# AP and Pro-choice?????



## littlehiphuggers

Hey mamas,

First off, let me start by saying I don't want to start a debate. I guess I always assumed all ap mamas were pro-life..... and now know otherwise by the threads here







)
Just wondering if anyone who is pro-choice could explain how they feel it fits with the Ap style of putting kids first. Thanks.

Autum
AP mama to Kaiden 3 and #2 due August Loving wife to dh Cleo


----------



## AmyB

Quote:


Originally Posted by *littlehiphuggers*
Just wondering if anyone who is pro-choice could explain how they feel it fits with the Ap style of putting kids first. Thanks.


Although I like and practice a lot of ideas that have become conncted with AP I very much dislike the notion that Mom ought to become a human sacrifice for the "good of the children".

It's bad enough if Mom is supposed to entirely give up her own ambitions, pleasures and personality in order to devote herself 24/7 to pleasing a baby, but when Mom is expected to actually lay down her own life because a pregnancy went wrong (and the law or a moral guilt trip has put abortion out of reach) that is really far too much to ask.

If "putting children first" means putting women second--that is giving women a lower level of civil and human rights than other people get-- then I guess I'm not AP.

--AmyB


----------



## weetzie

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AmyB*
Although I like and practice a lot of ideas that have become conncted with AP I very much dislike the notion that Mom ought to become a human sacrifice for the "good of the children".

It's bad enough if Mom is supposed to entirely give up her own ambitions, pleasures and personality in order to devote herself 24/7 to pleasing a baby, but when Mom is expected to actually lay down her own life because a pregnancy went wrong (and the law or a moral guilt trip has put abortion out of reach) that is really far too much to ask.

If "putting children first" means putting women second--that is giving women a lower level of civil and human rights than other people get-- then I guess I'm not AP.

--AmyB

I agree with Amy B and I think she said it very well


----------



## Aura_Kitten

Amy put it perfectly; i can't say it any better.

Quote:

If "putting children first" means putting women second--that is giving women a lower level of civil and human rights than other people get-- then I guess I'm not AP.


----------



## stafl

what Amy said

I think it boils down to where you draw the line between a woman's rights and that of an unborn baby. Personally, I believe that life (and human rights) begins at birth, not before.
And, even more importantly to me, I believe that if you start giving rights to an unborn child you are taking rights away from the woman carrying that child. Once those rights are gone it sets precedence for all sorts of atrocities in the name of the unborn child's best interest, forced cesarean being one of them.


----------



## Meiri

AP isn't about putting baby first to the extant that mom ceases to exist as a human entity in her own right. We AP and I still have my own interests and hobbies. I just took DD, or DS back in the day, with me. I had my computer time when DD was a baby, with her on my lap or playing nearby.

Same with the choice issue. Mom is not an expendable egg.


----------



## pugmadmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *littlehiphuggers*
...First off, let me start by saying I don't want to start a debate. I guess I always assumed all ap mamas were pro-life..... and now know otherwise by the threads here







)
Just wondering if anyone who is pro-choice could explain how they feel it fits with the Ap style of putting kids first. Thanks....

I'm pro-life, I'm also pro-choice. I think individual women should have the right to choose continue their pregnancies or legal abortion. Are you trying to say that you think that individual women should *not* have the choice to have a legal abortion? And you think that stand is inherently "AP"?

If so, I disagree with you and it's in part _because_ I believe in so many of the principles of AP. I think pregnancy, and then motherhood, is such a huge responsibility that it should only be entered into freely. I can't force it on someone who says they are not ready to do it, for whatever reason.

I'm not saying that being pro-choice is inherently AP, but I also don't think being anti-legal abortion is inherently AP either.


----------



## TiredX2

Quote:

I think pregnancy, and then motherhood, is such a huge responsibility that it should only be entered into freely. I can't force it on someone who says they are not ready to do it, for whatever reason.










From a different view--- part of being AP for me is embracing the ideal of every child a WANTED child.


----------



## littlehiphuggers

What about the pain of the fetus being aborted, when we as AP parents care so much about our children being in pain (ie; anti-circ)?
And to be clear, I was posting about abortions that are for lifestyle, not medical, reasons.
Autum


----------



## EFmom

Quote:

I think pregnancy, and then motherhood, is such a huge responsibility that it should only be entered into freely. I can't force it on someone who says they are not ready to do it, for whatever reason.










Every child should be a wanted child.

As for your follow up question, it seems to me that you are well on your way to kicking up the usual abortion debate.


----------



## TiredX2

Before we debate this *again* could you at least go look in the archives?


----------



## phathui5

Autum,

I agree with you. I'm one of those who can't see how defending aborting babies can fit in with breastfeeding, co-sleeping, not spanking, etc.


----------



## Sustainer

The "Every Child A Wanted Child" ideal is definitely AP. We want every child who is born to be wanted and loved. If you force a woman to have a baby, she's much more likely to abuse or neglect it.

I think AP is also about respecting mothers/women and their right to make their own choices, especially where their own bodies are concerned. Forced births are not respectful or AP.


----------



## balsam

AP as I see it is about loving, valuing and respecting our children. Allowing our government to control it's citizens' reproductive functions tells our girls and boys that we do not respect them or trust them to make moral, intelligent decisions regarding their reproductive health. With the help of AP, I am raising smart, sensitive, educated, empowered children who can be trusted to control their own bodies and protect the rights of others to do the same. So for me, AP and being pro-choice are instrinsically related.


----------



## joesmom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *phathui5*
Autum,

I agree with you. I'm one of those who can't see how defending aborting babies can fit in with breastfeeding, co-sleeping, not spanking, etc.











i totally agree.


----------



## Rainbow

One can be pro-life and pro-choice. AP is about so many things, including respect for the individual. I respect that a woman has the right to choose how her body is used. The baby can not live without her body feeding it. The baby is not viable in and of themselves. Not even modern medicine can help the baby thrive- and when they try in the later months one can assume it is much more painful and much more invasive than the abortion itself if they were to spend a day in NICU.

Also, lets remember that abortion is abortion. Legally speaking there is NO seperating when it is ok and when it isn't. Either it is legal or it is not. I'm pro-choice because I vote legal. I think the pro-life movement should be called the anti-choice movement because it is a legal standing that supports the end of that choice. pro-choice doesn't mean pro-abortion.

You know, really- I'm unsure why people ask. I've NEVER seen anyone change their position on abortion. Maybe it happens though, I don't know...


----------



## Mama Bee

Quote:

I think the pro-life movement should be called the anti-choice movement because it is a legal standing that supports the end of that choice. pro-choice doesn't mean pro-abortion.
Yep, I completely agree! I'm pro-choice not pro-abortion. I've said it before and I'll say it again: in Mama Bee's ideal world every baby would be wanted and the whole abortion question would be moot. That world, sadly, only exists in Mama Bee's dreams.


----------



## Aura_Kitten

... fwiw i've never met *anyone* who was pro-choice that was pro-abortion.


----------



## Rainbow

exactly


----------



## simonee

an embryo or fetus is not a baby. that's why they're called embryo/fetus.


----------



## Kleine Hexe

Quote:


Originally Posted by *simonee*
an embryo or fetus is not a baby. that's why they're called embryo/fetus.

This can be touchy and goes into the realm of what you believe spiritually. I would never try to tell someone that a fetus or embryo is not a baby. People feel so differently on this. To me, yes, it is a baby. I am pro-choice. I am not pro-abortion. I am AP. I don't understnad how the issues can become confused as to having to belong to one or the other.

Just because I'm pro-choice means that I don't want the best for children whose mothers chose to bring them into the world? Just because I'm pro-coice means that I don't want to give my children the most loving and nuturing home, or breastfeed, or co-sleep, etc.?

What does breastfeeding have to do with your position on abortion? or circumcision? Or co-sleeping? Or vaxing?

I don't understand how "AP" can become (or is) a stereotype for being pro-life.

Like it was stated already in my perfect world no woman would ever have to face the decision of an unwanted pregnancy. We do not live in a perfect world and it never will be.

However, it is sad that some would think that because I am pro-choice that they have a picture of me beating my children or neglecting their needs in another way. How about this? I'm pro-choice. I *chose* to be an attachement parent.


----------



## jengi33

To the OP, little hip huggers,
I was surprised to find this too! One of the things that made me become opposed to abortion, was becoming a mama.


----------



## steph

: This whole topic has BTDT


----------



## Katie Bugs Mama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *littlehiphuggers*
What about the pain of the fetus being aborted, when we as AP parents care so much about our children being in pain (ie; anti-circ)?

IMO, a fetus is not a child; it has the potential to become a child, but it is not a child. Therefore, trying to draw an analogy between being anti-circ and being anti-choice is not an effective argument.

Like previous posters have said so well, it comes down to two issues: 1) the fact that attachment-style parenting does not render the mother a non-entity, with no right to consider her own needs when making decisions about the needs of her children and 2) the fact that the very foundation of being a nurturing, attached parent requires that one wants to be a parent. Every child deserves to be wanted, loved, and respected. A person who becomes a parent by default or because of a lack of other choices is not likely to be particularly AP. (I'm sure that it's happened. It's might even have happened to some of the women here. That's wonderful, but I doubt that it's the norm.)


----------



## Katie Bugs Mama

I just wanted to add that it's amazing the assumptions that people (myself included) make. In my mental stereotype of anti-choice people, I tend to assume that they are not likely to be AP at all. In my mind, the same belief system that is likely to lead someone to be anti-choice is also likely to lead them to support the harsher, less-secular version of Babywise that Ezzo markets to churches or even the abusive "bible-based" theories of the No Greater Joy crowd.

Don't get me wrong--I know perfectly well that my stereotype is not correct, but I hope that those of you on the other side of the fence can see how a perfectly reasonable person could arrive at the conclusion that anti-choice=very conservative parenting style=non-AP just as easily as someone with a different set of assumptions could conclude that pro-choice=indifferent to babies and children=non-AP.


----------



## phathui5

"I think the pro-life movement should be called the anti-choice movement because it is a legal standing that supports the end of that choice. pro-choice doesn't mean pro-abortion. "

I'm not opposed to calling it anti-abortion, because that's what I am. Anti-choice doesn't cover it like that does. Let's not use other words for it or beat around the bush. I'm against abortion. I'm not against women having choices, as long as abortion isn't one of them. I'm all for birth control, adoption...


----------



## Deirdre

littlehiphuggers~

I suppose my answer to your question is another question...how can a person be AP and support WAR?

I thought it couldn't be possible that a person who embraces a philosophy that is so loving and caring of children could allow for the killing and maiming of innocent children in the name of security. I found out right here at MDC that they can. Even when it is fully evident that children suffer the most both during and after war it is still okay with many "AP" folks.

So while I believe that being AP should also extend into all of our relationships with the community and the world (meaning no war is ever okay) there are some who would not agree with me.

Regarding abortion, I am pro-choice also not only because every child should be wanted but because I don't believe you can kill a soul.


----------



## CookieMonsterMommy

I'm a prochoice AP mom......why?

Because I do believe in putting the children 1st--if a mom is raising a child (or two or threee...) and gets pregnant, she may see having that baby as something that will TAKE AWAY from her "already there" children. Maybe she knows in her heart that as much as she would (or does) love this baby, it would be a burden on her, her husband/SO and her children, and she recognizes that this baby, however cherrished, may be resented. Maybe it will take away chances of finishing school or continuing work to support her family.

Maybe it's not MY right to tell her what she must do with her life. That's where the pro CHOICE comes in--as it was said, prochoice isn't pro abortion. n a perfect world, no abortions would be necessary, all children would be wanted and taken care of, and peace and love would prevail. But the world isn't perfect-in fact it downright sucks sometimes.

I HATE how abortion rights are almost always tied in with contraceptive use and safe sex--meaning: Bush still took away money from agencies that provide the birth control pill and gave out condoms when they offered to sign an agreement that none of the USA's $ would be spent on the abortions. He's all but removed real sex-ed in high school, opting for abstinence only propaganda, leaving these teenage girls no options, no choices. So when they do have sex, they don't use a condom, get pregnant and opt for an abortion.....









I also HATE abortion protesters who LIE to convince people (please note that I have NO problem with those of you who use tact and fact). I saw a pamphlet yesterday that showed a supposedly 6 week old fetus--1st of all-at 6 weeks it's an embryo, but ANYWAY--this thing was FULLY formed, right down to the toe nails. That's 100% BS. At 6 weeks an embryo has limb buds, not even real feet. They say that even a 4 week old embryo can feel pain--impossible because their nervous system isn't even half way connected or developed and their brain is not functioning. I hate the ones that scream at the women who enter the clinic or refuse to be harassed by the protesters.

I do believe that an abortion should be done ASAP, preferably before 6 weeks gestation (when the heart starts beating), and preferably (for the mom) with the RU 486 (when not medically contraindicated). I think that 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions should be rare--although not regulated by the government.

I used to be VERY pro-life.....isn't it strange that the thing that swayed me (I mean a full 180!) was getting pregnant?? Why? Because I was young (15), scared s**tless and needed to do what I felt was best (not you, not my gramma, not some idiotic protesters-ME). In my case, I made the choice to have and keep my son, because I felt that was what was best for all.

As you can see, this topic has the potential to become...shall I say heated, so I'll end now, bow out, and go make myself some dinner. Hope this helps explain somethings.

Best Wishes,
Kelly
One more thing: As a midwife-to-be (not for a while though), I intend on providing the RU 486 Abortion Pill to my clients who are under 6weeks.


