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

If we determine who lives and who dies based on cost, we ought to start killing off the disabled and the elderly. Social security wouldn't be an issue if, upon retirement, you were euthanized. You've had a good life. Say goodnight, Gracie.

<p>green is my hero. and...I was born in 1967 at 26 weeks and 3 days and weighed 2lbs5 ounces....medical technology has come a long, long way, but at what price to the child/family/society?</p>

I was born in 1967 at 26 weeks and 3 days and weighed 2lbs5 ounces....medical technology has come a long, long way, but at what price to the child/family/society?

How many disabilities do you have? Was your life worth the cost?

That's kinda funny -my dad always said he hoped someone would have the nuts to pull the plug on him if he was disabled and no longer anything but a depository for machines, iv lines, etc. Kind of like knowing when your aged, beloved pet's quality of life is so bad that it's time...

disabilities...let's see, I am nearsighted, have a food addiction (LOL) and had petite mal seizures until I was 6 or so....but no real lasting issues. (I lived in an incubator and was oxygenated until I my lungs were mature enough to perform on their own.) The point I was making was that if I hadn't been born where I was, at that time, I wouldn't be here today. That said, I DON'T think that extraordinary measures beyond incubation and food/oxygen support should be mandated by law. Legality is not meant to represent morality.

That's kinda funny -my dad always said he hoped someone would have the nuts to pull the plug on him if he was disabled and no longer anything but a depository for machines, iv lines, etc.

Should people have the right to make that decision for themselves? Yes. For others? Not without their consent, no.

Well, guess that depends on your point of view...in my religious tradition, the life of the mother is more important than "the potential life of an unborn child." Before you ask, yes, life is at birth...

in my religious tradition, the life of the mother is more important than "the potential life of an unborn child."

There is no such thing as "potential life". Either it's life or it's not. You can't have a "potential thought". Either you have a thought or you don't. The unborn baby is a life WITH POTENTIAL, not a potential life.

in my religious tradition, the life of the mother is more important than "the potential life of an unborn child." Before you ask, yes, life is at birth...

What if your religious tradition said the baby wasn't a life until age 5? When does science and the law supercede "religious tradition"?

Well, I wrote it that way because I was quoting it from another source. I wanted to make sure I put it down correctly as that was that particular authority I was remembering when I wrote my post/.

I'd ask you the same question - when does science and the law supercede someone's particular brand of religiosity? I ask because it seems to me that there is a segment of the population these days, associated with the current US administration, that are trying to encode their particular brand of religiosity on the country as a whole via the creation of laws and the sqashing of debate. I'm sure there are those out there that would argue that a child isn't a "life" until they have a means to support themselves without their parents' intervention...

Sorry gadget I was trying to quote part of someone elses post on the last few things you raised with me they werent my veiws! I cannot for the life of me figure out how to do a quote.

I do see what you are saying about how do I reconcile my pro-choice stance with my veiws on late terminations, but I have had IVF ( yes I am mad, my last 2 miscarriages were ectopic and I was desperate for a 7th) and those embryos were in essence 'life' but I knew that most of them would perish in the lab and they werent babies to me , I couldnt afford to let them be, as it was of 3 lots of 2 that were put back only 1 took and we last it a 10 weeks.

I guess what I am trying to say is that once that baby is capable of sustaining life outside of its host, then noone has the right to insist that it is killed first.

I understand the cost implications green, but none the less I would rather that the cost be borne than the alternative.

If doctors didnt piss around as much as they do doing a referal for patients, more and more women could be treated with mifepristone at 5/6 weeks.

Why does noone who is considering a late termination look at the adoption route? Or even leave the baby on the steps of a hospital for gds sake if they dont want to be traced?

I dont know what the solution is, but I do know that despite my reservations I still would defend the woman right to chose.

Nina x

yes I am mad, my last 2 miscarriages were ectopic and I was desperate for a 7th

I don't think you're mad at all. I know a lot of people with many kids (two families with 10) and they're incredible people. Personally, if I had been younger when I started having kids I probably would have had more than 2, but I'm too old and tired now.

they werent babies to me , I couldnt afford to let them be

This is a VERY interesting statement. I would submit that this is how many mothers feel when they're planning abortion. They suppress the thought that the unborn child is a human life because if they don't acknowledge it, it's much easier to proceed with the abortion. Pro-life clinics have discovered that if they show mothers an ultrasound of their unborn babies, the incidence of choosing life over abortion increases exponentially.

Abortion-minded mothers "can't afford" to let themselves consider what's growing inside of them; they "can't afford to let them be" babies -- like somehow it's their, the mother's, decision that determines what they, the babies, are. That's why the abortion industry comes up with euphemisms like "blob of tissue" or "product of conception". Dehumanization always makes oppression easier.

I appreciate your thoughtful posts, Nina.

I'd ask you the same question - when does science and the law supercede someone's particular brand of religiosity?

When that particular brand of religiosity infringe on another's rights. And in the case of abortion, the baby's rights are being infringed upon.

Thanks gadget

I would agree with you, it is for sure a mental survival mechanism, but that doesnt mean that it is a bad thing. When my mum died my sister and I talked about her going on holiday rather than saying the words - I never claimed to be sane!

Unfortuantly a lot of the women who would change their minds when shown a scan would later go on to resent the child and inflict those feelings on it.

I know that you will argue better that they are alive and onloved than aborted, but I have seen too many of my friends make that choice and it be the right choice for them for me to deny them that right.

Having a child is a HUGE responsibility and should never ne entered into lightly, every child deserves a home full of laughter.

I dont understand why abortion clinics dont fit an IUD after the procedure though, that way it shouldnt have to happen again?

One of my more radical thoughts was to offer Norplan all 16 year olds and then they have to make a choice to have it removed, thus hopefully avoiding the whole issue.

My daughter asked for an IUD to be fitted when she got into her first sexual relationship so that she would never have to worry about missing pills etc.

Nina x