Abortion

[flicka]

It called selfishness, not "personal responsibility."

Why shouldn't women who are sexually active be "tied down" for nine months with the child that they created? Do such women have no control over their behavior?

Question to you: Is a fetus a human being?

Answer to you: I don't debate abortion.

 

[jazzbird]

Answer to you: I don't debate abortion.

Fair enough. I'm sorry if I came across antagonistically, and I apologize if I made you feel defensive. I just feel this is a very important issue, and one that many people don't think through logically. The child's voice cannot be heard, and so people don't feel so bad about extinguishing it completely. That bothers me greatly and so I speak rather forcefully about it. But if you don't want to debate the issue, that's okay.

 

[Sparkle]

I was always under the impression that doing what you thought was right was a good thing.

If we all were reacting to what we 'feel' is right we'd all be in a mess. This society that we live in has been taught and is teaching that we can do what ever makes us happy at the time, and heck, don't worry about consequences cause you can just run away......

 

[Kira Faye]

I am pro-choice myself, personnaly I don't think I could go through with one, but who am I to condem a person I know nothign about, and no nothing of the situation. Personnaly thats like playing god, condemming people like that, its not our place, only ur god knows so let him judge.

"Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful. Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven." (Luke 6:36-38)


Even though I am pro-choice I am against it being used as a form of contraception, thats just irresponsible. I think it should only be done in extreme cases of rape incest and general un-consented sex. One way is to make abortions harder to get, but then people in that sort of situation are probably not wanting to go through hell while they are already in it. If it is made illegal then people who really need it will have very dangerous operations and most likely die.

Its a horrible issue backwards and forwards, the most we can do is educate our own children so that the need for abortions might drop with education about sex and its ramifications?

 

[Outspoken]

"Personnaly thats like playing god, condemming people like that, its not our place, only ur god knows so let him judge. "

You are mistaken. Upon that logic we are never to tell a murder they did a wrong thing, or penialize him/her for it.

We are, as christians, supposed to point out sin and wrongdoing when we see it, realizing we are wrongdoers as well.

"the most we can do is educate our own children so that the need for abortions might drop with education about sex and its ramifications?"

I agree with this, but that is not the only step needed.

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

If we all were reacting to what we 'feel' is right we'd all be in a mess. This society that we live in has been taught and is teaching that we can do what ever makes us happy at the time, and heck, don't worry about consequences cause you can just run away......

You said what we feel is right not what we feel will make us happiest at the given moment. Big difference. I think one should always do what one thinks is right. - That's not always what makes the given person happiest at the time, but doing what is right is important. Not just right for yourself, but right for the child, your family, your future, the child's future, and so on. There are many people by whom an expectant mother must try to do the right thing and it's all the harder when some ideas contradict others.

 

[jazzbird]

You said what we feel is right not what we feel will make us happiest at the given moment. Big difference. I think one should always do what one thinks is right. - That's not always what makes the given person happiest at the time, but doing what is right is important. Not just right for yourself, but right for the child, your family, your future, the child's future, and so on. There are many people by whom an expectant mother must try to do the right thing and it's all the harder when some ideas contradict others.

Notice though, you said "feel is right" originally, and now you say "think is right." There is a difference, although I think you are using them interchangeably. What Sparkle is getting at is that we shouldn't make decisions based only on what our emotions tell us, but rather, we need to weigh the facts and go on truth. Feelings and emotions are changing. That's why it's not good to base important decisions on feelings while ignoring facts and reason.

I totally agree with you on the point about doing what is right, rather than what we think will make us most happy. It's a tough and complicated issue - especially when you have important people in your life telling you different things.

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

Yes, I do use 'think' and 'feel' interchangebly - for me they mean the same thing because thoughts and feelings mesh too often in myself for me to distinguish the difference sometimes.
Feelings do shift and change - but I don't think aborting a child should be a decision made without using those feelings to decide. Facts are important - but it's how we feel about those facts, in the end, that motivates the decision to give up the child (most of the time)

 

[Sparkle]

Notice though, you said "feel is right" originally, and now you say "think is right." There is a difference, although I think you are using them interchangeably. What Sparkle is getting at is that we shouldn't make decisions based only on what our emotions tell us, but rather, we need to weigh the facts and go on truth. Feelings and emotions are changing. That's why it's not good to base important decisions on feelings while ignoring facts and reason.