----------



## Raven67

Being a good mom means being a good mom to the real, live babies you have. Each woman needs to make her own decision about whether she can nurture a child, or another child. Every child should be wanted. To me, that's part of AP. A fetus/embryo is a miracle in it's own right, but I believe, it is "potential life," not life itself. That said, my reasons for being pro-choice are more about it being a feminist and human rights issue (reproductive choice) for women, Interesting that you would assume most/all AP moms are pro-life. I would assume the opposite: AP = progressive, thinking woman, more likely to be pro-choice. Interesting. Social psychologists call that phenomenon "The False Consensus Effect." That is, assuming more people agree with you than there actually are. I think we all tend to think that way.

Oh, and ps,

I like the question asked by a previous poster: How can someone be AP and support the war in Iraq? Better still, how can someone be "pro-life" and support the death penalty? Never got that one, seems to be the very epitome of hypocrisy, but I guess that's another thread.


----------



## polka123

Quote:

I like the question asked by a previous poster: How can someone be AP and support the war in Iraq? Better still, how can someone be "pro-life" and support the death penalty? Never got that one, seems to be the very epitome of hypocrisy, but I guess that's another thread.
b/c to ME, they are very separate issues & I can separate my opinions on each w/out being a hypocrite







:









I could be pro life but feel someone who murders in cold blood esp. a child should be put to death....


----------



## pln

ITA with Raven67.


----------



## Ilaria

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sbf*
The "Every Child A Wanted Child" ideal is definitely AP. We want every child who is born to be wanted and loved. If you force a woman to have a baby, she's much more likely to abuse or neglect it.

I think AP is also about respecting mothers/women and their right to make their own choices, especially where their own bodies are concerned. Forced births are not respectful or AP.

Ditto!








nak and too hard to type!


----------



## mshollyk

wow, shocking that women who support choice aren't murderous monsters, but caring AP mothers, not so different from anti-choice, folks, really.

some people need to get out more


----------



## librarymom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *polka123*
b/c to ME, they are very separate issues & I can separate my opinions on each w/out being a hypocrite







:









I could be pro life but feel someone who murders in cold blood esp. a child should be put to death....

I think this is a mindset that scares many of us pro-choice people. How do you get to decide that Baby A must be born b/c it's life is sacred/valuable, etc. but not the one who murders??? That's why anti-choice is a better moniker. You are NOT pro-life.

Also, regarding the OP, I will say that AP is about how I PARENT my children. Abortion is (should be commonly viewed as) a MEDICAL decision.

IMnotsoHO.


----------



## polka123

DON'T take what i wrote out of context...
I said " I COULD " be.....

I am pro death penalty & lean towards pro chioce - just don't like my varied views being called " hypocrite"
I'm not 1 political party - I vote for the candidate I like.
is that hypocrite?
there are no hardcore rules.
I'm AP but fully support our men & women in the military. THey are following orders & putting their lives on the line for you to have the right to bash whom you want on boards like this & for all the freedoms you have.
You can not like our leaders but don't hate on our troops.


----------



## librarymom

Explain how you COULD be PRO-LIFE (emphasis mine) and PRO-DEATH penalty??

Also...the troops are not fighting for my right to write on message boards. Our Rights as Americans are established, and the few that may be threatened these days are so due to the Bush administration.







:


----------



## mshollyk

i had a problem with that as well. if life was chosen by g-d, and "revenge is mine, sayeth the Lord" then who was man to decide when, for what, and how another man should die?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *librarymom*
Explain how you COULD be PRO-LIFE (emphasis mine) and PRO-DEATH penalty??

Also...the troops are not fighting for my right to write on message boards. Our Rights as Americans are established, and the few that may be threatened these days are so due to the Bush administration.







:


----------



## Raven67

Polka123.....yeah, what the previous poster said....exactly what rights of ours are these troops fighting for??? None of my civil rights are threatened, except those threatened by the Patriot Act and the anti-abortion politicos. People actually believe our military is fighting for "our freedom" and "our rights." There's a real head scratcher. I don't hate the troops, never said that. I do kind of pity them. They must be people with few options in life, and certainly a limited perspective. And, according to things I read here, apparently they are duped into thinking they are fighting for lofty goals, rather than corporate greed and American imperialism. Very sad. But, of course, we are very far off from the original question now.


----------



## lotusdebi

I'm AP and Pro-Choice. My parenting style and my support of the right to choose abortion are two different subjects. There is no connection in my mind.
I do think the original post was written with the intent to bait and inflame. This topic is old and over-discussed. As are the topics of AP in relation to stance on war, sexuality, death penalty, political party, etc.

Some people at MDC may decide to connect their parenting style with every other aspect of their lives. Some may decide to defend their political beliefs that way. That's fine. But, don't assume that everyone here makes those same connections. You will only serve to create more of a rift amongst MDC members if you continue with these kinds of threads.


----------



## jengi33

I have to disagree, I think the poster was someone new to the boards as am I (although I registered a couple years ago, haven't looked at the boards since then until the last few weeks). What's so wrong with us wanting to discuss something we feel passionate about? We haven't been involved in the previous discussions. Don't participate if you don't want.


----------



## isleta

OK, but you can search the board for previous threads.


----------



## AllyRae

Quote:

I think the pro-life movement should be called the anti-choice movement because it is a legal standing that supports the end of that choice. pro-choice doesn't mean pro-abortion.
Then maybe if you want to say I'm "anti choice", I should say you're "anti life"...afterall, you have the CHOICE to have sex in most circumstances....therefore in most circumstances, you had the CHOICE to conceive. I'm not anti choice...I AM "anti-killing babies because I made a stupid choice". I believe that actions have consequences. I also believe that sex is first and foremost a way to conceive children...you can be intimate without sex...you can NOT naturally conceive a child without sex. I also believe that sex, conception, and birth are all completely natural processes.... (by saying "most circumstances" I am not including forced sex...)

I don't understand how the medical intervention of abortion can be supported, but the medical interventions during childbirth are shunned. But then again, I've also seen videos of abortions where the babies grimace in pain....therefore I *know* that AP begins in the womb...

Quote:

From a different view--- part of being AP for me is embracing the ideal of every child a WANTED child.
I TOTALLY agree... My mom was 18, unmarried, and had no money, no house, and was just out of high school when she found out she was pregnant with me. I'm GLAD she didn't take the route a lot of people would have taken. I'm glad she decided that even though I was unplanned, I was loved.


----------



## KoalaMama

I agree with others that have said it's interesting that some think AP = pro-life, as I also would have thought AP = pro-choice.

I am pro-choice in all situations, even those where I disagree with the choice. This is because I *need* the right to choose. I don't want someone telling me I can't breastfeed, or can't co-sleep, or must vax, or must circ, or... (you get the idea). So if I want my choices to be respected, how can I possibly make choices for others? To me, AP is respect for the individual. What better way to support that than by supporting the individual's freedom to choose? And freedom to choose _as long as you'd make the same choice I'd make_ is not an option here, because that's just dictatorship disguised as freedom.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AllyRae*
Then maybe if you want to say I'm "anti choice", I should say you're "anti life"...afterall, you have the CHOICE to have sex in most circumstances....therefore in most circumstances, you had the CHOICE to conceive. I'm not anti choice...I AM "anti-killing babies because I made a stupid choice". I believe that actions have consequences.

So does this mean you're ok with abortion in cases where the sex was not a choice? Not trying to be confrontational, just genuinely curious.


----------



## Ilaria

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaToFallon*
To me, AP is respect for the individual. What better way to support that than by supporting the individual's freedom to choose? And freedom to choose _as long as you'd make the same choice I'd make_ is not an option here, because that's just dictatorship disguised as freedom.

Beautiful!


----------



## pugmadmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AllyRae*
...I believe that actions have consequences. I also believe that sex is first and foremost a way to conceive children...

Why does your belief system trump mine? I don't believe that sex is first and foremost a way to conceive a child. Yet I'm not trying to make my belief the law of the land. Why are you?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AllyRae*
Then maybe if you want to say I'm "anti choice", I should say you're "anti life"...afterall, you have the CHOICE to have sex in most circumstances....therefore in most circumstances, you had the CHOICE to conceive...

Until there is a 100% effective, 100% side-effect free birth control, that is a false statement. And ask someone infertile about how much "choice" there is in concieving a child vs. how much chance is involved.

I am not anti-life, I am anti-focing my beliefs on other women or inserting the government into women's wombs. I believe women should have the choice to carry a pregnancy to term or to terminate it. You believe women should not have that legal choice. You can call it whatever you want, what it comes down to is you are denying women a choice. Period. I refuse to couch tyranny of women's bodies in the false monkier of "pro-life". If anything, I think being dedicated to avoiding going back to the days when women died from illegal abortion gives me more of a right to call myself "pro-life" than being against legalized abortion should.


----------



## pugmadmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Raven67*
...They must be people with few options in life, and certainly a limited perspective....

Did you mean that ironically? Or are you actually painting several million people will the same brush ("they must be people will few options in life") and then saying those same people have a "limited perspective"?

Why don't you try opening your own mind and broadening your own perspective before casting that particular stone?


----------



## jengi33

MamaToFallon said:


> I agree with others that have said it's interesting that some think AP = pro-life, as I also would have thought AP = pro-choice.
> 
> I am pro-choice in all situations, even those where I disagree with the choice. This is because I *need* the right to choose. I don't want someone telling me I can't breastfeed, or can't co-sleep, or must vax, or must circ, or... (you get the idea). So if I want my choices to be respected, how can I possibly make choices for others? To me, AP is respect for the individual. What better way to support that than by supporting the individual's freedom to choose? And freedom to choose _as long as you'd make the same choice I'd make_ is not an option here, because that's just dictatorship disguised as freedom.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> So where is the line drawn on choices we can make? How are our laws made? Why is murdering someone a crime? Didn't the murderer have a choice? What about stealing? Didn't that person have a choice to take something that doesn't belong to them? If you are pro-choice, then heck, let's give everyone a _choice_
> 
> I know, this is way off topic.


----------



## KoalaMama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jengi33*
So where is the line drawn on choices we can make? How are our laws made? Why is murdering someone a crime? Didn't the murderer have a choice? What about stealing? Didn't that person have a choice to take something that doesn't belong to them? If you are pro-choice, then heck, let's give everyone a _choice_

The bottom line here is I'm putting the woman's choice, and her right to be in control of her body, before the rights of the fetus. Your comparisons to murderers and thieves do not apply in my view. (Obviously I know they apply in yours - that's the whole point of the pro-life debate.) I could give you all the reasons why I think your point is irrelevant, but I think we could skip that with the understanding that we're going to start from, and end up in, very opposite places.









I would be interested to see this question go one step further... How many AP parents who are "pro-life" (hate that term as implies that pro-choice is not pro-life) are for the government controlling other areas of a woman's body and the birthing process? I.e. if you support a law that says a woman does not have a right to abortion, do you also support a law that says a hospital can force you to have a cesarian because they've decided your baby is at risk if you deliver vaginally?


----------



## jengi33

You are right mamato fallon, We aren't ever going to convince the other side!

I'm not sure what I think about the forcing of women to have c/s. I'm all for less intervention, etc., and believe that women should have choices about their birth, however once again since we come from different standpoints, I don't see that the two "choices" are related. Does that make any sense at all? Sometimes, I'm not the best typer. I have what I want to say in my head and then it all comes out wrong!







: Does this happen to any of the rest of you?


----------



## Raven67

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pugmadmama*
Did you mean that ironically? Or are you actually painting several million people will the same brush ("they must be people will few options in life") and then saying those same people have a "limited perspective"?

Why don't you try opening your own mind and broadening your own perspective before casting that particular stone?


Actually Pug, already btdt, this opinion is the result of my own transformation from brainless American to thinking American. As a young girl, I thought the military was cool, and actually started to enlist in an officer training program after college. Fortunately, a better job offer came along. But, I have lived and learned, so I stand by my opinion. That's the great thing about a board like this, people get to express all kinds of opinions.


----------



## KoalaMama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jengi33*
I'm not sure what I think about the forcing of women to have c/s. I'm all for less intervention, etc., and believe that women should have choices about their birth, however once again since we come from different standpoints, I don't see that the two "choices" are related.

In this case I think the situation is very much related... Jane Doe decides she wants to have an abortion, but the government has introduced a law that says she doesn't have the right to make that decision and she must birth that baby. So Jane Doe moves along with the pregnancy. Due date approaches and the Doctor says the baby is at increased risk with vaginal birth (let's assume it's true) and wants to perform a cesarean. Should Jane Doe have the right to refuse the surgery, or should the Doctor have the right to tell her how she must deliver that baby? Who has the right to make the decision, the woman or the doctor?

Here's where we start walking that slippery slope. Regardless of what you believe is right in the individual situation, when you give up your decision making power to someone else for one aspect of your life you run the risk of losing it for all aspects.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jengi33*
I have what I want to say in my head and then it all comes out wrong!







: Does this happen to any of the rest of you?









Yeppers, I think pretty much everyone can say they've btdt.


----------



## Rainbow

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AllyRae*
Then maybe if you want to say I'm "anti choice", I should say you're "anti life"...afterall, you have the CHOICE to have sex in most circumstances....therefore in most circumstances, you had the CHOICE to conceive. I'm not anti choice...I AM "anti-killing babies because I made a stupid choice". I believe that actions have consequences. I also believe that sex is first and foremost a way to conceive children...you can be intimate without sex...you can NOT naturally conceive a child without sex. I also believe that sex, conception, and birth are all completely natural processes.... (by saying "most circumstances" I am not including forced sex...)


