least this was true the last time I checked, the baby couldn't speak for itself. I suppose you could consider it sticking our noses in other people's business but you could say that about murder, drug use, drunk driving, the list goes on. I would gladly butt in if it means that a child is given the opportunity to live. Oh by the way, thanks. You're welcome. Reaching into somewhere you shouldn't make have you pulling back a bloody stump. I would gladly butt inThats rude and pushy. I'm not sure but I think there could be a war if someone were to butt in where the butt is not wanted... Oh, you mean like a terrorist pushes their beliefs on others. So if someone decided that you should sell your house or your car because someone in a hospital might die without an operation they can't afford its ok, you would gladly save a strangers life. No? Oh so a baby is now property? Wow...did not know that. Man I should have some kids so i can do as I please. I think it is more rude (rudder? no i think it's more rude) to end the life of someone who could very well be the president someday (a damn good one at that; no offense to G Dub) Gimmie a break, End the life of someone who might discover FTL travel or the cure for all disease or at least something worthy. President is the best you could come up with? How about the next Manson or Bundy or Hitler? Lets not forget that if a butterfly flaps its wings in Chicago there will be eskimoes in Japan. Eskimos in Japan you say? Well you will have to send me a link to a picture or something because I found plenty of butterflies flapping their wings in Chicago (check them out here). Yeah, you're right. The risk for the next spawn of satan to be born is too high. I say we ban pregnancies all together. Babies are an imminent danger to national security! We must stop them before they bomb America! Sorry for not having enough time to list out every single thing a child has the potential to be. Aaaaand "Bobby Rutan" wins the best zinger award Skwirlinator get's the prize for most articulate comment 3rd place goeas to BB for keeping his kool And crdz get's an honorary mention for use of stats. Thorne comes in late after a minor landline casualty (my bird ate my phoneline) with: f*ck percentages. "Reasons" are unimportant. Rape, accident, whatever. My body, My choice. My mass of growing cells, (much like a cancer or parasite), feeding off of MY blood and body. My body, My choice. And what about all those sweet lil in vitro "babies" that get flushed, when one finally succeeds in "sticking"?? If life indeed begins at conception, what about those "spares" that g... In the animal kingdom (we are animals y'know) Young that are born malformed or defective are known as food. Since we are civilized we can move past that and rescue our defective offspring. However, we must realize that by allowing the active genes to stay active we doom our species. Some animal parents will actually kill deformed offspring. Some animals will kill any offspring that are not theirs. Look at hippos and the rodent families. A squirrel will kill and eat it's mates offspring if it isn't theirs. Other animals will fail to care for or even abandon and banish some of their offspring in times of famine. We have the resources and the mor... Well said brazilnut72!! Especially as I believe if we all took a really good look in the mirror we would all have to admit to some sort of "undesirable" quality or characteristic. I believe the fact that we can see these "traits" as what makes us uniquely important in this world is one thing that separates us from the animal kingdom. Once we can only look at each other and see our differences as something that needs to be eliminated...we might as well just throw in the towel. It is thought that Einstein had ADHD, along with many others... www.adhdrelief.com/famous.html Many would consider this a weakness. What if there had been a test... Why do people constantly confuse pro-choice with pro-abortion? Why do people constantly confuse pro-choice with pro-abortion?Because in order to believe that everybody should have the choice, you have to agree that the option of abortion should be availble--hence you are pro-abortion. no. the definition of pro-abortion would be that you WANT people to have an abortion. i don't WANT people to have abortions. i want them to make their own, individualized choices based on their life, feelings, and beliefs. and i want people to allow me those same choices. no. the definition of pro-abortion would be that you WANT people to have an abortion. i don't WANT people to have abortions. i want them to make their own, individualized choices based on their life, feelings, and beliefs. and i want people to allow me those same choices.1. I do believe that the abortion industry (for that is what it is) dearly wants people to have abortions. That is how they make their $$$. 2. Even if you don't go to bed at night hoping against hope that someone will have an abortion tomorrow, you still want abortion clinics to be kept open so people can have that "choice". The way I see it, that is pro-abortion. well put, burnbright. i am certainly not "pro-abortion" either. i just do not EVER want anyone (especially anyone with whom i do not have an intimate/familial relationship or friendship) telling me what to do with my body, and i'll leave that same freedom to all women. i think everyone can agree that america was built upon the premise of freedom. (the founding fathers knew this, and even initially faced static from many states regarding the bill of rights because certain states didn't want to be told how to govern their own people-- <i>that's</i> how much freedom was emphasized.) we are supposed to value diversity and the opinions and rights of others, even if they conflict with our ... i think everyone can agree that america was built upon the premise of freedom.Actually... Liberty. we are supposed to value diversity and the opinions and rights ofThat is true. But the difference here is that the intolerance is against those that believe killing unborn babies is murder. Tolerance is not used today to mean tolerance. It is used to mean