You all know how I would vote. So lets see how many like me are out there.

I beleive that "the child" should be considered a HUMAN LIFE once it is at a stage in the pregnancy where IT could survive without the BODY of the MOTHER to sustain it...

With modern technology etc I will assume that this is around 20 wks. ( and I am not a Medical specialist)

It didn't used to be 20 weeks. It used to be much, much later that a baby could survive outside the womb. Are we to say that in the early 1900's, a baby wasn't a life until 36 weeks, but in 2007 that baby is a life at 19 or 20 weeks? The definition of life depends on medical advances?

Let me ask you this. If medical technology could take the baby, the blob, the cluster of cells, the fetus, the embryo, call it whatever you want, OUT of the mother's body and grow it in an artificial womb or transplant it into another woman's body, would you find that an acceptable alternative to abortion?

In my experience, most people who are pro-abortion answer "no" to this question. The mother doesn't simply want to be "un-pregnant". She wants the baby to not exist, and since this is not possible, she wants what she believes to be the next best option -- a dead baby. She knows what she is carrying is her child, a product of her DNA and the father's DNA, and if she were to have it taken out of her womb and placed elsewhere, it would still be her child and she might have the "misfortune" of having to deal with this child or grown adult later in life. Therefore, the simple state of being "not pregnant" is not the goal of abortion. The goal of abortion is the total destruction of that specific growing human life.

In my experience, most people who are pro-abortion answer "no" to this question. The mother doesn't simply want to be "un-pregnant". She wants the baby to not exist, and since this is not possible, she wants what she believes to be the next best option -- a dead baby. She knows what she is carrying is her child, a product of her DNA and the father's DNA, and if she were to have it taken out of her womb and placed elsewhere, it would still be her child and she might have the "misfortune" of having to deal with this child or grown adult later in life. Therefore, the simple state of being "not pregnant" is not the goal of abortion. The goal of abortion is the total destruction of that specific growing human life.

Wow, I've never heard that from the people I know who aborted.

Wow, I've never heard that from the people I know who aborted.

Have you ever asked them that question?

Have you ever asked them that question?

If they just wanted the baby to not exist? Not in those words, but I have talked to some women who had abortions about why they did. None of them (granted a small sample) said anything about not wanting the baby to exist, or anything about their DNA. The minority just didn't want to be pregnant at all. So for them, adoption wasn't seen as an option. Had someone offered to take the baby and gestate it seperately, they may have agreed for all I know. It wasn't some grudge or bad feeling towards their fetus if that makes sense.

For others, it was because there was medical risk for them. Again, I'm not talking hundreds of people here, just a few I know.

I'm stunned. I've never heard anything so, well...extreme. Is that why you think women have abortions? I have never been told by anyone who has had an abortion that they wanted to have an abortion in order to avoid the misfortune of dealing with it later on. Wow. Still stunned. Has anyone who had an abortion told you that was the reason???? By the way, have YOU ever made an offer to a pregnant woman to take her child if she doesn't abort?

I'm stunned. I've never heard anything so, well...extreme. Is that why you think women have abortions? I have never been told by anyone who has had an abortion that they wanted to have an abortion in order to avoid the misfortune of dealing with it later on.

It's unlikely you've ever phrased the question that way. I HAVE phrased the question that way in a debate format: "If the 'thing growing in the womb' could be removed from the woman's body to grow elsewhere, would that be an acceptable alternative to abortion?" The answer is almost always an emphatic no, belying the purported purpose of abortion being simply to make the woman not be pregnant any more.

That being said, I don't go around asking women in crisis situations this question. It is more of a theoretical question asked in other fora, meant to cause people to THINK about what abortion is and the purpose it satisfies.

By the way, have YOU ever made an offer to a pregnant woman to take her child if she doesn't abort?

Many times. And I will continue to do so whenever the situation presents itself. I would happily take a baby (or assist in finding someone who would)

than watch the tragedy that occurs for both mother and baby when abortion is the "choice".

The thing some people just don't understand is that in certain situations an abortion does not create a worse tradegy for the mother and baby than a pregnancy (and fetus) that is not terminated.

I know how some of you feel about this. You want as many babies as possible to be brought into this world. And most of you say that you'll take the responsibility of any unwanted children and the responsibility for any woman whose life is endangered by a pregnancy - which for me includes both physical as well as mental reasons. But the sad fact is, you cannot provide for all of these children and mothers - nor is it your place to. In fact, your beliefs should not be the determining factor with regard to a woman and her fetus (or child, if you prefer).

You should just continue to do the good work that you do in support of your beliefs and allow others to practice their own beliefs when it comes to this subject. No matter how much you wish it to be true, you have no right to tell others what to believe and to condemn them if they do not share your beliefs and practices. I honestly do understand how you feel about the abortion issue and unwanted babies.