1- I was raped at 17 and became pg. I chose to keep the pregnancy. So I am obviously not anti-life. The assumption is insulting.

2- to be anti-life means you are against life. To be anti-choice means you are against choice. See the difference? pro-lifers ARE against choice on a legal level. Pro-choicers are not against life on any level- they are simply in favor of women having that legal option.

ETA- I'm totally cool with the title anti-abortion. I think that explains the stance much better than pro-life.


----------



## jengi33

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaToFallon*
In this case I think the situation is very much related... Jane Doe decides she wants to have an abortion, but the government has introduced a law that says she doesn't have the right to make that decision and she must birth that baby. So Jane Doe moves along with the pregnancy. Due date approaches and the Doctor says the baby is at increased risk with vaginal birth (let's assume it's true) and wants to perform a cesarean. Should Jane Doe have the right to refuse the surgery, or should the Doctor have the right to tell her how she must deliver that baby? Who has the right to make the decision, the woman or the doctor?

Here's where we start walking that slippery slope. Regardless of what you believe is right in the individual situation, when you give up your decision making power to someone else for one aspect of your life you run the risk of losing it for all aspects.

Yeppers, I think pretty much everyone can say they've btdt.









I do see your point, and my first inclination would be to say that the choice (when baby is truly at risk) is the doctors, but I work as an RN in OB and see many situations where a c/s isn't that necessary, but the Mom is convinced it is. So to tell you the truth, I don't know!


----------



## KoalaMama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jengi33*
I do see your point, and my first inclination would be to say that the choice (when baby is truly at risk) is the doctors, but I work as an RN in OB and see many situations where a c/s isn't that necessary, but the Mom is convinced it is. So to tell you the truth, I don't know!

Ah, and here lies the reasoning behind my pro-choice stance. I just can't know! I don't know every situation, or every woman, or every doctor, or... And because I can't make that decision for one woman, I can't make that decision for any woman. It's not my decision to make - this is what pro-choice means for me. Make sense?


----------



## jengi33

Yes, it does make a little more sense to me. That won't change my view that abortion is wrong however!







Thanks for finally a civil debate and one that has helped my understanding of the other side a little bit.


----------



## woobysma

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaToFallon*
Ah, and here lies the reasoning behind my pro-choice stance. I just can't know! I don't know every situation, or every woman, or every doctor, or... And because I can't make that decision for one woman, I can't make that decision for any woman. It's not my decision to make - this is what pro-choice means for me. Make sense?

































This is exactly my reason for being pro-choice, too. I've been in the position to make this decision for myself & I would never in a million years try and decide for another woman.


----------



## Viola

Quote:


Originally Posted by *phathui5*
Autum,

I agree with you. I'm one of those who can't see how defending aborting babies can fit in with breastfeeding, co-sleeping, not spanking, etc.


This comment is very strange to me. Parenting is such a huge part of my life, but this thought far back in my mind that abortion shouldn't be illegal really doesn't play much of a part in my life. I'm pro-choice on most issues, even if I don't like the choice. You know, like I don't like that many moms choose not to breastfeed, and I don't like the fact that abortions happen, and I don't like the fact that Bush is President; heck, I don't like the fact that some people are able to reproduce in the first place, but it doesn't really affect my breastfeeding, co-sleeping and not spanking.

Honestly, you could use this argument for a lot of things. How could moms who co-sleep and use positive discipline buy toys or food for their children that are a product of child labor? How could they buy milk when it means that a baby cow isn't getting the milk it was meant to have, and the mama cows suffer? How could they support owning guns that might be used to kill another person. I do all of these things, and I feel guilty about them at times, but it doesn't stop me from breastfeeding and cosleeping. I guess as human beings, we are more complex than a description for the type of parenting we may practice.


----------



## stafl

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jengi33*
I'm not sure what I think about the forcing of women to have c/s. I'm all for less intervention, etc., *and believe that women should have choices about their birth*, however once again since we come from different standpoints, I don't see that the two "choices" are related.

(emphasis mine)

But the two "choices" are totally related. It's about whether the woman has the right to make decisions that could have an impact on the unborn baby she is carrying. Say a doctor thinks the baby will die if mom doesn't have a cesarean, but mom doesn't agree. Should she be forced to have a surgical birth? If you take away the woman's right to make one decision for herself (ie abortion) you are opening doors to take away everywoman's right to make *any* decision for herself regarding pregnancy and childbirth.

It isn't my place to decide, and it certainly isn't the government's place, or even a doctor's place to make these decisions for any woman.
You make abortion illegal, it will start an avalanche of semi-related legislation. That's just how lawyers are. Once the precedent has been set, it will be used in all sorts of other cases, however remotely related. the first thing to go would be her right to vbac... since of course, "it's just too risky and the baby might die"


----------



## KoalaMama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jengi33*
Yes, it does make a little more sense to me. That won't change my view that abortion is wrong however!







Thanks for finally a civil debate and one that has helped my understanding of the other side a little bit.









That's all I can ask for - a calm, civil debate that ends in people understanding each other's opinions even if they don't agree fully! Brilliant!









And actually, I think you'd be surprised at how many people who are pro-choice agree with your idea that "abortion is wrong". Many pro-choicers feel that abortion would be wrong for *them*, but believe that it's an individual woman's right to make that decision for herself. That's certainly my stance on a whole lot of things.


----------



## spero

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rainbow*
I've NEVER seen anyone change their position on abortion. Maybe it happens though, I don't know...

Sure, it happens. I changed my position on abortion 180 degrees.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *klothos*
.. fwiw i've never met *anyone* who was pro-choice that was pro-abortion.

I was.


----------



## LavenderMae

skellbelle, can you explain how you were pro-abortion?

I'm pro-choice and as a lot of you know I have had an abortion. There have been a lot of great points made on this thread already. I'll try not to repeat them. I am AP in a lot of ways and I'm working on being AP in others. I never connected being AP with being, pro-choice or anti- abortion. I am pretty aware that these two views are pretty split up among us and all different types of people are both.
I'm pro-choice for many of the same reasons that others are here. I actually didn't think much about abortion at all until I was faced with a pregnancy I wasn't prepared for, I mean that in everyway not just finacially. Yeah my partner and I should have been way more careful, oh hindsite doen't really matter much. I am also aware that there are mamas here who were in a similiar situation as I and chose to have their baby. I am so glad they had the right to decide for themselves that was best. I would hope they would feel the same about the choice I made , however I am not that naive. I understand that some don't think that I had enough understanding of myself and where my life was to know I couldn't have a baby at that time. That I had made my bed now make my baby lay in it (this is how I felt about that reasoning). That I should have had that baby eventhough I knew with everything that I am that it would be completely unfair to bring a child into the world at that time. I fully realize that anti-abortionist think it is more unfair to abort, I understand there is huge difference of perspective on this. I am thankful that the decision wasn't up to those who don't think I had the right to do what I felt was most responsible at the time. Some see abortion as so black and white that the forget or just refuse to see that there is so much more to this than right or wrong. I respect a woman who knows abortion is wrong for her , or who thinks abortion is wrong period. I just don't want other people's opinions to take away anyone else's right to choose.
I will be the first to say I wish that abortion didn't exist , I wish I had never been in the position to need one. I wish no woman ever had to choose. I would love to see the abortion rate go down from education etc...
I can understand the anti-abortion stance, I get that my perspective is not the only one. Right now in my life I would not have an abortion, period. Not because my stance has changed just because I know it wouldn't be the best choice for me now. I strongly believe I am the only one who can know that!


----------



## BoobyJuice

OK, so I've read through all of this and keep thinking I should just keep my mouth (typing fingers) shut. So many of you have said it so well and I'm tired and just going to jumble this all up. But I just couldn't help myself . . .

First I have to agree with everyone who has said that every child should be a wanted child. Those of who who got pregnant and decided to keep the baby - you decide you wanted the child - good for you. Not every child is so lucky. There was recently an article in the newspaper about a woman who dumped her newborn over her neighbors fence wrapped in towels and a plastic bag. As my husband said after reading the article, that was better than her having an abortion? (I realize this is an extreme example, but the point being, there are people who don't have abortions and don't want their children)

Secondly it is about respecting a woman's right. As so many others have said, where do you draw the line? Should I be able to chose to co-sleep even though many feel it endangers my children? Should I be able to chose to have a homebirth even though many feel it is dangerous for the baby? I took a great class in college called Women and the Law. (Crazy mix of mainly-conservative law school students and liberal women's studies majors







) I remember talking about all sorts of crazy laws that have been proposed, that are actually in effect and that could come about. In talking about "protecting" life, we started talking about where to draw the line. Could women be jailed for smoking, doing drugs? (Based on cases of judges wanting to jail drug addicts until their child was born to stay clean) How far do you go to protect a child? OK Like I said, I wouldn't be nearly as articulate as some who have gone before me. This is the tired rambling of a pro-choice, feminist, breastfeeding, non-circing, co-sleeping mother of two with one more on the way!

(I actually want to go to the pro-choice march on Washington this spring and take the two kids! Some of us are pro-choice and pro-family)


----------



## comet

What Boobyjuice said!


----------



## aussiemum

Pro-choice. Anti-death penalty. Pro-revolutionary (so I guess that makes me pro-war







). Working hard at AP. Failing sometimes at it too. Married hetro chickie here. Also pro gay marriage. Anti corporate globalisation. Pro-family. Anti-American hegemony. Pro human rights.......I could go on. Go figure.









What I do know is that my opinion on whether or not another person should have an abortion has nothing to do with how I treat my children. I also know that there are a lot of nice people in the military. I know there are some not-so-nice people in the military. The people I consider friends in the military are nice folks. they are not sad or limited. FWIW.

and this, pugmadmama, pretty much sums it up for me. Well said.

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by AllyRae
...I believe that actions have consequences. I also believe that sex is first and foremost a way to conceive children...
*And Pug's reply was....*

Quote:

Why does your belief system trump mine? I don't believe that sex is first and foremost a way to conceive a child. Yet I'm not trying to make my belief the law of the land. Why are you?


----------



## plum

i love what amywillo had to say!

i don't see how being pro-choice (not pro-abortion) makes me less of an AP mother. that assumption just makes me shake my head.

i CAN'T make that decision for anyone else, i WON'T make that decision for anyone else and i really don't think that reflects on how good of a mother that makes me. i am unwilling to force my beliefs and ideals on anyone else and make them do something they don't want to do. isn't that part of what attachment parenting is, doing what is best in your situation? you don't force a child to be slung if if he doesn't want to be, do you? some kids don't like slings or co-sleeping; that doesn't make you less attached. so, me thinking another woman should have the right to decide whether or not she wants to carry a child, regardless of how i feel about it, doesn't make me less of an attachment parent.

hope that makes sense; i'm tired.


----------



## pugmadmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Raven67*
Actually Pug, already btdt, this opinion is the result of my own transformation from brainless American to thinking American. As a young girl, I thought the military was cool, and actually started to enlist in an officer training program after college. Fortunately, a better job offer came along. But, I have lived and learned, so I stand by my opinion...

So, your experience, a sample group of _one_, leaves you qualified to decide why _millions_ of people have joined the military and you are comfortable accusing military members of having a "limited perspective."

The irony in your words is truly astounding (&, frankly, sad), whether you can see it or not.


----------



## Raven67

Hey Pug,

I can totally understand why you and your husband have to defend your position. I'm sure I would do the same if I were you. I feel mortified that my brother is in the Army, if it were my husband, yikes! Still, I feel pity for these guys, not pride or gratitude.


----------



## lab

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aussiemom*
and this, pugmadmama, pretty much sums it up for me. Well said.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllyRae
...I believe that actions have consequences. I also believe that sex is first and foremost a way to conceive children...

And Pug's reply was....
Quote:
Why does your belief system trump mine? I don't believe that sex is first and foremost a way to conceive a child. Yet I'm not trying to make my belief the law of the land. Why are you?


WOW! ITA!

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pugmadmama*
So, your experience, a sample group of _one_, leaves you qualified to decide why _millions_ of people have joined the military and you are comfortable accusing military members of having a "limited perspective."


Very nicely said!


----------



## spero

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sheacoby*
can you explain how you were pro-abortion?

I supported and even encouraged the practice. I thought it was perfectly acceptable, for any reason including birth control. I thought it was *necessary* for my cousin, who got pg at 18, and I took an active role in her abortion. I saw the baby afterward, and it didn't affect me at all back then...my feelings on abortion didn't change until several years later.

Now, though, it haunts me and tears at my heart.


----------



## pugmadmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Raven67*
Hey Pug,

I can totally understand why you and your husband have to defend your position. I'm sure I would do the same if I were you. I feel mortified that my brother is in the Army, if it were my husband, yikes! Still, I feel pity for these guys, not pride or gratitude.

Nice try. But I'm not letting you change the topic that easily. Especially not by taking a cheap shot and trying turn this into "Oh, poor military wife has to defend her husband." Please. Give me a little credit, even with my families "few options" and "limited perspective."

You said:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Raven67*
...They must be people with few options in life, and certainly a limited perspective....

Here you are trying to present yourself as the very picture of having a wide perspective, but in the same sentence, you feel comfortable declaring the reason that millions of people have done something is that they "have few options" and "limited perspective."

