who supports right to choose

[WASaBubbleButt 41]

Are you serious?? Think of how many children we might have saved would be more appropirate, don't you think??

I'm out of here, like I said before we each have our opinions, and that is okay. If women that kill their own children don't want to call it that, that is fine with me.. Call it what you want. I will not post anymore. Say what you want. I don't believe in killing anyone not even a tiny defenseless baby.

Are you saying that by sending all the extra food that you ate too much of to a starving child would not save their lives and prevent them from dying of starvation? I'm talking about existing children that already ARE human beings that already FEEL the pain of a slow death from starvation. So it's okay to allow someone else to starve to death while we eat enough calories for 3 or more people but an embryo deserves more of a shot at life than dying tiny defenseless children?

Isn't it true that we could all be doing a lot more for existing people if we wanted to but for many reasons we simply don't?

So what is the difference between us eating like a heifer and not giving all those gazillions of extra calories to those who need it and letting them die instead, vs. a mother killing her zygote? How are we any better? No, maybe you didn't kill anything, but you didn't do your part to save anyone either. Not when eating all that extra food that someone else actually needed for survival.

It's EASY to sit back and point fingers at all the supposed wrongs of another. Sometimes it's not a bad thing to face facts and think about our own responsibilities in this world.

I don't believe it is moral to kill a tiny defenseless baby either. That doesn't mean a zygote is the same thing.

[WASaBubbleButt 41]

If the law changed, would you suddenly agree that a "fetus" is a human being?

Probably not, it would depend on science. If science can prove it is a human being vs. an embryo, I might have a change of heart.

A fetus is a name for one phase of human development, just like toddler and adolescent and elderly. It's all a spectrum of development. A fetus doesn't "turn into" a human being. A fetus IS a human being at an early stage of development.

We disagree. It's a potential future human being.

For me personally, a black person is 3/5 of a human being. Therefore I can own a slave.

Do you see the fallacy in this argument?

Science and the law do not support your scenario. You are again basing things on personal opinion, not science. You are basing it on what you want to believe, you are writing circles around religion and that's where you mistake is. You are trying to prove religion correct and that just never works. That's why they call it faith vs. fact.

Religious people are involved in both sides of the abortion debate. That does not make it a religious argument, any more than the fact that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a reverend made civil rights a religious issue.

That is not what I claimed. I claimed that those who are anti-abortion are usually basing their beliefs on their religion. And they are. They believe the soul enters at the moment of conception. Soul... that's a term based within religion. Those that don't believe a soul enters the body typically do not consider a clump of cells to be a human being.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why your religion (something based on faith and not fact) should be crammed down the throats of those that don't agree or believe in your religion. Does that mean it is okay for someone else to come along with a belief of killing everyone over the age of 30 to force you to follow their beliefs?

My position on the abortion debate is informed by the scientific fact that the thing growing in the mother's womb is a human being with human DNA and human body parts.

Oh? How many body parts does it have at 4 cells big? How about 100 cells large?

[WASaBubbleButt 41]

BTW, regarding a black person vs. my scenario of a fetus with brain connections, etc. That is my personal opinion, I'm not trying to make laws out of it and force others to agree with me. So it isn't really a fallacy since I wasn't using it to push the topic. I was using it to explain my own personal feelings. But just as anyone else, my own opinions don't really mean diddly squat, what does matter is that nobody has proven yet when it is a human being other than at birth. I personally see it a bit sooner.

[gadgetlady 4]

Oh? How many body parts does it have at 4 cells big? How about 100 cells large?

A woman doesn't abort at 4 or even 100 cells.

[kagoscuba 0]

"For your information, I was self pay.. insurance did not pay for me. And if getting my band to lose 40 lbs of overweight is inmoral to you.. then you have issues."

I went back to make sure, and yep I never used you or your in my statement. I will now. You ignored the basis of the statement and allowed yourself to think the statement was pointed at you. It was not. The statement was to make you think about the illogical rational you were using. Telling a woman to keep her legs together is simple enough. So is telling a fat person to keep their mouth shut or telling a smoker not to light up. It's even as easy as telling a man to go beat off in a corner instead of asking the woman to have sex with them. (unlike overeating or smoking, there are two sets of influences for human sexuality) I used the morality clause, not as a personal attack, but as a sign of how absurd the argument (the one I used) was. The monetary clause was used as an additional point of contention and was not personally directed at you (for that matter, I am a self-pay as well), nor did I even look at how much weight you had lost, but congratulations.

[AmberWaves 0]

Wow, I think there needed to be a bit more of a warning for those photos. how about a link to the photos instead of posting the actual photos so the people that don't want to see that don't need to see it.

[BJean 16]

Anti-abortionists want you to be shocked. That's the whole point. Too bad we don't keep photos of women who have died from botched abortions or grisly suicides. We could play that game too if we wanted to.

[gadgetlady 4]

Science and the law do not support your scenario. You are again basing things on personal opinion, not science.

