A Baby's Right to Choose

Again these are temporary solutions to long term problems.

Abortion will continue to happen even if the bible thumpers literally krap there pants running to Canada.

Don't like abortion? Don't have an abortion... but let others live there lives as they see fit.

You conservatives always talk about "freedom and choice" Then let people have freedom and choose!

Liberals are more for freedom and choice it seems. As conservatives tend to oppress people based on a fear of the unknown.. .. liberals liberate.

Laws rarely work in areas where they are not enforced.. what do you plan to have a SS style secret police running around making sure nobody is having abortions?

[edit on 5-11-2004 by RedOctober90]

Originally posted by RedOctober90
Again these are temporary solutions to long term problems.

Abortion will continue to happen even if the bible thumpers literally krap there pants running to Canada.

Don't like abortion? Don't have an abortion... but let others live there lives as they see fit.

You conservatives always talk about "freedom and choice" Then let people have freedom and choose!

Liberals are more for freedom and choice it seems. As conservatives tend to oppress people based on a fear of the unknown.. .. liberals liberate.

Laws rarely work in areas where they are not enforced.. what do you plan to have a SS style secret police running around making sure nobody is having abortions?

[edit on 5-11-2004 by RedOctober90]

Yes, we can all thank the legalization for that, but some choices should not be made regardless of how nicely you put it, or how rediculous you try to make the opposition seem.

The plan is to disallow practices that people think is barbaric.

Putting it simply.. what gives these conservatives the right to wave a bible and tell what rights people can have? What a woman is allowed/not allowed to do with her own body.

I am more concerned with people.. not bibles or religions

They would never help the mother with the child, since they oppose all forms of welfare.. but still they oppose abortion.. so whats the solution?

[edit on 5-11-2004 by RedOctober90]

Originally posted by dreamlandmafia
To me, a fetus does not have life until it is born, I feel abortion is the womans right, she doesnt have to if she doesnt want to, but she can if she does want too.

It is against to law in the US to murder a human. So I guess your problem is understanding when human life begins.

I'm sure that you have seen all the scientific information already about the "fetus" or "cluster of cells" having human DNA...

Any pregnant woman, whether wanted or unwanted, calls what she has in her womb a baby. She doesn't run around all excited and telling all that she is pregnant with a fetus. I think she would use the term "baby".

This human life only becomes termed a fetus when it isn't wanted by the mother.

So I don't think that it is the mother's life that is in question here but the baby's life. Whose choice is it now? The baby isn't allowed to make a choice for his/her life.

Originally posted by RedOctober90
Putting it simply.. what gives these conservatives the right to wave a bible and tell what rights people can have? What a woman is allowed/not allowed to do with her own body.

Hate to tell you man, but because people are Pro-Life, does not mean they are Christians. I understand you might be mad at some of the more vocal hypocrites out there, and think we are into that.

The concentration is different between thinking. We are focused on the baby, but this also includes when life begins. There really is nothing in the bible to tell us when life begins, so that's personal opinion and Christians disagree.

My mother is Catholic (well, Methodist now), and she is Pro-Choice.

I am more concerned with people.. not bibles or religions

Same here. I don't know many people that are Pro-Life because we are worried about our immortal soul.

People and life are important. But what is rarely said, is that it takes community to support people.

They would never help the mother with the child, since they oppose all forms of welfare.. but still they oppose abortion.. so what�s the solution?

Well, like I said, I am not anti-welfare because I do not believe in helping people and only want to be selfish. It's because I know that the federal government has consistently done a piss poor job.

We would do better to have us control it. We are already a very generous country, why not encourage groups to help the community like churches and other struggling volunteer groups to be able to do it better, smarter, more problem orientated.

We could also audit these groups, so there is greater transparency in spending (much like the local governments).

Well Krazy you make good points as always.

I don't want to make this into another "pro and anti Wealth redistribution" thread.

But we do know local support groups can only do very little.. as the objective here is to eliminate most poverty and maintain a good standard of living for all.. which means providing the most basic of needs. Volunteer groups are few in number because people are not willing to do the work unless there is chance of private profit.

Capitalists base success on competition, others base success on the idea that everyone can live a good standard of living.

With all the money we waste on foreign appeasement money.. and also wars.. many problems in our country could be reduced.

The money is out there, it's just poorly used.

[edit on 5-11-2004 by RedOctober90]

[edit on 5-11-2004 by RedOctober90]

Originally posted by RedOctober90
Well Krazy you make good points as always.

Well I appreciate that. I enjoy your threads when they aren't angry. I told Colonel the same thing. That was a guy I respected at the root of it.