I totally agree with you on the point about doing what is right, rather than what we think will make us most happy. It's a tough and complicated issue - especially when you have important people in your life telling you different things.

Thank you for translating for me! It is much appreciated.
It is sometimes difficult to portray our message through a machine!

 

[Sparkle]

If you are 'mature' enough to make the decision to have sex [not including incest and rape victims] then you are certaintly mature enough to deal with the consequences of your actions.
If you think you can't raise a child, do something to change that. There are ministries out there that will help, there are grants for single mothers to go to school. There is support, all you have to do is open your eyes and look.

Ultimately our happiness and success is up to us. We can't blame others, we have the power and strength to change any situation.

Abortion is not an answer or a solution. It is a cop out.

 

[jazzbird]

Thank you for translating for me! It is much appreciated.
It is sometimes difficult to portray our message through a machine!

I know what you mean!

 

[wisdom67]

Taking the bible out of it makes it extremely difficult to make a valid logical argument either way.

With that said - here's my testimony. When I was 24 I was screwing around nightly with my girlfriend at the time. Within a month of our fornication she became pregnant. We had three choices at that moment. We could, 1. Abort the unwanted child, 2. Have the child and give it up for adoption, and lastly 3. Get married and raise the child ourselves.

Well, because I was really not involved with any church heavily at that time I still chose option #3. That turned out to probably not have been the best choice. Firstly, I married this woman that I really was not in love with. In lust with - heck yeah, but love? Hardly. That led to a marriage that lasted all of about a year and change. Outside of sex we really had nothing in common. So came the divorce and eventual problems that arose from trying to raise a daughter that was now splitting time between Mommy and Daddy. This also limited my capacity to pursue my full career potential. Once you start a family you have to pay the bills. You have to support that family. I couldn't just keep going to school and not have a job. I had to pay the rent and put food on the table. So, because I was only 24, and had not had the chance to intern in my field I was forced to fall back on a lesser job, which ended up taking the place of my chosen field of interest. It paid me less money, with less benefits, and less incentive for anything.

Taken further - my divorce to my ex-wife cause financial hardship beyond the job situation. She bounced $400 in checks, ran up a ton of credit card debt, and I was forced to have two cars repossessed. I spent the next 7 years digging out from under this mess.

Looking back on all of this, hindsight would have told me that either giving up this child for adoption or having an abortion would have probably been the best way to go in that situation. It would have saved me the emotional and financial mess that accompanied having a child.

With all of that said, I don't ever regret having a daughter to take care of. She is my special treasure from God. Once you care for and have a child with you the love you have with that child is immeasurable.

Beyond this, I think it's a very selfish thing to do in having an abortion. Even if you know you can't raise the child, there are millions of couples throughout this very country that would kill to adopt a little baby. There is no need for an abortion. So you carry a child for nine months and then give it up. You will have given someone else the gift of life, even when it really wasn't your time.

I just think that having an abortion is very selfish. If you evaluate the entire situation you can come up with alternatives. People will even pay your expenses while you are pregnant in order to eventually adopt the child you conceived. And if you are really dead set on having an abortion maybe you should have factored that in to the equation when screwing around with some guy you really didn't love or really didn't see a future with.

Those are my thoughts on the matter - taken entirely from my own worldly perspective. Even though you asked not to reference the bible I will say that abortion is murder. It's really that simple.

 

[gladiatrix]

Aside from my biblical reasons here are some others:

1. There is a hidden agenda behind abortion, they use aborted fetuses for scientific experimentation and to make vaccines - That does not sit well with me.

And your evidence for the above conspiracy theory is? (now where DID I put that tin-foil hat???!!)

All the above is just another example of what is called the "blood libel"==>One of the most scandalous lies that one group has told about another is that the other group kills, and sometimes eats, children..... Usually the motive for this lie has to do with race or nationality, but currently it is directed primarily at the female gender." Read how this is applied to the pro-choice:

Blood Libel---The Roots of Racism and Fear of Sex in the Pro-Life Movement

Well at least you didn't accuse of wanting fetuses as some sort of culinary delicacy as does this staunch hero of anti-choice, Fr. Trosch.