The fact that you are still unwilling to admit/unable to see the irony in your post is...interesting. If you want to declare yourself "Ms. Open Minded 2004" while remaining so close-minded about millions of people, go right ahead. In my opinion, it just keeps getting funnier.


----------



## Dragonfly

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Raven67*
I don't hate the troops, never said that. I do kind of pity them. They must be people with few options in life, and certainly a limited perspective. And, according to things I read here, apparently they are duped into thinking they are fighting for lofty goals, rather than corporate greed and American imperialism. Very sad.

You know, I might have bought that stereotype a few years ago. I didn't know any better. Then I started law school and there were a number of career military people who were in my class. They are, by far, some of the most brilliant, highly educated, open-minded, and diverse people I have ever known. They come from all walks of life. They defy categorization.


----------



## rainsmom

Do I need to go thru all the labels that define my beliefs?

Here are my labels and I wear them proudly.......I am pro choice, against the death penalty, dont drink/buy cows milk, dont own a gun, etc etc etc ANd feel it has nothing to do with the other label of AP. Whatever thats worth.

Quote:

You know, I might have bought that stereotype a few years ago. I didn't know any better. Then I started law school and there were a number of career military people who were in my class. They are, by far, some of the most brilliant, highly educated, open-minded, and diverse people I have ever known. They come from all walks of life. They defy categorization.

My sisters a captain in the Army reserve. THankfully she was spared from participating in a war she doesnt believe in. ANd yes, she is also a brilliant, highly educated, open-minded woman who is amoung many who are against the war and didnt vote for Bush. She has told me stories of women in her command being spit on by civilians while in uniform....when this war broke out.......amoung many other degrading stories. Its amazing to me the assumptions people make about people of all walks of life, bc of labels.

Oh, for the record, she's pro choice too........


----------



## Kinipela79

This thread has been really interesting for me. I think the best way to describe me would be pro choice/anti abortion. But I don't know that I think making abortion illegal is the best thing. I just don't know. I DO know that for the sole purpose of abortion as BIRTH CONTROL I think is horrible.

I also don't understand why it's a baby when you miscarry at 8 weeks but if you are talking about abortion there is so much emphasis placed on "it's not a baby it's a embryo/fetus/whatever". I lost a BABY when I had an early miscarriage a few years ago...not an embryo. So is it just using whatever terminology that "proves your point" (on either side).

Quote:

I don't hate the troops, never said that. I do kind of pity them. They must be people with few options in life, and certainly a limited perspective. And, according to things I read here, apparently they are duped into thinking they are fighting for lofty goals, rather than corporate greed and American imperialism. Very sad.
So someday in the future if those very same troops are fighting for something that you find important...will they still be people you pity with few options and limited perspectives? I am not "pro war" BUT I am thankful that there are people out there who want to protect me and my family and friends and country. So if that makes me a hypocrite...oh well. You can't please everyone!


----------



## pugmadmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kinipela79*
...I also don't understand why it's a baby when you miscarry at 8 weeks but if you are talking about abortion there is so much emphasis placed on "it's not a baby it's a embryo/fetus/whatever". I lost a BABY when I had an early miscarriage a few years ago...not an embryo. So is it just using whatever terminology that "proves your point" (on either side)....

Human's put their experiences into context. It's what we do. A woman who says "yes" to intercourse is having a sexual experience, a woman who says "no", is being assaulted. Same act. But the intent is entirely different and so it completely changes what has happened.

My earliest miscarriage was at six weeks. It was devestating. I've had friends who had abortions at eight weeks who didn't regret or grieve them at all. I'm not wrong and neither are my friends. It's the context of the experience.


----------



## Kinipela79

pugmadmama -

Quote:

A woman who says "yes" to intercourse is having a sexual experience, a woman who says "no", is being assaulted. Same act. But the intent is entirely different and so it completely changes what has happened.

It makes so much sense when you explain it...so I guess if I just took a minute to think about it I could have figured it out myself?


----------



## EFmom

Quote:

I lost a BABY when I had an early miscarriage a few years ago...not an embryo.
And that's exactly why this issue should be decided by the woman in question, not the government.

I've had a slew of miscarriages, and I would have been overjoyed to have had a child. With all those miscarriages, however, I never once felt like a baby had died. I felt like I had lost the potential to have a baby, but that's about it. It was always an embryo I had lost and not a child. While I was sad about the miscarriages, to me, what I felt was nothing near approaching grief, the grief that I have felt when I have had a loved one die. Now, I'm not saying that most women feel this way, but I sure did. I'm not discounting your feeling that you had lost a baby.


----------



## Aura_Kitten

Quote:

While I was sad about the miscarriages, to me, what I felt was nothing near approaching grief, the grief that I have felt when I have had a loved one die.
i think that's a good way of putting it.

i did feel as though i lost a baby, and i did grieve over the miscarriages i had, but at the same time i know that it was nowhere near the level of grief i would have felt if my son (already born) had passed away, or if it had been someone i had known for years (close friend / family member).

there is a difference between losing a child you've never met, seen, held, touched, nursed, rocked, cuddled, etc... and losing a child you've spent some amount of time with. even losing a baby very late in pregnancy is quite different than losing a baby early on. psychologists would explain this by attachment ~ the longer you're around someone (or even something) the stronger the bond that forms.

as someone said quite well ~ it's all a matter of perspective.

and i, for one, do not want a government deciding that perspective for me.


----------



## Kinipela79

Well, I don't want this to veer off into a discussion of if it's a baby or a fetus...we are all going to think what we think!!







And if I keep talking about it I'll get all emotional and weepy and no one wants to see that! Ha ha.

But let me ask another question (while somewhat hijacking the thread)...Is abortion a black and white issue? I am STRONGLY against abortion as a solution to an "oops!" stituation (especially as I was a big "oops!" to an unwed teenage girl







)...but when a woman is raped or going to die if she continues the pregnancy I think the option should be there. And I also don't want the goverment to be telling me where I can and cannot have my babies, how I should feed them, how I should manage their foreskin...you get the idea. So I feel sometimes like I don't fit in anywhere...I'm in a gray area?? I don't know. This whole issue has been nagging at me for awhile and I just can't sort it out in my head. So I will just come here and ramble away and not make any sense!







:


----------



## plum

who is going to decide? if a woman wants an abortion, does the doctor have the right to decide if her intentions are in the 'right' place? the government? that puts too much power in someone else's hands.

'okay, your reasons are good, your reasons are good, yours aren't so you have to continue a pregnancy you don't want.'

not my place or anyone else's to decide.


----------



## Sustainer

It's pretty black and white for me. It's a woman's right to choose what she does with her own body, and it's no one's business what her reason is.

I've had several early miscarriages, and they were not babies. I did not grieve them.


----------



## griffin2004

My dd was not a "wanted child." Her birthmother probably would have given anything not to have become pregnant under the very trying circumstances she found herself in. But, acting out of selflessness and the greatest love possible, dd's birthmom made an adoption plan for her baby.

I guess my inartfully articulated point is that "wanted" should NOT be used as a litmus test for whether a baby should be carried to term or terminated. What is unwanted by one may be desperately wanted by another.

To address another point: it's logically inconsistent to say "I'm anti-abortion for myself, but pro-choice for others." It's like saying, "I would never commit robbery or arson, but I'm happy to allow others to do so." Government (i.e., we the people) makes laws all the time restricting behavior and protecting the defenseless. With the notable exception, of course, of protecting the most deserving and defenseless of all: the unborn.

--Trish


----------



## RowansDad

Quote:


Originally Posted by *griffin2004*
To address another point: it's logically inconsistent to say "I'm anti-abortion for myself, but pro-choice for others." It's like saying, "I would never commit robbery or arson, but I'm happy to allow others to do so."

Bad analogy. Last I checked, robbery and arson are illegal, whereas abortion is legal.


----------



## pugmadmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *griffin2004*
...But, acting out of selflessness and the greatest love possible, dd's birthmom made an adoption plan for her baby....

It won't be "selflessness" when women are forced into it by the government.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *griffin2004*
...I guess my inartfully articulated point is that "wanted" should NOT be used as a litmus test for whether a baby should be carried to term or terminated. What is unwanted by one may be desperately wanted by another...

I have been dealing with infertility for over ten years. However, another women being added to this equation by force is not the solution to my suffering. The idea that another woman should continue on with a pregnancy she doesn't want so that I can get what I want is simply unconscionable to me. If a woman _freely chooses_ to continue her pregnancy and then _freely chooses_ adoption, it's a selfless, loving act. The minute any of those choices are taken away, the selflessness and loving aspect is gone.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *griffin2004*
...To address another point: it's logically inconsistent to say "I'm anti-abortion for myself, but pro-choice for others." It's like saying, "I would never commit robbery or arson, but I'm happy to allow others to do so." Government (i.e., we the people) makes laws all the time restricting behavior and protecting the defenseless. With the notable exception, of course, of protecting the most deserving and defenseless of all: the unborn...

I think the "most deserving" and "defeneless" are the already-born. You know, the millions of children in our country who live in poverty or are abused. Until we as a country can offer each and every woman and child a safe and secure enviroment to grow and thrive in, we have no business forcing even more women to give birth.


----------



## TiredX2

pugmadmama


----------



## AllyRae

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rainbow*

ETA- I'm totally cool with the title anti-abortion. I think that explains the stance much better than pro-life.

Ok, I'll take that then...yes, I am anti-abortion...anti-choice doesn't describe me because as I said, most people have a choice...they can have sex or they can keep their pants on...they can learn about their fertile cycles or they can be bunnies...that's their choice (again, I'm not talking about those who were forced into it...of course I know you didn't have a choice there). So, I am NOT anti choice...I believe the choice starts before the conception. And every choice has a consequence. But, I *am* anti-abortion, so I agree with at least that point that you made.


----------



## TiredX2

Quote:

they can learn about their fertile cycles or they can be bunnies...
Just had to point out *again* that about 50% of people who obtain an abortion are actively using birth control at the time of conception.


----------



## Viola

Quote:


Originally Posted by *griffin2004*
To address another point: it's logically inconsistent to say "I'm anti-abortion for myself, but pro-choice for others." It's like saying, "I would never commit robbery or arson, but I'm happy to allow others to do so."

So people use inconsistent logic in the world--not a big surprise. We can be logically inconsistent and still go right on withour lives. Is being always logical or consistent a goal for some? I actually can't claim I would *never* have an abortion, just like I can't claim I wouldn't do something else that I am opposed to in principle, whether it is legal or not.


----------



## daricsmami

Quote:

I am STRONGLY against abortion as a solution to an "oops!" stituation (especially as I was a big "oops!" to an unwed teenage girl )...but when a woman is raped or going to die if she continues the pregnancy I think the option should be there.
I'm a lurker, but I just wanted to jump in for a sec.

What makes that "raped" fetus less important than that "oops" fetus?

If someone believes that human life begins at conception, then isn't a baby a baby regardless on how or why it was concieved? It seems inconsistent to say that to me. Either abortion is legal or it isn't.

When people use the argument that abortion should only be used in rape or incest cases, it seems to me like they are saying children are punishments. "Rape and incest victims shouldn't have to be burdened with a child because they didn't choose to have sex." That whole thought process is very anti-AP, IMO.

Back to lurkerdom...







:


----------



## rainsmom

In response to Griffen2004:

Nothing is a bigger turnoff to the pro-life cause, than the self righteous attitude of what was said. You'll never get people to sympathize or even relate to what you said, by comparing abortion to theivery and arson.

But obviously, thats not your intention.


----------



## Viola

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AllyRae*
they can have sex or they can keep their pants on...they can learn about their fertile cycles or they can be bunnies...that's their choice

And if they take their pants off and go at it like bunnies, they get responsibility for an infant. Heck, maybe I am pro-abortion since that scares me more than the alternative. Oh wait, no, I'm still pro-choice since they shouldn't be forced to have an abortion.


----------



## LavenderMae

Quote:


Originally Posted by *griffin2004*
My dd was not a "wanted child." Her birthmother probably would have given anything not to have become pregnant under the very trying circumstances she found herself in. But, acting out of selflessness and the greatest love possible, dd's birthmom made an adoption plan for her baby.

I am so glad that it was her CHOICE to give her baby up, I am also glad women have other options!!! Not everyone views adoption as the answer to abortion or the best thing to do either. Your perspective isn't the only one or the best one.


----------



## librarymom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *griffin2004*

To address another point: it's logically inconsistent to say "I'm anti-abortion for myself, but pro-choice for others." It's like saying, "I would never commit robbery or arson, but I'm happy to allow others to do so." Government (i.e., we the people) makes laws all the time restricting behavior and protecting the defenseless. With the notable exception, of course, of protecting the most deserving and defenseless of all: the unborn.

--Trish

I am anti-camping for myself, but pro-choice in summer activities for others.
I am anti-tomatoes for myself, but pro-choice in salads for others.
I am anti-anchovies for myself, but pro-choice in pizza ordering for others.
I am anti-Bush, but pro-choice when it comes to elections.

I think choice and logic are not necessarily compatible. There's no logic to my not liking camping, tomatoes, anchovies. I just don't. I could write pages about my logic against Bush, but that's another thread. And if you refute all my logical claims vs. him, I STILL won't like him or vote for him. I would not choose an abortion at this point in my life, and that's MY choice. I could not dream of making that choice for anyone else.