But we do know local support groups can only do very little.. as the objective here is to eliminate most poverty and maintain a good standard of living for all.. which means providing the most basic of needs. Volunteer groups are few in number because people are not willing to do the work unless there is chance of private profit.

I know it seems obvious, but when times are good, and people have money in their pockets, they are more involved, give more, and not be so penny pinching just to get by.

This is the environment we had (somewhat) in the early part of the century. It's not apples and apples, but the idea is there.

If money was to be used by the government at all, it should benefit the people. Some of the most historic places were built just that way. That was also another beacon of hope (much like the White Fleet, but that's totally different).

Capitalists base success on competition, others base success on the idea that everyone can live a good standard of living.

With all the money we waste on foreign appeasement money.. and also wars.. many problems in our country could be reduced.

The money is out there, it's just poorly used.

Agreed, foreign money is a serious spending issue with me too. We need a serious withdraw from world politics, especially militarily. The money going to the military could be more tightly managed, and more effective in what they need to spend.

We have no need of overseas bases. We are the only country in the world to have them and we aren't looking globally?

Yikes, America first.

But as to abortion, it's true that it is a repercussion rather than the problem, yet it is still a problem.

If we were to revoke it, it would send shockwaves through the country overnight. Protests, violence no doubt and a growing black market for them much like drugs are now.

We would effectively create a War on Drugs yet again, only to tax our resources further.

It is the right thing to do, but it needs to be done in a way that the waves will not be quite so painful.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro

Originally posted by IBM
Show me your reasoning? If the kill a pregnant woman, he has killed two women. Yes that is correct. The unborn fetus, as well as the woman. So how is this any different than killing the unborn fetus in abortion. You are contradicting yourself.

[edit on 5-11-2004 by IBM]

Show you my reasoning for what? I'm Pro-Life, as I have been through all these threads.

I think you have my position confused, or you need to re-explain what you are looking for.

I guess i misunderstood. Ok your for life. But dont you think that others need to respond to this question.

Originally posted by RedOctober90
Again these are temporary solutions to long term problems.

Abortion will continue to happen even if the bible thumpers literally krap there pants running to Canada.

Don't like abortion? Don't have an abortion... but let others live there lives as they see fit.

You conservatives always talk about "freedom and choice" Then let people have freedom and choose!

Liberals are more for freedom and choice it seems. As conservatives tend to oppress people based on a fear of the unknown.. .. liberals liberate.

Laws rarely work in areas where they are not enforced.. what do you plan to have a SS style secret police running around making sure nobody is having abortions?

[edit on 5-11-2004 by RedOctober90]

What about the baby's right to choose, the woman who is aborting is being selfish and irresponsible. I can tell by your name and avatar freedom was a choice hard to come by in communist russia. Yes i know your here in pennsylvania, same state as me.

[edit on 6-11-2004 by IBM]

Originally posted by IBM
Marg, you and a few other dieharders have not answered my question yet that was in my first post. What would you do if someone pointed a gun at your head and said, "It is my choice to decide your life because i am irresponsible and do not want to take care of you." What would you say?

I guess I wouldn't say anything considering the fact that, in this scenario, you are implying that I would be incapable of caring or thinking for myself, which means that my life would depend entirely on someone else's willingness to care for me anyways. If they should choose not to do so, that is their right, regardless of whether or not I would die as a result.

I have a couple of questions for the Pro-Life crowd:

1. If we don't consider a human to be really dead until they are brain dead, doesn't it stand to reason that a human isn't really alive until after the first signs of brain activity can be detected? Since this doesn't happen until the 6th week after conception, wouldn't the fetus technically be dead throughout the preceding 5 weeks? Would that make it o.k. to abort a fetus who had not yet reached 6 weeks? Is it a mistake to declare the presence or absence of life based on whether or not we can detect any brain activity?

2. Are you vegetarians? It seems to me that animals are quite a bit more capable of deciding whether or not they want to be slaughtered for our food (they are, at the very least, capable of surviving without our assistance) then an unborn, totally helpless fetus would be of deciding whether or not it wanted to be born.
Why do you feel that it is murder to destroy a creature who can not possibly comprehend what it is to "live" or to "die", but that it's not murder to destroy a creature who can not only comprehend, but experience fear, pain, happiness, and love, if the creature is going to be used for food? Shouldn't all meat-eating Pro-Lifers really call themselves the Pro-Human-Lifers instead, since they aren't truly Pro-Life?