2. Doctors and nurses make a profit from taking life, they are supposed to save lives.

Actually they could make much more profit can be made from forcing women to give birth. . There were over 4 million live births in 2001(click on PDF file, page 2). The average cost of just having a normal delivery ranges from $6000-$10, 000 (up to $250,000+ if complications such a those associated with premature birth occur). That is not counting the money to made from adopting out the unwanted babies ($25,000 per baby) and all the profits to reaped by those providing baby-care products.

/sarcasm on/ I can see why any anti-choicer involved in the birthing/adopting/baby-care industries would have a tremendous financial interest in forcing as many women as possible to give birth /sarcasm off/.

If you can accuse pro-choicers of being motivated by greed, do remember that I can make a much better case for that (greed) if I were inclined to use the same kind of ad hominem tactic on your side of the argument.

3. Women suffer immense emotional strain after having an abortion, some will never admit it, but trust me they do and it usually lasts a lifetime. That emotional strain, can be exausting and takes away from their quality of life. Also, did you know that before a woman has an abortion they will hardly ever be told that they will suffer emotionally?

And your evidence that they are not told is? What they aren't "told" is the following scare tactics like the ones you give next:
Scare Tactic #1:

Suicide amongst women that have had abortions is very high!

And you statistical evidence for this is?

Scare Tactic #2:

4. There are also enormous physical risk, some women young and old die from botched abortions.

Another common scare tactic is to exaggerate the risk of an abortion. A pregnancy is 23 times more likely to result in death than an abortion (something they somehow fail to mention). Another is to use emotive language deliberately. For instance, RU-486 (the so-called abortion pill) is referred to as a "human pesticide" (note the emotive verbiage) and it's risk are always grossly exaggerated . The fact remains that it has been used in Europe for 20 years. The only fatality every recorded is a woman who should never have been given the pill (a smoker with high blood pressure/cardiac problems). From the above site:

Safety
One source 1 compares the safety of various alternatives in North America:

• RU-486: 1 death in 200,000 abortions.
  
• Vacuum aspiration abortion: 1 death in 200,000 abortions
  
• Childbirth 1 death in 14,300 pregnancies
  
• Illegal abortions 1 death in 3,000 abortions.

I can see why drugs like RU-486 terrifies anti-choicers. Women will be able to bypass the jeering pickets and potential violence that make visits to abortion clinics such trying and dangerous experiences (more emotive language of "baby-butcher! wh0re! etc.) Because these drugs can be administered in the privacy of a doctor's office, that will make it extremely difficult for pickets to harass women or terrorize their doctors. It should also make abortion available in areas from which all abortion providers have now been driven. Since all these are 7th week or earlier (size 1-13 mm) it's hard to make that "baby-butcher" moniker stick

Scare Tactic #3:

The risk of breast cancer is tripled after a woman has an abortion, because of the un natural release of horomes.

Anti-choicers don't hesitate to try to frighten women into compliance by lying to them. A good example is this " but you'll get breast cancer!" bunk.

Guess who is at most risk for developing breast cancer?==> Catholic nuns!!This has been known for a very long time and was first noticed by Bernadino Ramazzini (1633-1714) in his work De morbis artificium. Of course, in his day and time, he didn't have a clue as to why. Here is why:

FROM: Cancer Risks Become Clearer
NUNS
As long ago as the 19th century it was noted that nuns were more likely to develop breast cancer than women who had several children.

Scientists believe this is because pregnancy accelerates the maturation of the breast cells, enabling them to produce milk.

They believe that matured cells are much less likely to become cancerous because they are less likely to start dividing in an uncontrolled way.