Science demonstrates that what is in the womb is a human being. Show me how it is not? And impaired or undeveloped body parts don't constitute lack of human-ness. Lots of adults have impaired or undeveloped body parts. We are all in a state of flux.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why your religion (something based on faith and not fact) should be crammed down the throats of those that don't agree or believe in your religion.

My religion has nothing to do with my position on abortion. I was pro-life before I was a Christian, in fact from the first moment I understood what abortion was. It was obvious to me that the thing growing in the womb is a baby. My position has nothing to do with the presence or lack of a soul, which some people don't even believe in.

[gadgetlady 4]

BTW, regarding a black person vs. my scenario of a fetus with brain connections, etc. That is my personal opinion, I'm not trying to make laws out of it and force others to agree with me.

But, you see, therein lies the problem. Early Americans DID make laws out of it and forced others to agree with them. Well, they didn't force the anti-slavery people to agree with them. They only forced the slaves. "If you don't believe in slavery, don't have a slave." Just like current laws do -- they define someone as less than a person and then force their beliefs on that person. Just because the person lives in the womb doesn't change the scenario.

The entire issue is whether we have the right to define when human life begins, and if that is a matter of personal preference or of scientific fact. If we do have a right to define it personally, then why stop at birth? Why not, as some learned scientists have suggested, allow parents to kill their children up until 1 month, 3 months, or 1 year? Because, after all, they're simply choosing to define the beginning of human life differently than you are. And they have a right to do so, don't they?

[marjon9 6]

But, you see, therein lies the problem. Early Americans DID make laws out of it and forced others to agree with them. Well, they didn't force the anti-slavery people to agree with them. They only forced the slaves. "If you don't believe in slavery, don't have a slave." Just like current laws do -- they define someone as less than a person and then force their beliefs on that person. Just because the person lives in the womb doesn't change the scenario.

The entire issue is whether we have the right to define when human life begins, and if that is a matter of personal preference or of scientific fact. If we do have a right to define it personally, then why stop at birth? Why not, as some learned scientists have suggested, allow parents to kill their children up until 1 month, 3 months, or 1 year? Because, after all, they're simply choosing to define the beginning of human life differently than you are. And they have a right to do so, don't they?

The definition of what is "moral" does change depending on the views of society. George Washington owned hundreds of slaves, yet he is considered one of the greatest human beings in the history of the world. Mothers everywhere teach their children to be like George, especially around cherry trees. Old George's slave ownership is rightly condemned in the strongest terms in the world today, but he is forgiven because people understand that values were different at that time, and no one is immune from the influence of their environment.

That is why the "slavery" argument is so weak and unpersuasive. The analogy does not hold because, as you know, there was a time when slavery was considered acceptable by society. In the case of slavery that does not excuse it, but still people do understand why historical figures like Washington and Jefferson had slaves, and they are not condemned for it, like they would be today.

Applying this reality to the abortion issue, the fact is, there is a great deal of dispute today about when human life begins. In the world as it is today it DOES matter that the alleged "person" resides in the womb. There is no escaping the undeniable fact that a large number of people, probably the majority, including scientists, do not believe that a cluster of cells is a human being. In 200 years this view may be considered barbaric - but then again, it may not. There is no necessary correlation between abortion and slavery. In 200 years, science may prove that a fetus is not a human being.

Moreover, it is absolutely not comparable to say "why not kill children after three months, or after a year, after all we get to decide when human life begins, don't we?" This argument is absurd. All Americans, and most people everywhere for thousands of years, have always agreed that killing 3 month old children is totally unacceptable. There is no dispute about that like there is about when life begins. The fact is, morality is not an absolute, handed down by the alleged "WORD OF GOD." In some societies, certain things are considered acceptable, whereas in other societies, these same things are considered mortal sins.

In this present world we live in, as it actually is today, abortion is not remotely similar to slavery. There is no moral comparison to be made there. The majority of Americans do not believe that a clump of cells is a human being. Science is not unanimous on the issue one way or another. In light of this undeniable reality, one group of people cannot simply stand on a rock, declare that they own the one truth, and force everyone else to live by your moral code.

[green 6]

"IMO women that don't want things (because they apparently consider babies just things or they wouldn't kill them) growing in their bellies should probably keep their legs closed."

Wow...and I guess that people that don't want to be fat should keep their mouths closed. If they are fat, it is their choice and problem, and anyone who uses medical science to get "un-fat" is not being moral. Why should science and insurance pay for a mistake that was made by a bad entirely personal choice? Hell, fat people didn't even have someone else asking/begging/sometimes forcing them to make the bad choice.

Good point, kagoscuba. All of us who are either recovering from or trying to kick our dependencies on our destructive pleasures, whatever these may be - alcohol, tobacco, drugs, food, gambling, shopping, computer fun, etc - are cut some slack whenever we backslide for it is generally recognised that the human relationship to pleasure is a complicated thing and that it is not easy for us to get ourselves unstuck.

Birth control, even for those of us who are diligent, does not always work. I myself can attest to this. And as for this biz that those chicks who don't want babies can simply keep their legs shut, well, life ain't so easy as that. If you accept that humans share much with other animals you will acknowledge that sex is one of those very basic drives, clocking in behind only food and shelter.