3. What if a child hates the life he/she was born into and decides to kill him/herself? Since it is now their life and their choice, shouldn't they have that right? Or does it become their guardian/parent's responsibility to stop them and to make them stay alive against their will even though they are capable of making independent decisions?
If so, then let me see if I have this straight: Abortions should be illegal because the mother is making a choice that is not hers to make, because the life she would be ending is not her own. Since the baby she carries is technically an individual, only the baby should be given the choice to live or die before it is even born. Obviously, that is not possible, therefore all abortions must be done without the baby's consent, making them an act of murder.
HOWEVER, once the baby is born and grows beyond simply acting on its animal instincts, progressing to the point that the child has now become self-aware, it no longer has the right to choose in favor of ending its own life. That choice is no longer the child's to make, nor is any other decision of any importance. The same adults who were told that they could not get an abortion because their unborn baby was not being given a choice to die, are now expected to ensure the child's continued existence (happiness and love not required for fulfillment of this parental obligation), regardless of whether or not the child itself wishes to go on living.

Seems to me like the unborn child is given more rights than the born child, because everyone knows the unborn child can't do anything yet. Once it starts to actually become the "individual" some people are so hell-bent on protecting (while "in-utero"), the child loses its individual right to decide its own fate. Why is that, I wonder? Kinda smells of hypocrisy, but that's just my impression of it.

4. How many unwanted and/or abused children have the Pro-Lifers reading this adopted and/or taken into their homes? Are you willing to personally help take care of all the unwanted babies that would otherwise have been aborted? Or are you just going to let them become wards of the state, growing up knowing that they weren't wanted or loved by the mother who was forced to give birth to them? Most of them would be forced to live a life of pain, loneliness and heart-break, wondering why they had to be born in the first place. Is their pitiful, unhappy existence really a compassionate alternative to abortion in your eyes?
I didn't see an answer when someone asked before, but if I just missed it I apologize.

Originally posted by IBM

Originally posted by RedOctober90
Again these are temporary solutions to long term problems.

Abortion will continue to happen even if the bible thumpers literally krap there pants running to Canada.

Don't like abortion? Don't have an abortion... but let others live there lives as they see fit.

You conservatives always talk about "freedom and choice" Then let people have freedom and choose!

Liberals are more for freedom and choice it seems. As conservatives tend to oppress people based on a fear of the unknown.. .. liberals liberate.

Laws rarely work in areas where they are not enforced.. what do you plan to have a SS style secret police running around making sure nobody is having abortions?

[edit on 5-11-2004 by RedOctober90]

What about the baby's right to choose, the woman who is aborting is being selfish and irresponsible. I can tell by your name and avatar freedom was a choice hard to come by in communist russia. Yes i know your here in pennsylvania, same state as me.

[edit on 6-11-2004 by IBM]

Typically an unborn baby has very little experiences at this stage.



Whats your solution? Your either going to help the mother financially through increased funds in social systems or you will support abortion.

Or instead of aborting.. what about throwing the baby into a garbage bag... hmmm..

Or do you plan to adopt the child?

Put the bibles away and look at the world for a minute.

[edit on 6-11-2004 by RedOctober90]

[edit on 6-11-2004 by RedOctober90]

Let see how ridiculous all these sound so far.

women should be call killers also when they menstruate every month, when their "living" egg does not get fertilized.

Doctors should be called killers every time the performed hysterectomies on women because they are killing the "living" eggs in the woman�s ovaries.


But more than anything I want to see men call killers for spilling their "living" seeds in the toilet or in the bed after a "sinful" dream, they are killers of millions of "potential babies" when they have a littler fun. After all the bible "does" mention men and their seed not women and their uterus.

This sound ridiculous. Right? Well applied it to most of some here, views.

IBM watch out where you spill your seed next time, God does not like that very much, you may be killing thousand of �possible� babies you know.

inside every human body is "live cells" excluding waste, and "that" include the male body also and everything they "produce" excluding waste so if legislation is to be make about the women female parts, then they have to legislated the "men's" also. Because they contain the "seed" of life.


[Edited on 093030p://666 by marg6043]

Listen guys, there are many different ways to see the same thing, and with that a myriad reasons for each side (which are in turn legitmate).

So all the explaining is really doing us no good, and the anger just makes it worse.

What we have to define is:

1) Where does life begin

and

2) Under what social guildlines are we going to live (whether they be in line with Christian beliefs or not).

We do not want a theocracy, I think we can all agree on that. But is it so illigitamite a point because it is in line with their beliefs?

I do not bring god into the discussion, and still I have a valid point as to the approach of this problem.

Should we steer clear of the way Christians think in general? No. Christians ideas are fine, but it's the church you don't want in government.

So let's tell it how it is.

Thanks Jethro you see your point is the point I am trying to make, I was just been in the extreme in my last post, I am sorry if I did not understood you views in the begining of this thread, I respect your opinion the same way you respect mine.