----------



## grnbn76

Quote:


Originally Posted by *librarymom*
I am aniti-camping for myself, but pro-choice in summer activities for others.
I am anti-tomatoes for myself, but pro-choice in salads for others.
I am anti-anchovies for myself, but pro-choice in pizza ordering for others.
I am anti-Bush, but pro-choice when it comes to elections.

.

I'm sorry (and also very tired), but I had to LOL at this....

ITA with your point, but this just cracked me up!


----------



## TiredX2

Daricsmami---

Quote:

When people use the argument that abortion should only be used in rape or incest cases, it seems to me like they are saying children are punishments. "Rape and incest victims shouldn't have to be burdened with a child because they didn't choose to have sex." That whole thought process is very anti-AP, IMO.
Wow, thanks for that. I had never thought of it in exactly those words--- well put! Please come out and play awhile







(don't go back to lurking).

Nice point librarymom.

I would like to point out one more thing: I think govt should stick to restricting activities that hurt others/their property. If a person does not consider a fetus a human life, or consider it personal property the comparison to arson/robbery/etc... just doesn't hold up at all.


----------



## Carolinamidwife

Fiercly pro-choice AP mama







:

Wanted to show my support for everything all the other pro-choice mamas have so eloquently said in this thread.


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:


Originally Posted by *griffin2004*
I guess my inartfully articulated point is that "wanted" should NOT be used as a litmus test for whether a baby should be carried to term or terminated. What is unwanted by one may be desperately wanted by another.

There are a LOT more unwanted pregnancies than adoptive parents. Even if there weren't, it is not my job to grow babies for women who want them.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *griffin*
To address another point: it's logically inconsistent to say "I'm anti-abortion for myself, but pro-choice for others." It's like saying, "I would never commit robbery or arson, but I'm happy to allow others to do so."

Actually it's not like that at all. Robbery and arson violate the rights of others. Abortion does not. No one has the right to live inside my body. I have the right to control my body. Forcing me to carry a pregnancy to term and give birth would be a clear violation of my rights.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pugmadmama*
Until we as a country can offer each and every woman and child a safe and secure enviroment to grow and thrive in, we have no business forcing even more women to give birth.

We would have no business forcing women to give birth even if we COULD offer everyone an ideal environment!

Quote:


Originally Posted by *allyrae*
anti-choice doesn't describe me because as I said, most people have a choice...they can have sex or they can keep their pants on...they can learn about their fertile cycles or they can be bunnies...that's their choice (again, I'm not talking about those who were forced into it...of course I know you didn't have a choice there). So, I am NOT anti choice...I believe the choice starts before the conception. And every choice has a consequence.

On the abortion issue, "Pro-Choice" means being in favor of women having a legal right to choose whether to have an abortion or whether to continue a pregnancy. "Anti-Choice" means being against women having a legal right to choose whether to have an abortion or whether to continue a pregnancy. So, which are you, again?

Also, getting pregnant isn't a choice if you don't have adequate sex education and/or contraception. You would be amazed at the number of women who don't even know what causes pregnancy.


----------



## librarymom

sbf--I







that you are not giving an inch. I feel my backbone growing with your responses.


----------



## librarymom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *daricsmami*

What makes that "raped" fetus less important than that "oops" fetus?

Back to lurkerdom...







:


This is SUCH A GOOD POINT that you are no longer allowed to remain in lurkerdom. Stay with us in discussiondom. (discussiondom?)

Kudos mama!!


----------



## griffin2004

But the "government" tells us all the time what we can and can't do with our bodies. 3 quick examples off the top of my head:
--we can't take certain drugs (heroin, methampethamine, etc.)
--we can't get drunk and then drive
--we can't consent to a crime being committed on ourselves (ex: I can't "consent" to being assaulted; the law concerns itself with the perpetrator's intent in this instance)

I cinched up my absestos undies so flame away, but ad hominem attacks on me really don't advance the discussion. Spirited and sincere debate? Right on! Pejoratives? No thanks.

--Trish


----------



## kama'aina mama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *griffin2004*
But the "government" tells us all the time what we can and can't do with our bodies. 3 quick examples off the top of my head:
--we can't take certain drugs (heroin, methampethamine, etc.)

and many of us think that laws against victimless crimes like drug use should be repealed.

Quote:

--we can't get drunk and then drive
doesn't make your qualifier. Is not a crime because of what you are doing to your body (the drinking is allowed) but because of the dramatically increased likilihood that your impairment will lead to you injuring others.

Quote:

--we can't consent to a crime being committed on ourselves (ex: I can't "consent" to being assaulted; the law concerns itself with the perpetrator's intent in this instance)
this one just sorta makes no sense. No offense... but there are lots of things that are legal if you consent to them but not legal if you don't. Assault, by legal definition, means unlawfully striking someone... or maybe assault is taking a swing at them and battery is actually conecting which is why you so often hear them together. But if you and I agree to a physical contest... a boxing match, karate fight, wrestling, etc... then it IS legal for us to strike each other.


----------



## KoalaMama

kama'aina mama ... I







: your signature line! And







to everything you just said.


----------



## librarymom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaToFallon*
kama'aina mama ... I







: your signature line! And







to everything you just said.

Me too and me too. You put it all together way faster than I was able to. Thanks and


----------



## Kinipela79

well, I don't think that a "raped fetus" is any less important than an "oops" but there is a whole different can of worms there. I am friends with a woman who was brutally (is it ever not brutal) raped and kept her son and now has beautiful grandchildren who she adores more than anything. But from what I have learned through her (so others may have entirely different experiances) is that it wasn't just a "well, I am pro life so I'm going to keep the baby and that is that." It was a process of grieving, screaming, crying, going back and forth through every option...abortion, adoption, keeping the baby...and wondering "what if I have this child and I hate it and every time I look at my baby I feel that mans body on top of me"

And trust me I am very "AP" and I do believe you can be AP and pro choice because there are MANY WONDERFUL mamas here that think very differently then me (and yes, sometimes I think I am just floating in some weird gray area but c'est la vie...it's my brain...I can float wherever I want







)but love their children just as much and treat them with the same dignity and respect as any "pro life" mama. I don't care if they are pro choice or anti camping or whatever...I learn from them every day. So there is my ass kissing for the day right?? Ha! I'm serious though...many Pro life mothers spank, circ, berate and insult their children so I don't think pro choice/pro life defines how one parents their children.


----------



## Rainbow

The thing that bugs me about the whole idea of the "unless you're raped" argument is that anyone desperate enough to have an abortion could just say she was raped. Are we gonna start having trials to see who is likely lying and who isn't? And at that point we get into telling women "nope- you were raped" "yup-you were" and that is NOT ok. And liek the other poster pointed out- if it is a baby with rights it has those rights regardless of how it came to be.

I also want to say that nobody I know is out there having routine abortions for the hell of it. They are painful, take a long time, mess with your hormones and body, and take recovery. WHO would CHOOSE that over taking a pill every day or using condoms? Also, many people getting abortions are young people who have no access to birth control because going to their parents for BC is not even optional. Its seems it is the same people putting up fights about condom dispensers and free pill packs that are so heavily anti-abortion.

Let's educate and empower women to take control of their fertility as a way to lower abortion rates rather than take away female reproductive rights.


----------



## kama'aina mama

Oh, and Griffin2004, you missed an obvious one: Prostitution! To which I would ibid my first reply.


----------



## Kinipela79

Quote:

Let's educate and empower women to take control of their fertility as a way to lower abortion rates rather than take away female reproductive rights.
I agree with this...and I also agree that it's silly to say "you can have an abortion...so can you but not you." I probably sound like a total contradiction most of the time but that's simply because I see both sides as having valid points and views and then I don't know what I think any more. I just need to stop trying to think!









I knew a couple of people who took the morning after pill. But it wasn't real easy to get...one had to sign up with Planned Parenthood and go through all that which granted was only a couple hours but still. I am not even sure what the morning after pill is...some people say it's an abortion but I didn't think that is what it is?? Could someone explain.

Quote:

Also, many people getting abortions are young people who have no access to birth control because going to their parents for BC is not even optional. Its seems it is the same people putting up fights about condom dispensers and free pill packs that are so heavily anti-abortion.
I did not know that people were against this sort of thing. I would want my children (when they are 25 years old right?? I won't have to worry about that before then right? Right? Ha.) to be able to protect themselves even if they felt they couldn't talk to me about it. Even now at 24 and 27 years old...my dh and I feel awkward asking the clerk to unlock the little case for the stinkin condoms!! lol


----------



## Sustainer

The morning after pill is not an abortion pill. It's emergency contraception. You can go to Planned Parenthood's site for an explanation.


----------



## kama'aina mama

For those who believe that life begins at conception it falls into the catagory of abortificant, I think. As does the use of an IUD.


----------



## Aura_Kitten

it prevents implantation of a fertilized egg.

about EC ~ one of my sisters had to go to two different doctors (both of which required her to make an appointment beforehand) before she actually was able to get a prescription for it, then to four or five different pharmacies before she found one that would fill it for her.







she's 25, so it's not like it was an issue of her being "too young" either. they just didn't want to give it to her because of moral objections.


----------



## *Erin*

*sticking my head in*
like sheena, i wanted to voice my thanks and support to the awesome mamas standing up for the right to choose here on this thread. thank you.


----------



## rainsmom

Quote:

Let's educate and empower women to take control of their fertility as a way to lower abortion rates rather than take away female reproductive rights.


----------



## daricsmami

Well since I've already started, I might as well finish









if abortion is illegal then what about this:

-IUDs would become illegal because they stop a fertilized egg from implanting
-birth control pills, too. They are supposed to stop ovulation, but on the chance that they don't, they also stop fertilized eggs from implanting.
-pregnant women would be forced to have prenatal care
-pregnant women would be jailed for smoking, drinking, using recreational drugs, not taking their vitamins, etc.
-every aspect of pregnancy would be analyzed and medicalized because these fetuses are humans and deserve good medical care
-women would be forced to do whatever their OB says because "it's in the best interest of the child"
-pregnant 11, 12, 13 year olds would be forced to go through pregnancy

I'm being facetious, but where does it end???

Using modern medicine, fetuses (should I be saying feti??







) aren't viable until 22-26 week gestation (depending on from what point of conception you're counting, different state laws, etc). And at that point, you cannot get an abortion in any state, legally, unless there is a medical problem with the fetus. So, I don't see the argument of being able to have abortions at birth or after the child is 4 days old, as relevant arguments.

Also- late term abortions are serious, medical decisions. My cousin had one (un-viable fetus) and to her, that was a baby. She delivered the fetus, like she did her other three children. She has a nursery picture of her and everything. They stopped the heartbeat by giving her a shot in the amniotic sac and she birthed her.

These people aren't heartless. No one comes out of an abortion clinic or hospital doing cartwheels. They are no "Happy Abortion" parties when they come home. For the rest of their lives, they have to live with the stigma of being a "whoring murderer". Please show some compassion everyone.


----------



## TiredX2

I'm so glad you're staying!


----------



## Kinipela79

"if abortion is illegal then what about this:

-IUDs would become illegal because they stop a fertilized egg from implanting
-birth control pills, too. They are supposed to stop ovulation, but on the chance that they don't, they also stop fertilized eggs from implanting.
-pregnant women would be forced to have prenatal care
-pregnant women would be jailed for smoking, drinking, using recreational drugs, not taking their vitamins, etc.
-every aspect of pregnancy would be analyzed and medicalized because these fetuses are humans and deserve good medical care
-women would be forced to do whatever their OB says because "it's in the best interest of the child"
-pregnant 11, 12, 13 year olds would be forced to go through pregnancy

I'm being facetious, but where does it end???"

I am sure this is stuff that most people don't think about. I know I didn't. I was talking with my dh about this last night and he is in the right/wrong or yes/no camp and I was giving him some scenerios and views of the people here and it was shocking for him, I think, to realize that maybe it's not such a easy thing to just say "make abortion illegal". Just thought I would share that while I still don't believe in abortion...I still think it's a life and not just an embryo...you have given me a lot to think about. I asked my dh how he would feel if abortion became illegal and then we started seeing a slew of cases of women dumping their babies they just gave birth to in the dumpster or abandoning them places simply because the DID NOT want a baby and they couldn't get an abortion. I don't know if that would happen but that is so much more awful than an early abortion...it doesn't even compare in my mind. And I am sure some will disagree.


----------



## grnbn76

Quote:


Originally Posted by *daricsmami*
-pregnant women would be jailed for smoking, drinking, using recreational drugs, not taking their vitamins, etc.
-every aspect of pregnancy would be analyzed and medicalized because these fetuses are humans and deserve good medical care
-women would be forced to do whatever their OB says because "it's in the best interest of the child"

.

From what I've heard, they are already reaching toward this in Texas. They recently passed a law allowing an OB to report dangerous behavior in a pregnant woman. I seem to remember it specifically pointing out drug use, smoking, alcohol use, etc.
My first reaction was that it was going to go from "As an OB, I think she's reckless for riding a bicycle while pregnant" to "As an OB, I think she's reckless for wanting a VBAC/homebirth/natural birth".

If we want the government to stay out of our collective uterus when we want to be pregnant, they're going to have to stay out of our collective uterus when we don't.


----------



## Carolinamidwife

Quote:


Originally Posted by *grnbn76*
From what I've heard, they are already reaching toward this in Texas. They recently passed a law allowing an OB to report dangerous behavior in a pregnant woman. I seem to remember it specifically pointing out drug use, smoking, alcohol use, etc.
My first reaction was that it was going to go from "As an OB, I think she's reckless for riding a bicycle while pregnant" to "As an OB, I think she's reckless for wanting a VBAC/homebirth/natural birth".