Women engage in sex for all kinds of reasons, one of which has to do with our reproductive, a species friendly act, hardwiring. Another reason why women engage in sex is that it makes them feel good on both an emotional and a physical level. The act of sex does release some pretty nice brain chemicals which produce good feelings in a grrl. Good feelings in much the same way that stuffing your face with carbs and sugars, doing a drug fest, smoking a cigarette, drinking too much, gambling, going on a shop-fest will also make an addict feel good.

Women also engage in sex for more complicated, more human reasons than merely wanting the short term bio-chemical high. Women often feel themselves unlovely, unloveable, and unloved. They may engage in sexual exploration while attempting to sort out their own issues. This is why I don't feel that anyone should attempt to place this horribly complicated human issue into any splendidly tidy box. Let us admit that men and women will f*ck. Let us also admit that some of these women but none of these men will be left holding the bag even though both parties may well have been afflicted by the same and equal desire.... There are some of us women who feel that this inequity is not right.

And then let us imagine, if you want to argue that the foetus is human from the get-go, that we are in a forest and that there is an argument between the survival of the old growth oaks and that of the acorns and the tiny sapplings. Well, you know that most of that new growth is not going to survive, is it? This is how I feel when I contrast the needs of the individual who is already alive and fully cognisant against something which is in effect an acorn. This is an issue of rights and I believe that the rights of the fully sentient and currently suffering creature trump those of the acorn.

Of course, in an ideal world there are no birth control screw-ups and all women who are trapped in unwanted pregnancies are both capable and willing to commit 9 months of their time, physical, and financial resources in order to bring these to term and will happily and easily pass on their infants to anxious couples who have none of their own. This would be cool but real life is much messier and more painful than this.

[gadgetlady 4]

The definition of what is "moral" does change depending on the views of society. George Washington owned hundreds of slaves, yet he is considered one of the greatest human beings in the history of the world. Mothers everywhere teach their children to be like George, especially around cherry trees. Old George's slave ownership is rightly condemned in the strongest terms in the world today, but he is forgiven because people understand that values were different at that time, and no one is immune from the influence of their environment.

That is why the "slavery" argument is so weak and unpersuasive. The analogy does not hold because, as you know, there was a time when slavery was considered acceptable by society. In the case of slavery that does not excuse it, but still people do understand why historical figures like Washington and Jefferson had slaves, and they are not condemned for it, like they would be today.

What you're missing is the arguments that slave-owners used to justify their personal and private decision to own a slave: the black person doesn't have the same capacity for thought as the white person, they lack the brain development, etc. These are the same arguments that are used to deny life to the unborn.

Moreover, it is absolutely not comparable to say "why not kill children after three months, or after a year, after all we get to decide when human life begins, don't we?" This argument is absurd. All Americans, and most people everywhere for thousands of years, have always agreed that killing 3 month old children is totally unacceptable.

Ah, but that is patently untrue. Not all Americans agree. So for those who don't agree, should they be allowed to kill at that age? And since when do we determine who is worthy of life based on a consensus?

[WASaBubbleButt 41]

A woman doesn't abort at 4 or even 100 cells.

Sure they do, IUD, BCPs, morning after pill, etc. unless you believe that prevention of implantation of a fertilized ova isn't abortion. However, I'm glad to see that if it is just a clump of cells THEN it is okay, a later stage of the same "person" is not okay. There isn't a bit of difference between 4 cells and an embryo for the sake of the point here. Neither have a thinking brain, a personality, an awareness of itself or its surroundings, ability to feel pain, nothing. Just a clump of cells.

[WASaBubbleButt 41]

Science demonstrates that what is in the womb is a human being. Show me how it is not? And impaired or undeveloped body parts don't constitute lack of human-ness. Lots of adults have impaired or undeveloped body parts. We are all in a state of flux.

No, it does not. That's why different terms are used. Have you ever heard a scientist refer to a newborn as a fetus? The terms are there for a reason.

My religion has nothing to do with my position on abortion. I was pro-life before I was a Christian, in fact from the first moment I understood what abortion was. It was obvious to me that the thing growing in the womb is a baby. My position has nothing to do with the presence or lack of a soul, which some people don't even believe in.

Before you were Christian then you wouldn't have believed in a soul so it wouldn't have been a *real* human being. Kinda like a canine pregnancy, right? Same difference?

[WASaBubbleButt 41]

What you're missing is the arguments that slave-owners used to justify their personal and private decision to own a slave: the black person doesn't have the same capacity for thought as the white person, they lack the brain development, etc. These are the same arguments that are used to deny life to the unborn.

And science proved that theory wrong and now we know that the original theory was incorrect. People used to believe a fetus was a perfectly formed baby and science proved that wrong too.

I have a book that is pro-slavery. It was written in the mid 1800s. Do you know what they base their rights to own slaves? The bible. The bible said it was okay and THAT is what they based their beliefs. Thank goodness for rational thinking and education!

Sometimes we have to accept that religion isn't the ruler of the world and common sense often times takes over. Common sense says not to take a faith at face value and instead, learn about the facts.