In a Q and A session with Dr. Daly:

Actually there are some careers that have been linked to breast cancer risk but it has more to do with the women who choose these careers than the actual work. The first interesting observation was that the one occupation with the highest rate of breast cancer is Catholic nuns, which is actually how the link with estrogen and pregnancy was identified so the risk that nuns share is not being pregnant. So you could imagine other occupations in which women postpone child bearing or choose not to have children which would put them at an increased risk

Pregnancy confers a decreased risk overall for breast cancer. However, this protection does not continue to increase with each pregnancy (diminishing returns after 2 pregnancies because the risk from uterine and cervical cancer increases).

It has been known since the 19th century that nuns were more more at risk for developing breast cancer than women with several children, especially if they breast-feed them. In short, there is no credible evidence that abortion will increase this risk ABOVE what one would expect if a woman simply had no children during her lifetime. Or as stated more simply:

From Ask-the-Expert

Dr. Daly: Actually there are some careers that have been linked to breast cancer risk but it has more to do with the women who choose these careers than the actual work. The first interesting observation was that the one occupation with the highest rate of breast cancer is Catholic nuns, which is actually how the link with estrogen and pregnancy was identified so the risk that nuns share is not being pregnant. So you could imagine other occupations in which women postpone child bearing or choose not to have children which would put them at an increased risk.

On whether or not abortion "causes cancer":

Dr. Daly: Women who have not had any children—for whatever reason—have an increased risk for breast cancer. It isn't thought that the abortion itself is the cause but more the fact of never having had a full term pregnancy.

If the woman has no children, she will have a greater risk of developing breast cancer than the woman who became pregnant and had an abortion. Going through a pregnancy AND breast-feeding will decrease the breast cancer risk, but having an abortion is not going to "give you cancer". I guess this tack would be better if all else failed and the punish-with-parenthood-if-having-sex-crowd wanted to use the "but you'll die of breast cancer" scare tactic to frighten women out of the notion of chosing to be child-free (*gasp!* to think that some women might actually think that they have other important things to contribute to the world than more children that the planet can't support!)

Scare Tactic #4:

Sometimes, because the uterus gets scarred these women will never have another pregnancy.

And your statistical evidence supporting the above would be?

These women [again] are hardly ever told they will face these risks.....Women have a right to know these things, we need to speak out, so the truth will be heard.

Well if you mean the litany of non-factual scare stories like you have just enunciated, then NO, I hope not. A medical professional would be most UNPROFESSIONAL to repeat the lies and half-truths that you have just given us as "facts".

5. There are many couples who for various reasons cannot have babies on their own, who will gladly adopt a baby.

WHY ADOPTION IS NOT A PANACEA

As of this St. Patrick's Day, this year, ~2,300,000 people (one person every 2.4 seconds) will have died of starvation, 75% of them under the age of 5.. This is one reason that I think abortion should be legal and that the "adoption" argument put forth by anti-choicers is a canard. As long as one LIVING child starves to death, I have absolutely no sympathy for adoptive parents whose only problem really appears to be that they can't find a perfectly formed, white (usually) BABY to play the game of "Parenthood" with.

Let's not forget the 100,000 adoptable childen in the US foster care system. What is their "problem"? Most of them are too "old" (older than 2 years) or not "white". Pressing other womens's wombs into service so that some upper-middle class yuppie couple can have their dream-baby is nothing more than slavery, catering to the gross, self-involved selfishness of those who won't play "house" UNLESS they can have the "perfect" little white (usually) baby. Bottom-line here is that if we can't care for those already LIVING, it makes no sense to create more of them.

Let's do the math. In any one year since Roe v Wade, there have been ~1.1-1.4 million abortions per year. Now there are only 50,000-75,000 couples seeking babies to adopt. Imagine how easy it would be to sate the desire of adoptive couples for children, the market runneth over!!! Quite a short-fall in the parents department! A question to anti-choicers: Any recommendations on what to do with all the tens of millions of unadopted infants you plan on enslaving women to produce? Remember a "life" means more than just getting born, there are at least 72-79 years of AFTER the birth bit (education, food, health care, a job, and last but not least LOVE that goes with that 3 score and ten!!)