Yes. Here in Texas things are moving in that direction. The OBs are CONSTANTLY trying to outlaw midwifery and they have already pretty much ensured that most of the CNMs here can't do VBACs, twins, or breeches. Believe me, I have no doubt if they could make homebirth entirely illegal they would.

Quote:

*If we want the government to stay out of our collective uterus when we want to be pregnant, they're going to have to stay out of our collective uterus when we don't.*


----------



## Abby

I would also like to add myself to the list of pro-choice mamas, who are thankful that there are those who can say/explain it way better than me


----------



## Mariposa

haven't read all the replies, but just wanted to say that i don't think that AP is any one type of mom. i know all kinds of AP moms, liberals, conservatives, christian, atheist, rich, poor, the list goes on and on. to me, AP is not attached to any of those types of things. it is all by itself.

for the record, i am pro-choice.


----------



## gethane

Quote:


Originally Posted by *grnbn76*

If we want the government to stay out of our collective uterus when we want to be pregnant, they're going to have to stay out of our collective uterus when we don't.

Excellent point! I'd like to add this: If we allow government control over our bodies in any reproductive areas, its just a hop, skip and a jump away from them being able to require an abortion in a different instance. It isn't about THE BABIES. It's about control. It's about what ARE women. Are we free adult individuals with control over ourselves, like men? Or are we RESOURCES for the government, churning out more tax paying, materialistic, CONSUMERS.

AP mama, and pro-choice, because the alternative is too horrible to think about.


----------



## RubyV

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gethane*
Excellent point! I'd like to add this: If we allow government control over our bodies in any reproductive areas, its just a hop, skip and a jump away from them being able to require an abortion in a different instance. It isn't about THE BABIES. It's about control. It's about what ARE women. Are we free adult individuals with control over ourselves, like men? Or are we RESOURCES for the government, churning out more tax paying, materialistic, CONSUMERS.

AP mama, and pro-choice, because the alternative is too horrible to think about.

























Exactly.

If aboriton is outlawed to "save babies", how long until prenatal care with an approved OB becomes maditory to "save babies"? Ultrasound? Genetic testing? banning homebirth? allowing women to miscarry at home naturally?

Scares the shit out of me.

I don't see how politics=AP.

I've seen attached and unattached parents who were Christian, Pagan, pro and anti choice, Green, poor, rich, etc.


----------



## SarahMorgan

I am AP, pro life, anti death penalty, and anti war. I dont think anyone should ever murder anyone. I believe killing people in war is murder, killing prisoners on death row is murder, and so is abortion. I am truely pro LIFE in every situation, so prolife fits me just fine.


----------



## pugmadmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SarahMorgan*
...I am truely pro LIFE in every situation, so prolife fits me just fine.










Except for the women who will die having illegal abortions.


----------



## lotusdebi

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pugmadmama*
Except for the women who will die having illegal abortions.

Or the women who will kill themselves as a result of an unwanted pregnancy that can't be aborted.

That would have been my story, if I hadn't had access to abortion.


----------



## kama'aina mama

What about situations in which continuing the pregnancy places the mothers life at serious risk?


----------



## TiredX2

Thank you kama-aina mama for mentioning that. Sometimes, it is actually a *choice.*

More often, though, it is not. But I still respect each womans right to make her own choice, simply because I want MY right to do so to be respected.


----------



## Bearsmama

I'm a proud AP and PRO-CHOICE mama here chiming in. I've never felt like I had to justify these two things b/c I don't see them as being contradictory.


----------



## CookieMonsterMommy

Sarah,

What about the children who will be abused and neglected (yes, possibly to the point of death) because they were not wanted....???

Know what I H-A-T-E???? And I think I mentioned this before....and please note before hand that I am not calling out anyone specific on this thread or on MDC in general (mostly because a-I don't know you all from a sack of beans, lol, and b-I don't wanna break user agreement).

I HATE when people rally, picket, protest, petition, flame, demonstrate, solicit, fundraise and vote to make abortion illegal....and then do NOTHING to help the mothers who have either chosen not to abort, or mothers that will not be allowed to abort once this regime is established....









I also hate those who use lies and propaganda to trick and coerce others into agreeing with them (this part goes for both sides).

Isn't it funny how the same political groups that tend (I'm watching my wording here....) to be anti choice are the same ones who are anti-welfare and anti-medicaid, etc? Okay, so now you've forced women to birth babies they don't want and/or can't afford--now what? Where's the financial, psychological, emotional, social support? No where-because you've gotten rid of most of it! And what's left is made shameful, humiliating, inadequate and almost impossible to receive. That's so funny-- ha ha ha...a real riot-and we know how funny a riot is!







: WTF?

Who's going to be there for that 16 year old who just gave birth and wants to finish HS and go to college, who wants more than a minimum wage job and a life full of struggles and poverty-for her AND her child? Cuz I sure as hell know that no one was there for me!

Once the anti-abortion agenda is adhered to-that's the last ANY mom will hear from Birthright, AAA Pregnancy Options, or any other Right to Life organizations that I know of and/or have personally dealt with. No babysitting services, no help with getting public assistance (or getting off it, for that matter), VERY few baby clothes, no scholarships/grants, no job placement, no housing assistance, no food or breast pump rentals....(which, BTW are often promised to these women and girls). As far as those people (again, no one here necessarily, just those I've dealt with, talked to and/or heard about IRL and OL) are concerned, their good deed for the day is done, they've earned their heaven/karma points.

-Kelly

PS-Where is that long line of Conservatives and other generally anti-choicers that wraps around the buildings of orphanages and adoption agencies, just waiting to scoop up all the babies that they "saved"--you know, the beautiful but unwanted brown, black, mentally or physically disabled children(basically kids who aren't lucky enough to have been born perfect and white)?? Oh, that's right...there is no line. Those kids are on their own too.


----------



## rainsmom

for kelly!


----------



## CookieMonsterMommy

PPS-How many anti choice moms here on MDC are going to really accept these mothers who simply *cannot stay at home (in fact, must work more than FT just to clothe, feed and house these children), can't BF and have to leave their kid in daycare because they're working 48 hours a week, who prop up the bottle because after working for 10 hours have to cook for their other children and don't have time to hold and coddle a newborn for 30 min, who can't use a sling because the salvation army only has strollers, vaccinate their kids fully because Medicaid pushes this on them, and WIC requires it as does Head Start, who yell at and spank their children and let them(gasp!)CIO because their lives suck SO much and are SO stressful that they don't have the patience (or maybe even the desire) to GD a child or even be a parent, let alone a good one?

-kelly


----------



## Shonahsmom

To both of your posts Kelly!


----------



## sweetest

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Bearsmama*
I'm a proud AP and PRO-CHOICE mama here chiming in. I've never felt like I had to justify these two things b/c I don't see them as being contradictory.

Exactly.


----------



## BelovedBird

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SarahMorgan*
I am AP, pro life, anti death penalty, and anti war. I dont think anyone should ever murder anyone. I believe killing people in war is murder, killing prisoners on death row is murder, and so is abortion. I am truely pro LIFE in every situation, so prolife fits me just fine.









You are forgetting the fundamental fact that not everyone views an embryo or even a fetus as a human life- I for one view them as a potential life- sacred, yet subject to different treatment and consideration than an actual human individual (which the mother is).


----------



## Arduinna

If we want the government to stay out of our collective uterus when we want to be pregnant, they're going to have to stay out of our collective uterus when we don't.

ITA!!!!!!!


----------



## Bearsmama

Belovedbird-Your words are so right on-about so many things. For instance, I have an extremely, devoutly, religious person in my family. She makes comments all the time that ASSUME that I and my family believe as she does. This is where the fundamental breakdown of communication happens.


----------



## aussiemum

kelly--







.

I know from some of your other posts I've come across the path you have walked as a young mum. You have my deep respect, & those were two fantastic posts. Thank you.


----------



## phathui5

_"I HATE when people rally, picket, protest, petition, flame, demonstrate, solicit, fundraise and vote to make abortion illegal....and then do NOTHING to help the mothers who have either chosen not to abort, or mothers that will not be allowed to abort once this regime is established..."_

I do as much as I can to help those moms. I donate diapers, wipes, clothes, breastfeeding books, etc to our local crisis pregnancy center. We've opened our home to a pregnant friend with two kids who found herself homeless and would do the same for anyone else who needed it. We're planning to become foster parents when we have a bigger place. I give money to our crisis pregnancy center when I can. I've mailed money to mamas who needed to get groceries. I am a breastfeeding counselor for our WIC program. I've driven pregnant mamas to prenatal appointments.

_"Who's going to be there for that 16 year old who just gave birth and wants to finish HS and go to college, who wants more than a minimum wage job and a life full of struggles and poverty-for her AND her child? Cuz I sure as hell know that no one was there for me!"_

When I had my ds at 16, there were no pro-choice people offering me help. There were, however plenty of anti-choice people. They brought us diapers, food for me, cleaned my apartment, babysat ds for free when I was forced to work part-time, watched him so I could take night classes for college, helped me to get my GED. The "anti-choice" people helped us out a ton. All I had to do was make our needs known and they were there.

_"PS-Where is that long line of Conservatives and other generally anti-choicers that wraps around the buildings of orphanages and adoption agencies, just waiting to scoop up all the babies that they "saved"--"_

I know Conservative anti-choicers who have been waiting for years to adopt any color baby they could get. Our pastor went and adopted a baby from Korea (he's white) because there's so much red tape to get through to adopt an American baby.


----------



## Aura_Kitten

kelly, you are so right on!
















when i was 18, had no place to live and no money and had just had my baby, the extent of the "help" i received was some guy coming into my hospital room completely unrequested, because it was "mandatory," to come talk to me about protecting myself against future pregnancies. he stood there while i struggled to nurse my newborn son, and went on and on about how he _knew_ in just a couple of weeks i'd be back on the "party scene" but in order to prevent myself from getting pregnant again i ought to "use protection this time."









the church i had gone to for the most part turned their back on me, because i was a young, unwed mother.

almost everybody i had ever known pushed me and pushed me to just go to college and put my son in daycare, so i could "get somewhere in life."

you know who helped us? _ourselves._

ok, enough ranting about that.

i may have already said this but...

_If we want the government to stay out of our collective uterus when we want to be pregnant, they're going to have to stay out of our collective uterus when we don't._

ITA!!!









i think that is what it really boils down to.


----------



## LavenderMae

Quote:

If we want the government to stay out of our collective uterus when we want to be pregnant, they're going to have to stay out of our collective uterus when we don't.
Let's say it one more time!!!!! This would make a great sig line and pro-choice poster/slogan (if it isn't one already)!!! It is so true and something all women really should think about.


----------



## pugmadmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *phathui5*
...Our pastor went and adopted a baby from Korea (he's white) because there's so much red tape to get through to adopt an American baby.

Your pastor is lying to you, and possible to himself to justfiy his actions.

There is just as much, if not more, red tape to adopt internationally. Your pastor wanted a younger, fully-abled, child and so he got one. If he'd been willing to put his money where his mouth was and adopt an older and/or disabled child right here in the USA, he could have done it.

So, he continues to damn women for aborting, while not doing one single thing to reduce the number of unwanted children waiting to be adopted in the United States of American.


----------



## phathui5

"while not doing one single thing to reduce the number of unwanted children waiting to be adopted in the United States of American"

So he adopted an unwanted child from somewhere else. A child that was sitting alone in a crib in her orphanage. Most foster babies here are better off than she was. Let's not get snotty because he had the nerve to not adopt a baby that was unwanted from here. He adopted one that needed a home. That is the pro-life thing to do.


----------



## RubyV

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pugmadmama*
Your pastor is lying to you, and possible to himself to justfiy his actions.

There is just as much, if not more, red tape to adopt internationally. Your pastor wanted a younger, fully-abled, child and so he got one. If he'd been willing to put his money where his mouth was and adopt an older and/or disabled child right here in the USA, he could have done it.

So, he continues to damn women for aborting, while not doing one single thing to reduce the number of unwanted children waiting to be adopted in the United States of American.

Folks!! We have a winner!!!!!

Red tape my ass.

In most states, adoption through local social services is free or low cost. Adoption only gets expensive if you want a widdle cute cuddly white newborn (and don't get me started on the exploitation of poor women and teens to provide babies for the world).

Adopting my 3 cousins in NYS was FREE. They are children of color (two latino, one black). AND, they got assistance to boot.


----------



## Ilaria

A friend of mine adopted a biracial baby (AA/white, newborn and healthy, no less)-the whole process took 8 months (shorter than most pregnancies). She was told there wasn't 'much interest in mixed babies'. It wasn't free, but about half as much as a white baby.


----------



## RubyV

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ilaria*
A friend of mine adopted a biracial baby (AA/white, newborn and healthy, no less)-the whole process took 8 months (shorter than most pregnancies). She was told there wasn't 'much interest in mixed babies'. It wasn't free, but about half as much as a white baby.

On many adoption websites, children of color/biracial are listed as special needs simply because the demand for these babies isn't there.


----------



## Lucky Charm

I dont think i have to say anything, because Pugmadmama says it all for me!


----------



## pugmadmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sweetbaby3*
I dont think i have to say anything, because Pugmadmama says it all for me!

Thank you! You made my day!