shut-up. We can tolerate opinions, we can tolerate traits, we can tolerate political views, we can tolerate other's actions in the privacy of their own bedrooms, but when YOU force me to change my values and to be coerce me ... Willhelm, I'm not sure how many ways you have to hear this in order to understand it, so I'll give it a shot. but when YOU force me to change my values and to be coerce me to accept an action I see as pure evil,That is exactly how I feel about you being in my body without my permission. In perfect opposition to the position YOU are taking, which would enforce your values on ME, I am more than willing to allow you to keep your values. I am not interested in legislating your choices. I would not try to legislate that if your life was in danger you MUST (because I believe it to be right) abort the fetus to save your life. I will support your right t... CRH, you little instigator!!! *cackle* just clip it and watch the fun, huh??  LOL - I love a vigorous debate. That is exactly how I feel about you being in my body without my permission. In perfect opposition to the position YOU are taking, which would enforce your values on ME, I am more than willing to allow you to keep your values.killing is not a value, so they do not relate in even the most remote sense. However, at least I have some insight to the level of reasoning I am dealing with here. Understand this. I would no more support your right to kill your 5 year old in the privacy of your own home than I do your right to kill a baby in the privacy of a doctor's office. If you want to make the decision to surgically make yourself incapable of conceiving a c... In the animal kingdom (we are animals y'know) Young that are born malformed or defective are known as food. Since we are civilized we can move past that and rescue our defective offspring. However, we must realize that by allowing the active genes to stay active we doom our species. We have the resources and the morals to allow our damaged or unwanted offspring to grow to maturity. Sometimes that works out for the best but many times it ends in disaster for the parents and the offspring.This is an interesting point...getting rid of defective offspring due to health reasons is pretty darn normal in a dog eat dog world. I use defective in the way that the... In the animal kingdom (we are animals y'know) Young that are born malformed or defective are known as food. Since we are civilized we can move past that and rescue our defective offspring. However, we must realize that by allowing the active genes to stay active we doom our species.I afraid I have to agree. Rough though it may seem, nature/evolution does promote survival of the fittest. Seen from a purely genetic viewpoint and for long term survival of species, it is in no way immoral or unnatural for Mother Earth to weed out the genetically defective or weaklings, so to speak. We, as a society though, have put morality and religion into the equation too. Seen from a moral... You think we shouldn't terminate a fetus because it is alive. Cancer is alive, maybe we are the mistakes. So you would rather give the cancer it's right to live than let some one have free will? killing a person certainly is not a value we should hold in high esteem (see "thou shalt not kill"); but with the ambiguous nature of the subject at hand--whether or not the fetus is actually a "child"--this is not as straightforward as some would like to paint it. (not to mention the gray area we encounter with the idea of killing in self-defense, or the idea of fighting a war for "the greater good"... i could go on.) fascinating debate, though, so far! willhelm. Make up your mind. You can't have it both ways, but like most of your ilk, you insist on trying. killing is not a value,you say, yet a couple of comments earlier, you claim it is: but when YOU force me to change my values and to be coerce me to accept an action I see as pure evil,Also, of course, you refuse/neglect to consider the question when of which life you would choose to take? Who would you "Kill"??: If your wife chooses to sacrifice herself, so that her fetus may live, that is her choice. Thorne, Your rant suggests incoherence. Your incoherence explains to me how it is you arrived at your view. Your militant stance suggests intolerance. Your intolerance explains your invalid logic. I will take from your hatefulness the fact you really are not interested in having a discussion with me. Willie, my fellow clipper and seeker of knowledge, Thank you so much for this excellent example of logical fallacies in argument/debate/discussion. I'm sure that many will benifit from this. Thorne, Your rant suggests incoherence. Your incoherence explains to me(I copy it here, for further reflection in case anyone missed it's eloquence the first time around) It's so sad that this medium of communication is so lacking in so many aspects, as to p... Perhaps if the questioned were rephrased? What if the question was, who would you chose to "save"? The word "kill" is a bit melodramatic. Sacrifice or let die, as used earlier would perhaps describe that specific scenario. To answer the question on my own behalf, I would chose to save the life of the mother. I know a lot of people have a huge religious stake in this issue, so if I try to see this from that perspective, this is what I got: The embryo's/fetus's/baby's soul is taken care of. No worries. No matter which way, God has it. Now we are left with the mother alive (and safe). The God could not be mad at me for that. In comes choosing letting the mother die, to save the baby. I... That besides, I would like to hear your opinion on this too willy. How does "the other side" see this and really, who would you save and why? Well stated TN. Also, your point regarding the word "kill" is not lost on me. It is not my first choice, but had already been chosen by Bitdrifter: And in my view mothers killing their children is one of those times others do need to judge.Willhelm: But the difference here is that the intolerance is against those that believe killing unborn babies is murder.Please note that my first response didn't "kill": ... abort the fetus to save your life. I will support your right to make that choice for yourself. However, since you are male, you will never face that choice.If your wife chooses to sacrifice herself, so that her fetus... continued: But now the "official" " pro life" position on that isI'd really like to hear the justification for this contradiction in the so called "pro-life" stance, as well. Well, this has been interesting so far, everybody, but I need to get some sleep and will have to try to catch up in a couple of days. We're off to the hospital in the morning. My daughter is to check in at 6am for labor induction. My grandbaby shall be born in the sometime soonish! I'll be back when we're all home and settled in. Don't miss me too much!!! *smooch* Also, your point regarding the word "kill" is not lost on me. It is not my first choice, but had already been chosen by BitdrifterI know...The whole throwing around of words like baby-killers and murder and so on by some, just seem a bit over the top and hysterical to me. I know you were just using "their" words. - I also do see a certain contradiction in, that I (a liberalist, or whatever I am) am always being "told off" and told to think less emotionally. I think the non-liberalists should do the same on this issue. Just a little less drama would be nice. The whole idea of frozen babies or non-attached, "unneeded" fertilized eggs being flushed is also something I'd lik... Let's look at the definiton of conception found at webMD: Fertilization: If sperm does meet and penetrate a mature egg after ovulation, it will fertilize it. When the sperm penetrates the egg, changes occur in the protein coating around it to prevent other sperm from entering. At the moment of fertilization, your baby's genetic make-up is complete, including its sex. Since the mother can provide only X chromosomes (she's XX), if a Y sperm fertilizes the egg, your baby will be a boy (XY); if an X sperm fertilizes the egg, your baby will be a girl (XX). ----- From a scientific standpoint, that answers the question of when life begins. All that's needed for that life to become self-sustaining... props to Picholine. thanks  Well, a biology lesson wasn't really what I looking for. (been there, did that) I think we all know what fertilization means. Besides, as an argument, that is only applicable in a perfect little world. In the real world, you don't get to have only perfect little XX and XY babies. XXX and XXY babies are conceived too, kids with hydroencephalitis or anencephalitis. Kids with profound retardation etc etc etc. But okay then! Now we still have all these perfect little XX's and XY's, fertitilized and in the freezer, ready to bake, but Mum is full. What to do with these perfect little "babies"? That's the question I would like the "others'" opinion on. Doesn't anyone "pro-life" have... It is about choice. The choice of a woman/girl to be in control of her body. It is also about being responsible for your actions. If you drink alcohol to excess, you develop cirosis of the liver. You choose your actions and your body responds. If you shoot herion with shared needles you develop HIV-AIDS. You again choose your actions, and your body responds. You made the choices, you must bear the responsbility. If you choose to have sex without birth control, you may get pregnant. Your choice, your body reacts. You now are responsible. You now have two choices: 1. Bring the baby to term and keep the child or give it up for adoption. 2. Abort "fetus". Interesting, if you want a child it is c... Boy, so much space taken to quote bits that still remain unaddressed by those in favor of the legislation in question. Again, I ask: And what about all those sweet lil in vitro "babies" that get flushed,And TN asks: But okay then! Now we still have all these perfect little XX's and My feelings are the same as wiccantexan's and burnbright's. It's nice to see hear from a victim for a change. I mean other than a mother who chooses to abort a baby. Here's someone who has lived through the experience I ask folks above to answer. In the comments following his honest expression of his feelings and experience, you will find someone who expresses his value of the fetus' potential life above that of his wife. I thought I would post this here, since noone is willing to answer the hypothetical question. My Body. My Choice. My Body. My Choice.Egg Zactly fetus' potential lifePotential life? Can you back that up with science? It is either alive, dead, or an inanimate object. A fetus is a living human being. Clarifying - potential human consciousness. Until the brain stem/brain is developed and functional, it could morph into something incapable of sustaining that. Cells go haywire for various reasons, at various points of the process. This isn't about whether a fetus has the right to life and never was. NOTHING has a right to life including you & me - that we live & continue to do so is merely luck at the mercy of the cosmos. If you feel your beliefs give you the right to dictate to others that a fetus may live or die, then you show me how you've spent every cent you've ever made and worked your butt off daily to save & protect the thousands & millions of people & babies dying of aids, dying of war, dying from disease, dying from murder, dying from anything you can imagine. When you show me that you have done everything humanly possible to save those lives, then & only then will your 2 cents be worth consideration. We all... that we live & continue to do so is merely luck at the mercy of the cosmos.Lenziggy, If you think you are being profound, you failed. There have been ,many who have tried to pose these arguments of "luck" or chance. Chance and luck are incapable of creating a single thing. It has no entity. It has no force or power. Chance cannot create a speck of dust much less the Universe. It has absolutely NO causal power to create. Chance is luck, a mathematical probability which leads you down the road of the fallacy of ambiguity. Materialists like to use this term as if it has power. It does not. Certainly not supreme power. 5-9-2007 10:53 AM  | ||||||||||