WHAT ALL THIS MEANS TO A WOMAN

Of course, if the fetus continues to grow, it WILL become a person! BUT ONLY at the EXPENSE of the WOMAN. People are not merely a means to an end, but ends in themselves. A woman treated as an incubator of a fetus by the law is merely a means to an end and is therefore not being regarded as a person. Most anti-choicers want to reduce her to the status of a SLAVE/INCUBATOR. A woman is a person, representing a large investment in time and resources, even on the part of those who regard women as inferior. An zygote/embryo/fetus is only a POTENTIAL person, representing no such investment. The bottomline for me is that the rights of a fully grown woman outweighs the "rights" of a fertilized egg/embyo/fetus until the fetus has developed to a point where a "person" is truly present (22+ weeks). Let's back that down to 20 weeks, the point a which the American College of Gynecology puts "viability" (even though none survive before 23 weeks).

The long and the short of it is that it isn't possible to be a person unless one is developed to a point where one can potentially experience and express that personhood (however limited that capacity might prove to be, i.,e., severely handicapped infants). In other words, let's assume a soul exists, it needs a physical vessel in order to function in this world, no matter how limited that functioning may prove to be. One thing, bringing up PEOPLE (those already born and accepted as PERSONS) who are asleep, unconscious, in a coma, or profoundly handicapped either at birth or through accidental injury is NOT an argument because they are already here and this argument constitutes a "red herring" (changing the subject to avoid arguing about the fetus). This is an argument over the personhood of the fetus not those already here. The same holds true for comparing a fetus to a slave. Slaves are fully developed beings and their social postion had nothing to do with their physical development and even at the beginning of the nation were still accorded them the status of persons, only "three-fifths" of a person, but still accorded personhood status in the original Constitution (Article I, Section 2, paragraph 3; Article I, Section 9; Article IV, Section 2, paragraph 3). NOTE: This is the infamous"Three-fifths Compromise")

Oh and for those wondering where I'm coming from on this issue, please see this post:
Post #127-The Personhood Argument

 

[wisdom67]

All of that verbage aside - is abortion morally wrong to you? If not, do you believe in murder?

(This question is generally posed, and not directed at any particular person).

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

No abortion is not 'wrong' to me in the sense I think you're using the word. It's perhaps unkind, but not unjustified. Potentially selfish or potentially self-less depending on the mother's situation and the future potential of the child. It's a difficult thing to judge and so I will not abritrarily call it 'wrong' nor will I fully endorse it and call it 'right'. Sometimes the gray in the middle is all there is.

Yes, I believe that murder happens, if that's what you're asking - however, I don't believe that all murders are equal, no. If I murder you for kicks - that's pretty depraved and awful. If I murder you because you raped my child - that's not as unjustified. Again, I live in a gray area.

 

[Blessed75]

I'm pro-choice -

I think every case is different and I don't think it can be labeled as a black or white issue -

 

[wisdom67]

No abortion is not 'wrong' to me in the sense I think you're using the word. It's perhaps unkind, but not unjustified. Potentially selfish or potentially self-less depending on the mother's situation and the future potential of the child. It's a difficult thing to judge and so I will not abritrarily call it 'wrong' nor will I fully endorse it and call it 'right'. Sometimes the gray in the middle is all there is.

Yes, I believe that murder happens, if that's what you're asking - however, I don't believe that all murders are equal, no. If I murder you for kicks - that's pretty depraved and awful. If I murder you because you raped my child - that's not as unjustified. Again, I live in a gray area.

Let's kick this up a notch, shall we...

Using your analysis from above let me interject the following person's true experience. I know a girl (she's 20 something) who has a child from one man, who she is raising on her own. She never married the man. She then got pregnant by another man, whom she only infrequently saw. She decided abortion was the way to go, so she did that. She is now screwing around with a married man. The chances of her keeping that relationship for long are slim and none. But yet, she's having "fun".

Yet, because she's having some "fun" she has an abortion. Is it fair to the child that was conceived by this woman to be murdered just because of her promiscuous choices? Shouldn't this young lady be prosecuted? But it's ok, because it's all in good "clean fun".

You say it's ok for this woman to have an abortion. I would classify her as a murderer and a harlot actually.

 

[Sparkle]

And your evidence for the above conspiracy theory is? (now where DID I put that tin-foil hat???!!)