----------



## TiredX2

Quote:

On many adoption websites, children of color/biracial are listed as special needs simply because the demand for these babies isn't there.
That is just heartbreaking. Makes me reconsider additional children. I could see us adopting two (siblings--- I know sib groups are hard to keep together) when my two are a bit older (hmmm, wonder if we could get two between their ages so they would still be the oldest and youngest







).

Something to think about--- thanks!


----------



## Lucky Charm

I wonder where littlehiphuggers is. She started the thread, and its now 8 pages long. Just curious.


----------



## phathui5

Quote:

Adoption only gets expensive if you want a widdle cute cuddly white newborn
But the baby they adopted wasn't white or a newborn.


----------



## TiredX2

Quote:

But the baby they adopted wasn't white or a newborn.
But she *was* living in a foreign country, which logically would cost more than a needy (non-white) child down the street.


----------



## pugmadmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *phathui5*
...But the baby they adopted wasn't white or a newborn.

But the baby was still a baby...and not special needs, not over the age of 4, not part of a sibling group and not black/brown.

I have little patience with people who think American women should not be able to choose legal abortion refusing to adopt even _one_ of the, literally, thousands of waiting children here.

Your pastor wanted a child under the age of 2 (probably under 1), who hadn't been abused, who didn't have special needs or siblings and that's what he got. Good for him. I'm glad he was able to make that _choice_ about "when", "how" and even "if" to add a child to his family. Maybe someday he'll get behind the idea of supporting that choice for American women too.


----------



## Aura_Kitten

OMG pugmadmama you are a GODDESS.







you consistently say every single thing i could possibly say and more, and eloquently.

you have such a good head on your shoulders. i am happy that there are mamas like you out there.


----------



## Kinipela79

I understand what is being said but I don't like the idea that because someone chooses to adopt a baby in need of a family from a different country that they are somehow not doing the right thing. An unloved, unwanted baby who is sitting in an orphanage -whether it be China, Russia, America - is still an unloved, unwanted baby and I think it's fantastic that people will take them in and give them the family they need.
Did you ever read the magazine Rosie? She always had a section of older kids who needed families...I thought that was a great way to reach a lot of people and I am sure it had success.
I know a woman who has adopted two babies from this country and another woman who adopted two babies from China...a woman who adopted from India...and a little girl who came from Russia. I think it's wonderful that ALL those children have homes and loving families now. I also think that the general public has a mislead vision of how hard adoption is and how much it costs but I was talking about it with my friend and she said DON'T LET THE MONEY SCARE YOU AWAY!!!! There are grants you can apply for and other things. But it's not a process I could handle right now...but when my children are older...we plan on adopting a child. It's something that is very important to me.


----------



## TiredX2

I think internation adoption is great.

I think it was even better under Clinton when people in other countries had access to birth control and safe abortion.

There are more children waiting to be adopted than adoptive parents. That is fact. Adoption is NOT a solution to all unwanted pregnancies.


----------



## CookieMonsterMommy

Plath, I respect what you are doing very much, but please know that both you and your experiences are exceptions to the rule. The majority of places I've come into contact with have nothing to offer but their own agendas shoved down peoples throats with a large serving of lies, untruths and propaganda.

Those anti-choicers I met with way back when (when I was attempting to get a hold of some much needed free maternity clothes that were promised to me....turns out that since I had already decided to keep my son I wasn't worthy of the probably non existant gifts)tried to get me to put my mixed son (black dad, white mom)into foster care until he was 2 or 3 at which point I could "ask a judge to get him back"...you know, cuz I would be "older, wiser, and more capable of raising a child" Like this lady knew me from a can of peas... Grrrrrr.....

--Kelly

PS-Thanks to those who praised my last 2 posts. As you may be able to tell, I am very passionate about this....BUT I sometimes worry that I'll be taken for rabid and be euthanized! (ummm...ignore the growling up there.... heh heh heh)









PPS-Klothos, I had a similar experience when I gave birth to ds....cept he was in the NICU and I was attempting "latch on" with a double breast pump for the 1st time when the social worker came. Heaven forbid she wait three damn minutes to begin harassing me.....

PPPS-I read somewhere that if every church had ONE member adopt a "special needs child" (including race, diabilities, sibling, older, etc) the problem would be almost nonexistant....think about it-makes sense...there are plenty of towns that have like, a church on every other corner....I plan on adoping (probably a mixed kid or sibling group), although not at this point in my life.

PPPPS-Speaking of inter-racial adoption--Any AP moms who wanna adopt my 5 year old ds one weekend a month --- I am now accepting applications! There is grant money available under the "Single Mother Mental Health Clause" which states that every single mother is entitled to some alone time and a chance to not go nuts! hehehe


----------



## Kinipela79

Quote:

BUT I sometimes worry that I'll be taken for rabid and be euthanized! (ummm...ignore the growling up there.... heh heh heh)
Nah - the world is full of apathetic people...we need people that have that passion in them!!


----------



## phathui5

Quote:

I understand what is being said but I don't like the idea that because someone chooses to adopt a baby in need of a family from a different country that they are somehow not doing the right thing. An unloved, unwanted baby who is sitting in an orphanage -whether it be China, Russia, America - is still an unloved, unwanted baby


----------



## pugmadmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kinipela79*
I understand what is being said but I don't like the idea that because someone chooses to adopt a baby in need of a family from a different country that they are somehow not doing the right thing. An unloved, unwanted baby who is sitting in an orphanage -whether it be China, Russia, America - is still an unloved, unwanted baby and I think it's fantastic that people will take them in and give them the family they need...

I agree with everything you said. However, the post that started this claimed that her pastor was practically forced into adopting internationally because of the redtape here in the USA. Which is total and utter crap. But it's something I hear a lot from people who adopt who are also hellbent on taking the choice of legal abortion away from women here in the USA. They claim to put their money where their money is...they adopt! Then it turns out they adopted a healthy baby from Russia, China or Korea. Or they just happend to have the best luck in the adoption world and social services _insisted_ they take a healthy, white newborn. Yay, right.

I under no obligation to go along with their self-justifing bullshit to make them feel better. And if it were my pastor who had the nerve to try to snow me like that, I'd be finding a new church.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TiredX2*
I think internation adoption is great.

I think it was even better under Clinton when people in other countries had access to birth control and safe abortion...

Right on!


----------



## Kinipela79

pugmadmama - that's why I also said that I think that people are really mislead by the adoption process and think that the easiest and quickest option is an out of country adoption.

I totally agree that adoption isn't the one and only answer but I do wish that it were shown in a more "available" light if that makes sense. Because I think there are a lot more people who would want to do that but it seems like this huge unattainable thing.

But I do agree that a lot of people who adopt don't want to "get stuck" with a "problem" child...but there are a lot of people...both prolife and prochoice...who truly adopt because they want to give a child the life he/she deserves...regardless of their "special needs". I hope I make sense.


----------



## momsgotmilk4two

Well that's kind of a loaded question. I don't see being pro choice and being AP as having anything to do with each other. I have never connected the two. Actually, I have found that more AP moms tend to be liberal since it is a "crunchier" lifestyle and tends to go along with natural parenting. Really though, ones political leanings don't have much to do with putting your child first. I could say the same thing about pro lifers. They are all for the so called rights of the fetus, but once it comes out you better not be one of those "freeloading welfare moms". How is THAT putting kids first?


----------



## Leonor

Doesn't it upset you that people do 12, 15 and even 20 abortions? Also, do you know when those women become mothers they are usually terrible mothers? I have a friend whose mother used abortion constantly for contraception and she was the accident child (doctor refused because it was too late). Her mother used to grab her and hit her head against the wall.

Remember when you're pro-choice, you're also supporting these people.

I don't think the inside the body argument has any value, unless the woman was raped. Responsible women don't get pregnant by accident in the 21st century.

If this was my website I would ban all pro-choicers and pro-wars. I'm brutaly honest.


----------



## gethane

I don't even have a clue what you could possibly be saying. Are you saying that rather than 15 abortions, it would've been better if she had birthed all those babies to slam all their heads against the wall?

Supporting them to do what??

Personally, I'm glad someone like that aborted the rest of their babies. If she'd have birthed them, only to abuse them, that starts a cycle of abuse to pass down for decades. Granted, it would be much better had she not conceived, but she already did! What then?

And your statement that responsible people don't get pregnant just boggles the mind!

Actually, I maybe shouldn't have replied to this. Me thinks you are a troll.


----------



## Leonor

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gethane*
Actually, I maybe shouldn't have replied to this. Me thinks you are a troll.

I should get a penny each time I'm called a troll.


----------



## kama'aina mama

So let me get this straight: It is your contention that anyone who is the 'kind of person' who would have an abortion is usually a terrible mother... so we should deny them the abortion so they can be a terrible mother to as many children as possible?







You're brutally something, but I'm not sure honest is it.

I will leave your silly comment about responsiblity somehow rendering contraception 100% effective for someone else to address.


----------



## Ilaria

My MIL conceived all of her 3 children on birth control!
1. condom
2. IUD
3. pill

I guess she's just irresponsible.


----------



## plum

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Leonor*

If this was my website I would ban all pro-choicers and pro-wars. I'm brutaly honest.

well, i'm glad this isn't 'leonor.com' then







.


----------



## Leonor

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ilaria*
My MIL conceived all of her 3 children on birth control!
1. condom
2. IUD
3. pill

I guess she's just irresponsible.









One form of contraception is often not enough, most doctors and books will recomend 2 at the same time. The diafragm (sp?) is great according to my doctor although it might be annoying. My implant never failed neither my early combinations of pill + condom + watching cycle.

People can also have pleasurable sex in less connventional manner, like caresses, etc.

And abstinence is full proof!


----------



## Leonor

Quote:


Originally Posted by *plum*
well, i'm glad this isn't 'leonor.com' then







.

Hmmm.. It seems that domain is for sale.


----------



## Leonor

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kama'aina mama*
So let me get this straight: It is your contention that anyone who is the 'kind of person' who would have an abortion is usually a terrible mother... so we should deny them the abortion so they can be a terrible mother to as many children as possible?







You're brutally something, but I'm not sure honest is it.

I'm not here to stand for a prohibitive law that is probably useless, although state funded abortion is gross. And I don't support passing the message that abortion is moral.

My friend was after that mother's last abortion. After the "scare" of having to deal with the life she created, I guessed she learned about contraception or to keep her legs shut!

My friend turned to be a wonderful creative compassionate AP mother.

If a woman is so fertile contraception doesn't work, she should keep her legs shut and seek less conventional pleasures.


----------



## librarymom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Leonor*
If a woman is so fertile contraception doesn't work, she should keep her legs shut and seek less conventional pleasures.









:


----------



## KoalaMama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Leonor*
Doesn't it upset you that people do 12, 15 and even 20 abortions? Also, do you know when those women become mothers they are usually terrible mothers? I have a friend whose mother used abortion constantly for contraception and she was the accident child (doctor refused because it was too late). Her mother used to grab her and hit her head against the wall.

It's pretty insulting to "those women" to say they're bad mothers prone to banging their children's heads against the wall. Most women who choose abortion are not doing it 20 times, so please use caution and common sense when painting all women with that same ugly brush.

And taking away that woman's right to abortion would not have caused her to avoid pregnancy. It just would have given her more children to batter.

Quote:

Remember when you're pro-choice, you're also supporting these people.
Um, no, I'm not. Pro-choice does not make me pro-child abuser.

Quote:

I don't think the inside the body argument has any value, unless the woman was raped.
I really don't understand this argument at all. Either a fetus has rights or it doesn't. Does a fetus that is the product of rape have less rights than a fetus that is the product of consentual sex? That's hardly fair to the fetus.

Quote:

Responsible women don't get pregnant by accident in the 21st century.
No birth control is 100% effective. This is a blanket statement that just doesn't hold true.

Quote:

If this was my website I would ban all pro-choicers and pro-wars. I'm brutaly honest.
Harsh.


----------



## guestmama9924

Quote:


Originally Posted by *littlehiphuggers*
I always assumed all ap mamas were pro-life

well, I have skipped over the 169 no-doubt-colorful debate to reply that when it comes to free thinking women, mothers, and love NEVER EVER doubt that you can for one minute pigeon hole anyone.








As a PETA -freak <------- I always ponder why pro-lifers eat meat...but back to never assuming....
I am a mainstream-makeup wearing, vegan , hombirthin' ,AP'er, EBF, cloth diapering PRO CHOICE, non-Christian homebirth midwifery assistant and doula.
As a mother of daughters, I cannot stand by ever and watch one right get taken away from them , ever.


----------



## phathui5

"And your statement that responsible people don't get pregnant just boggles the mind!"

I would hope that responsible people would be getting pregnant.

"As a PETA -freak <------- I always ponder why pro-lifers eat meat..."

me = pro-life vegan


----------



## TiredX2

Quote:

Doesn't it upset you that people do 12, 15 and even 20 abortions?
That is a rare situation indeed. And that IN NO WAY convinces me to take away the option from other people. One person making a poor choice should not effect the choices I have available to me.

Quote:

Also, do you know when those women become mothers they are usually terrible mothers?
So, you would argue that they should be FORCED to become mothers?









Quote:

Remember when you're pro-choice, you're also supporting these people.
Yeah, I'm supporting their choice NOT to become a parent. Every child a wanted child.

Quote:

Responsible women don't get pregnant by accident in the 21st century.








: (the following #s are yearly) So, the 1/1000 woman who gets pg from her partner who has had a vascectomy isn't being responsible? How about the 4/1000 women who have had a tubal and still get pg every year?