[edit on 093030p://666 by marg6043]

Originally posted by RedOctober90

Originally posted by IBM

Originally posted by RedOctober90
Again these are temporary solutions to long term problems.

Abortion will continue to happen even if the bible thumpers literally krap there pants running to Canada.

Don't like abortion? Don't have an abortion... but let others live there lives as they see fit.

You conservatives always talk about "freedom and choice" Then let people have freedom and choose!

Liberals are more for freedom and choice it seems. As conservatives tend to oppress people based on a fear of the unknown.. .. liberals liberate.

Laws rarely work in areas where they are not enforced.. what do you plan to have a SS style secret police running around making sure nobody is having abortions?

[edit on 5-11-2004 by RedOctober90]

What about the baby's right to choose, the woman who is aborting is being selfish and irresponsible. I can tell by your name and avatar freedom was a choice hard to come by in communist russia. Yes i know your here in pennsylvania, same state as me.

[edit on 6-11-2004 by IBM]

Typically an unborn baby has very little experiences at this stage.



Whats your solution? Your either going to help the mother financially through increased funds in social systems or you will support abortion.

Or instead of aborting.. what about throwing the baby into a garbage bag... hmmm..

Or do you plan to adopt the child?

Put the bibles away and look at the world for a minute.

[edit on 6-11-2004 by RedOctober90]

[edit on 6-11-2004 by RedOctober90]

Well the mother should have been smart enough to not have been knocked up in the first place. If she wants to be seen as responsible, she needs to make a responsible decision in the first place. If she knows she will not be able to take care of a child, why have one? EXCUSES FOR BEING LAZY AND IRRESPONSIBLE.

Takes 2 to tango mate. Are you responsible as well? Or is it the responsibillity of the woman alone?

Originally posted by intrepid
Takes 2 to tango mate. Are you responsible as well?

Or is it the responsibillity of the woman alone?

Yea she can easliy say no. Or is that a word not spoken in the dictionary anymore. If it takes two to tango, then you hypocrites need to stop saying its a womans uterus. IF its a womans uterus and she cant control what goes into it, how is it her choice? First you say, grow a uterus and then decide, and now you say it takes two? I dont understand this hypocrisy. IF it takes two to tango, then the man has just as much right in deciding the baby's life and it is not solely the womans decision anymore.

Originally posted by JediMaster
Abortion in my humble opinion is legal murder, BUT, in the case of incest it should be allowed since incest is a very sick crime. In the case of rape, the child should be sent to an adoption faciility if the mother does not want the child. I believe life starts at conception based on factual evidence such as biology.

"Adoption" is the number one arguement used by pro-lifers, but out of every person who uses that excuse, only about ten percent would ever actually consider adopting a child. And that's just considering it, not actually doing it. And if birth starts at conception, could you charge a pregnant woman with serving alcohol to a minor if she is only a few days pregnant and doesnt even know she is and drinks at a bar? Bars across the country would have to give a pregnancy test to every woman customer...if life starts at conception.

Originally posted by IBM
Yea she can easliy say no. Or is that a word not spoken in the dictionary anymore. If it takes two to tango, then you hypocrites need to stop saying its a womans uterus. IF its a womans uterus and she cant control what goes into it, how is it her choice? First you say, grow a uterus and then decide, and now you say it takes two? I dont understand this hypocrisy. IF it takes two to tango, then the man has just as much right in deciding the baby's life and it is not solely the womans decision anymore.

That is by far and away the most sexist and immature arguement I have read on this topic. This was my first contribution to your thread, so where is my hypocracy? BTW, I'm against abortion for the purpose of BC but please, if this is the way you're going about it, don't argue my side, you make us all look bad. My point was that the responsibillity should be shared by the couple engaging in sexual activity.

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by IBM
Yea she can easliy say no. Or is that a word not spoken in the dictionary anymore. If it takes two to tango, then you hypocrites need to stop saying its a womans uterus. IF its a womans uterus and she cant control what goes into it, how is it her choice? First you say, grow a uterus and then decide, and now you say it takes two? I dont understand this hypocrisy. IF it takes two to tango, then the man has just as much right in deciding the baby's life and it is not solely the womans decision anymore.

That is by far and away the most sexist and immature arguement I have read on this topic. This was my first contribution to your thread, so where is my hypocracy? BTW, I'm against abortion for the purpose of BC but please, if this is the way you're going about it, don't argue my side, you make us all look bad. My point was that the responsibillity should be shared by the couple engaging in sexual activity.

it was not directed at you just the ones who say stuff like "grow a uterus", if my comment came off as harsh, i apologize, but i was just trying to make a point, i have a habit of saying stuff like that, to make my point. People need to look past its harshness and view on the substance.