All the above is just another example of what is called the "blood libel"==>One of the most scandalous lies that one group has told about another is that the other group kills, and sometimes eats, children..... Usually the motive for this lie has to do with race or nationality, but currently it is directed primarily at the female gender." Read how this is applied to the pro-choice:

Blood Libel---The Roots of Racism and Fear of Sex in the Pro-Life Movement

Well at least you didn't accuse of wanting fetuses as some sort of culinary delicacy as does this staunch hero of anti-choice, Fr. Trosch.

Actually they could make much more profit can be made from forcing women to give birth. . There were over 4 million live births in 2001(click on PDF file, page 2). The average cost of just having a normal delivery ranges from $6000-$10, 000 (up to $250,000+ if complications such a those associated with premature birth occur). That is not counting the money to made from adopting out the unwanted babies ($25,000 per baby) and all the profits to reaped by those providing baby-care products.

/sarcasm on/ I can see why any anti-choicer involved in the birthing/adopting/baby-care industries would have a tremendous financial interest in forcing as many women as possible to give birth /sarcasm off/.

If you can accuse pro-choicers of being motivated by greed, do remember that I can make a much better case for that (greed) if I were inclined to use the same kind of ad hominem tactic on your side of the argument.

And your evidence that they are not told is? What they aren't "told" is the following scare tactics like the ones you give next:
Scare Tactic #1:

And you statistical evidence for this is?

Scare Tactic #2:

Another common scare tactic is to exaggerate the risk of an abortion. A pregnancy is 23 times more likely to result in death than an abortion (something they somehow fail to mention). Another is to use emotive language deliberately. For instance, RU-486 (the so-called abortion pill) is referred to as a "human pesticide" (note the emotive verbiage) and it's risk are always grossly exaggerated . The fact remains that it has been used in Europe for 20 years. The only fatality every recorded is a woman who should never have been given the pill (a smoker with high blood pressure/cardiac problems). From the above site:
I can see why drugs like RU-486 terrifies anti-choicers. Women will be able to bypass the jeering pickets and potential violence that make visits to abortion clinics such trying and dangerous experiences (more emotive language of "baby-butcher! wh0re! etc.) Because these drugs can be administered in the privacy of a doctor's office, that will make it extremely difficult for pickets to harass women or terrorize their doctors. It should also make abortion available in areas from which all abortion providers have now been driven. Since all these are 7th week or earlier (size 1-13 mm) it's hard to make that "baby-butcher" moniker stick

Scare Tactic #3:

Anti-choicers don't hesitate to try to frighten women into compliance by lying to them. A good example is this " but you'll get breast cancer!" bunk.

Guess who is at most risk for developing breast cancer?==> Catholic nuns!!This has been known for a very long time and was first noticed by Bernadino Ramazzini (1633-1714) in his work De morbis artificium. Of course, in his day and time, he didn't have a clue as to why. Here is why:


In a Q and A session with Dr. Daly:

Pregnancy confers a decreased risk overall for breast cancer. However, this protection does not continue to increase with each pregnancy (diminishing returns after 2 pregnancies because the risk from uterine and cervical cancer increases).

It has been known since the 19th century that nuns were more more at risk for developing breast cancer than women with several children, especially if they breast-feed them. In short, there is no credible evidence that abortion will increase this risk ABOVE what one would expect if a woman simply had no children during her lifetime. Or as stated more simply:

From Ask-the-Expert
If the woman has no children, she will have a greater risk of developing breast cancer than the woman who became pregnant and had an abortion. Going through a pregnancy AND breast-feeding will decrease the breast cancer risk, but having an abortion is not going to "give you cancer". I guess this tack would be better if all else failed and the punish-with-parenthood-if-having-sex-crowd wanted to use the "but you'll die of breast cancer" scare tactic to frighten women out of the notion of chosing to be child-free (*gasp!* to think that some women might actually think that they have other important things to contribute to the world than more children that the planet can't support!)

Scare Tactic #4:
And your statistical evidence supporting the above would be?


Well if you mean the litany of non-factual scare stories like you have just enunciated, then NO, I hope not. A medical professional would be most UNPROFESSIONAL to repeat the lies and half-truths that you have just given us as "facts".