My heart does go out to you. I am sure you are tortured by the idea of babies being killed every day. Otherwise you wouldn't go to such extremes to make your point.

Green: The reason this issue keeps rearing its' ugly head here, even though our laws are clear on this, is because this administration has appointed Supreme Court justices who are anti-choice. Consequently, the current laws can be changed. As you know, there are Americans who believe that they have the right to determine what all American woman do with regard to an unwanted pregnancy. They do not want to allow women the right to choose abortion.

So the war, both here and abroad, rages on. You (and they) can thank our sitting president and his sidekicks for all of this.

Thankfully, in Canada abortion is pretty much a non-issue, as it is in France which is where I had my abortion back in the early 80s.

Gadget does raise a somewhat interesting question: would I have been willing to see my foetus transplanted into a more accepting womb and thus go on to live a life? I don't know how I would have responded to that offer, to tell you the truth. I only know that I personally wanted nothing to do with pregnancy, childbirth, or motherhood. Indeed, my own feelings on this business bordered on a phobia.

I just read a quote elsewhere on the 'net. It said, "I know two things for sure. There is a God and I'm not Him."

Green: I believe that the whole idea of transplanting an unwanted fertilized egg into someone else who desperately wants a baby, is asking for a whole lot of problems. And none of them minor problems. I'd hate to open up a discussion of that because it could get very volatile, but if it were offered as a choice and done voluntarily, I would probably be supportive of the idea. If it were mandatory and required by law, I would be completely and totally against it.

I would like to add that although some people believe that adoption is the answer to every unwanted baby, I would say that adoptions sometime present some real horror stories of their own. So I feel that desisions like these: adoption, in vitro fertilization, transplanting fertilized eggs, abortion, etc., should all be made on a case by case basis by the people directly physically involved - NOT by the government or other biased individuals.

I find your comments interesting, BJean. I have always been fascinated by genetics and yet at the same time am hampered by the fact that I am an ageing blonde bimbo. Ha ha. This means that my knowledge comes from material written for the layperson. Nevertheless, I have read a considerable amount of material about the genetic component of basic intelligence and personality development and I am aware that a child who is, say, transplanted into a famly environment which is wildly different from her genetic inheritance may well suffer. Let me explain: an academically gifted introvert will do well when she is nurtured by a family of like individuals. An academic introvert is going to feel like both an outsider and a loser should she find herself being raised by a family of party animals and jocks. And let's think of the chubby child who is transplanted into a nest of skinny folk.

Adoption can be a wonderful avenue for both the parents and the child. There are, however, potential difficulties.

You have the doctor I will be banded by this coming Monday (10-15-07). Could you tell me how your experience with them have been? How are the fills there and are they strict about them or let you come in when you think you need one. I'm very curious about anything you could share. Thanks!! Valerie

You have the doctor I will be banded by this coming Monday (10-15-07). Could you tell me how your experience with them have been? How are the fills there and are they strict about them or let you come in when you think you need one. I'm very curious about anything you could share. Thanks!! Valerie

I love my doctor :-) My experience has been great. The only problem I had was when another doctor did my fill and he couldn't hit the port (he's no longer with them). They let you come in whenever, and all fills are free for life. Feel free to post or PM me with any questions. If you PM me, I'm happy to give you my phone number so we can chat. Best of luck to you!

I find your comments interesting, BJean. I have always been fascinated by genetics and yet at the same time am hampered by the fact that I am an ageing blonde bimbo. Ha ha. This means that my knowledge comes from material written for the layperson. Nevertheless, I have read a considerable amount of material about the genetic component of basic intelligence and personality development and I am aware that a child who is, say, transplanted into a famly environment which is wildly different from her genetic inheritance may well suffer. Let me explain: an academically gifted introvert will do well when she is nurtured by a family of like individuals. An academic introvert is going to feel like both an outsider and a loser should she find herself being raised by a family of party animals and jocks. And let's think of the chubby child who is transplanted into a nest of skinny folk.

Adoption can be a wonderful avenue for both the parents and the child. There are, however, potential difficulties.

I am glad to read that someone talking about this abortion subject has a brain! Thank you for your remarks... they mirror mine.

:clap2:

I personally would never consider having an abortion, however, who am I to impose my personal beliefs on someone else? And, until I have walked in their shoes, how can I say the choice they made is right or wrong?

This is my feelings exactly. I will never be in the position to need an abortion, who am I or anyone for that matter to tell any women what to do with their bodies. How dare the Christian right radicals to infringe on a WOMANS right to CHOOSE! I don't see any of them offering to take care of the overwhelming number of kids that are already here and need Loving families and parents.