WHY ADOPTION IS NOT A PANACEA

As of this St. Patrick's Day, this year, ~2,300,000 people (one person every 2.4 seconds) will have died of starvation, 75% of them under the age of 5.. This is one reason that I think abortion should be legal and that the "adoption" argument put forth by anti-choicers is a canard. As long as one LIVING child starves to death, I have absolutely no sympathy for adoptive parents whose only problem really appears to be that they can't find a perfectly formed, white (usually) BABY to play the game of "Parenthood" with.

Let's not forget the 100,000 adoptable childen in the US foster care system. What is their "problem"? Most of them are too "old" (older than 2 years) or not "white". Pressing other womens's wombs into service so that some upper-middle class yuppie couple can have their dream-baby is nothing more than slavery, catering to the gross, self-involved selfishness of those who won't play "house" UNLESS they can have the "perfect" little white (usually) baby. Bottom-line here is that if we can't care for those already LIVING, it makes no sense to create more of them.

Let's do the math. In any one year since Roe v Wade, there have been ~1.1-1.4 million abortions per year. Now there are only 50,000-75,000 couples seeking babies to adopt. Imagine how easy it would be to sate the desire of adoptive couples for children, the market runneth over!!! Quite a short-fall in the parents department! A question to anti-choicers: Any recommendations on what to do with all the tens of millions of unadopted infants you plan on enslaving women to produce? Remember a "life" means more than just getting born, there are at least 72-79 years of AFTER the birth bit (education, food, health care, a job, and last but not least LOVE that goes with that 3 score and ten!!)


WHAT ALL THIS MEANS TO A WOMAN

Of course, if the fetus continues to grow, it WILL become a person! BUT ONLY at the EXPENSE of the WOMAN. People are not merely a means to an end, but ends in themselves. A woman treated as an incubator of a fetus by the law is merely a means to an end and is therefore not being regarded as a person. Most anti-choicers want to reduce her to the status of a SLAVE/INCUBATOR. A woman is a person, representing a large investment in time and resources, even on the part of those who regard women as inferior. An zygote/embryo/fetus is only a POTENTIAL person, representing no such investment. The bottomline for me is that the rights of a fully grown woman outweighs the "rights" of a fertilized egg/embyo/fetus until the fetus has developed to a point where a "person" is truly present (22+ weeks). Let's back that down to 20 weeks, the point a which the American College of Gynecology puts "viability" (even though none survive before 23 weeks).

The long and the short of it is that it isn't possible to be a person unless one is developed to a point where one can potentially experience and express that personhood (however limited that capacity might prove to be, i.,e., severely handicapped infants). In other words, let's assume a soul exists, it needs a physical vessel in order to function in this world, no matter how limited that functioning may prove to be. One thing, bringing up PEOPLE (those already born and accepted as PERSONS) who are asleep, unconscious, in a coma, or profoundly handicapped either at birth or through accidental injury is NOT an argument because they are already here and this argument constitutes a "red herring" (changing the subject to avoid arguing about the fetus). This is an argument over the personhood of the fetus not those already here. The same holds true for comparing a fetus to a slave. Slaves are fully developed beings and their social postion had nothing to do with their physical development and even at the beginning of the nation were still accorded them the status of persons, only "three-fifths" of a person, but still accorded personhood status in the original Constitution (Article I, Section 2, paragraph 3; Article I, Section 9; Article IV, Section 2, paragraph 3). NOTE: This is the infamous"Three-fifths Compromise")

Oh and for those wondering where I'm coming from on this issue, please see this post:
Post #127-The Personhood Argument

My evidence? I'm evidence.

 

[wisdom67]

I think Sparkle makes the most profound argument to be against abortion entirely. Because how many of us would have liked it had your mother decided to have an abortion....ON YOU!!!!

 

[theseed]

I'm prolife because

1)pre-borns are living because they have a heart beat and brain waves. The age of viability is 24 weeks or less.

2)There are always options to abortions

3)God knows and forms every child in the womb, and so even pre-born babies are worthy as any human to live and have no choice in being born, and so should not be destroyed because the baby is "not wanted".