: What you are saying is the only way to be "responsible" is to NEVER have sex unless it is procreational.


----------



## mshollyk

small minded people have trouble brooking people who have differing opinions, so this doesn't surprise me









Quote:


Originally Posted by *Leonor*
If this was my website I would ban all pro-choicers and pro-wars. I'm brutaly honest.


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Leonor*
If a woman is so fertile contraception doesn't work, she should keep her legs shut and seek less conventional pleasures.

How exactly is she supposed to know that she's fertile enough to get pregnant while using contraception until she gets pregnant while using contraception?

And btw it's "fool-proof" not "full proof." Just fyi.


----------



## CookieMonsterMommy

Leonore,

Did you stop and think that maybe she abused this child, not because she was a serial abortioner, but because she DID NOT WANT THAT BABY??? Maybe that's why she should have had the abortion in the 1st place!

AND-Plenty of unplanned pregnancies and abortions happen within stable marriages amongst upper class ladies. Are you telling me that once married, one should abstain, settling for caresses??







Really now. If you're stating this on a religious basis (which I'm not sure if you are...), isn't it against the bible for a woman to withhold herself from her hubbie??

I've worked with MANY doctors (OB/GYN's, family practitioners, CNMs, etc)as both a medical assistant and student nurse and not one of them has recommended 2 or more forms of birth control! The exception is for women who are on the pill/IUD/spermicidal jelly/other non barrier methods and not in a monogomous relationship should use a condom--not to further enhance the contraceptive effectiveness, but to prevent STDs incl. HIV/AIDS, HPC, HepC, Herpes, Shall I go on....?

And as a pro-choice woman, yes, I do support those who have had 12 abortions (although, again, in my extensive OB/GYN experience and experience working with low-income, teenage and other "at risk" preggies, I've never met one woman with more than 3 under her belt. This is also going by their medical records, so it's not like they're lying!) mainly because it is their CHOICE. Do I recommend that-no. It's physically unsafe to have that many done. But it's also potentially physically unsafe to give birth, have sex, and to get a tattoo even, but it's not my biz what other ladies do unless it hurts someone else-not a potential life.....Risks vs. benefits. Personally, I think it's better to have been "killed" before my heart was beating, before I could feel pain than to have my head smashed into walls as a child, growing up KNOWING I'm not wanted or loved.....

Best Wishes, Kelly

PS-I've also never met a woman who casually chose to abort, as in "Ah, well....no biggie. I'll just head to the clinic and that's that" All decisions regarding an unexpected/unwanted pregnancy (not that they're one in the same!) are gut wrenching and potentially heartbreaking, and most decisions in ANY direction are made with extreme thought, consideration, and yes-love.


----------



## Ilaria

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Leonor*
One form of contraception is often not enough, most doctors and books will recomend 2 at the same time. The diafragm (sp?) is great according to my doctor although it might be annoying. My implant never failed neither my early combinations of pill + condom + watching cycle.

People can also have pleasurable sex in less connventional manner, like caresses, etc.

And abstinence is full proof!

Uh yeah, whatever


----------



## rainsmom

Quote:

If this was my website I would ban all pro-choicers and pro-wars. I'm brutaly honest.

Thank goddess for small favors! I think narrowmindedviews.com is open for membership..........


----------



## CookieMonsterMommy

BTW Leonore....in all your extensive research regarding birth control options, have you read it in the MANY texts, pamphlets, etc that diaphragms lose a significant portion of their effectiveness in women who have had previous abortions OR HAVE ***given birth to a baby weighing 500 grams or more?? (500 grams is about 1.1lbs, so a miscarriage and/or still birth would count).

Or that touching one's own genitals (a required action for inserting a diaphragm)is a no-no in some cultures, or that unfortunately some women to not practice good enough hygeine to be relied upon to properly remove, clean and disinfect their diaphragms? Or that diaphragms offer next to no protection against STDs (I think it's about 1% for most STDs).These are ALL issues that need to be considered.

The same goes for MANY contraceptives.

I'm honestly glad that your diaphragm experience has been thrilling and wonderful. But please know that it's not like that for many women.


----------



## phathui5

Quote:

in all your extensive research regarding birth control options, have you read it in the MANY texts, pamphlets, etc that diaphragms lose a significant portion of their effectiveness in women who have had previous abortions OR HAVE ***given birth to a baby weighing 500 grams or more??
Aren't you supposed to get refitted for a diaphragm after giving birth? It's not like a condom where you just go pick it up at Giant. You get a prescription for the right sized one. So it's not that they're losing effectiveness, it's that you need the right size.


----------



## CookieMonsterMommy

phath, yes, you do get refitted, but because the cervix has been streched and is in a diff position than a "virgin" cervix, it loses some effectiveness. Check it out on the web. I don't have any links, just the literature @ home.

granted, it's not like it drops from 95% effective to 50%, but think about it. Even if it's only 1% (which it's more...), then for every 100 responsible women using a diaphragm, that's one extra that'll get preg when she doesn't wanna, and there are thousands, if not millions that rely on them...

My whole thing was just what's good for the goose isn't always good for the gander, and everything has it's flaws. I'd hate for the diaphragm to be made into a saint, perfect, etc.


----------



## Lucky Charm

Quote:

small minded people have trouble brooking people who have differing opinions, so this doesn't surprise me
Yup. Well said, and ITA.


----------



## TiredX2

I can't believe anyone would use a diaphragm as a primary form of birth control unless they are comfortable w/the possibility of pg. It has an 18% "failure" rate among actual users (even w/perfect use it still has an 6% failure rate). Not as bad as the cervical cap of course (9/18 never pg; 26/36 for those w/a previous pg), but still not very effective. I guarantee I would be pg w/in three months (max) if I relied on a diaphragm.


----------



## lotusdebi

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TiredX2*
I can't believe anyone would use a diaphragm as a primary form of birth control unless they are comfortable w/the possibility of pg. It has an 18% "failure" rate among actual users (even w/perfect use it still has an 6% failure rate). Not as bad as the cervical cap of course (9/18 never pg; 26/36 for those w/a previous pg), but still not very effective. I guarantee I would be pg w/in three months (max) if I relied on a diaphragm.

Sometimes there are extenuating circumstances that make it necessary to use a diaphragm as a primary form of birth control. BTDT


----------



## TiredX2

Quote:

Sometimes there are extenuating circumstances that make it necessary to use a diaphragm as a primary form of birth control.
And were you comfortable with the possibility of pregnancy? Because that's all I said--- people using the diaphragm need to realize its high failure rate and choose accordingly.


----------



## lotusdebi

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TiredX2*
And were you comfortable with the possibility of pregnancy? Because that's all I said--- people using the diaphragm need to realize its high failure rate and choose accordingly.

I was fitted for the diaphragm right after I had an abortion. I was aware of the possibility of pregnancy - all methods of birth control have a chance of failure. I would have had another abortion if I got pregnant again. I didn't. The relationship ended a few months later, and I was able to use other methods of birth control with my next partner.

I apologize if my previous post came of as snarky to you. I was simply responding to what you said about choosing a diaphragm as primary birth control.

I was going to write more here about circumstances of my abortion, reasons for the diaphragm, and how those who would take away my access to abortion haven't come close to walking in my shoes. But, I decided it was all too personal and totally pointless.


----------



## TiredX2

LotusDebi---

I'm sorry if I offended you in any way. Obviously lots of people do choose the diaphragm as a primary form of birth control. I just thought it odd to promote it as a way of showing how responsible you are (not talking about you at this point) when its failure rate is high, doesn't protect against STDs, etc... Even when you are "careful" there is always the chance of an accident.


----------



## lotusdebi

right back atcha, TiredX2!

I really do appreciate you and many others fighting for choice, on this thread and IRL. Reading the same anti-choice propaganda over and over and over and over is emotionally exhausting. It's nice to read so many pro-choice posts - it gives me some hope for the future.


----------



## TiredX2




----------



## loving-my-babies

Quote:


Originally Posted by *littlehiphuggers*
What about the pain of the fetus being aborted, when we as AP parents care so much about our children being in pain (ie; anti-circ)?
And to be clear, I was posting about abortions that are for lifestyle, not medical, reasons.
Autum


I ask myself this as well. I just cannot connect AP and abortion, It just doesnt make sense to me!


----------



## loving-my-babies

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gethane*
Personally, I'm glad someone like that aborted the rest of their babies. If she'd have birthed them, only to abuse them, that starts a cycle of abuse to pass down for decades. Granted, it would be much better had she not conceived, but she already did! What then?

adoption!! why is that not an option for the mother? they can give their baby up for adoption. is that too hard? maybe it is. it's easier to abort the baby without seeing it because ofcourse giving birth and giving the baby up would be too hard on the mom.. what about the baby? don't babies have rights?
you said yourself "she aborted her babies" so you DO believe they are babies!


----------



## gethane

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loving-my-babies*
adoption!! why is that not an option for the mother? they can give their baby up for adoption. is that too hard? maybe it is. it's easier to abort the baby without seeing it because ofcourse giving birth and giving the baby up would be too hard on the mom.. what about the baby? don't babies have rights?
you said yourself "she aborted her babies" so you DO believe they are babies!

You just don't get it.

This makes me sad. I can understand the pro-life position, but so many of the pro-life people refuse to allow any understanding of the other viewpoint to mar their perfect little world. In a perfect world all babies would be wanted, all birth control would work 100% and all sexually active people would be perfectly responsible. I don't like the idea of abortion. I've been confronted with the decision on whether to have one. I chose not too. But that's the thing. I CHOSE! The state did not force me, YOU did not force me.

This is not a perfect world. Forcing women to become baby factories for women who can't have babies isn't going to make the world a better place. Forcing women to bear babies who are going to be addicted to drugs, because theyd didn't stop using them while pregnant, isn't going to make the world a better place, and those babies won't even be adopted. Forcing a women to have a baby and then she chooses to keep it and abuse it won't make the world a better place. Forcing a woman to bear a baby when she's on welfare and has 2 already won't make the world a better place.

Outlawing abortion won't make the world a better place. I don't know why people don't understand this. It doesn't address the reasons WHY women choose to have an abortion. It just outlaws the choice.


----------



## Aura_Kitten

Quote:

adoption!! why is that not an option for the mother?
why should a mother be pressured (or forced) to put her unwanted baby up for adoption when there are already literally millions of babies, children, and teens waiting to be adopted?

~ k., who is tearing her hair out at the fact that there are so many children in the world waiting to be adopted and yet so many anti-choicer's still think adoption is a great solution for mothers who don't want their babies, AND at the fact that a woman might not want a creature living inside her for 9+ months doesn't seem to matter at all to these people... for anyone who didn't get the memo, pregnancy irreparably alters a woman's entire being, and carrying a baby to term is not favorable to a whole lot of women.


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loving-my-babies*
don't babies have rights?

Not as long as they're inside someone else's body they don't. Sorry, but I get the final say on the use of my body. No one else has the "right" to use my body.


----------



## loving-my-babies

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gethane*
You just don't get it.

This makes me sad. I can understand the pro-life position, but so many of the pro-life people refuse to allow any understanding of the other viewpoint to mar their perfect little world. In a perfect world all babies would be wanted, all birth control would work 100% and all sexually active people would be perfectly responsible. I don't like the idea of abortion. I've been confronted with the decision on whether to have one. I chose not too. But that's the thing. I CHOSE! The state did not force me, YOU did not force me.

This is not a perfect world. Forcing women to become baby factories for women who can't have babies isn't going to make the world a better place. Forcing women to bear babies who are going to be addicted to drugs, because theyd didn't stop using them while pregnant, isn't going to make the world a better place, and those babies won't even be adopted. Forcing a women to have a baby and then she chooses to keep it and abuse it won't make the world a better place. Forcing a woman to bear a baby when she's on welfare and has 2 already won't make the world a better place.

Outlawing abortion won't make the world a better place. I don't know why people don't understand this. It doesn't address the reasons WHY women choose to have an abortion. It just outlaws the choice.

ok, so let's tell this country to stop taking children from their abusive parents' home to give them a better chance of living. let's tell this country to stop putting sexual abusive fathers in jail and let them keep abusing their children. I think it's ok that there are laws, I think it's ok that they are trying to protect beings that no one cares about. no one stands for these innocent babies that are being killed, no one cares. we need someone to care.
and I agree that having a baby to give it to someone else is not ideal. BUT if you GET PG, dont' want the baby, then you are faced with a choice. you either abort or give up for adoption, which is better? kill or give your baby a better life? sorry, but I think it's pretty clear to me that killing won't do the baby any good.

it;s not all about the mother, you know. babies have a right to be protected, and if mothers will be so irresponsable and wont protect their own children then someone has to come in and help. I got pg at 16 and never ever considered killing my child. I chose to struggle and stop everything I was doing in order to give my child the best life possible.


----------



## loving-my-babies

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sbf*
Not as long as they're inside someone else's body they don't. Sorry, but I get the final say on the use of my body. No one else has the "right" to use my body.


I am sorry but I think this comment is just anti-child, and it hurts me to think there are people that think children have no right just because they are inside you. babies are babies wherever they are. it's not all about what is convenient to you. I find this extremely selfish IMO


----------



## loving-my-babies

Quote:


Originally Posted by *klothos*
why should a mother be pressured (or forced) to put her unwanted baby up for adoption when there are already literally millions of babies, children, and teens waiting to be adopted?


oh, ok I get it, so let's be ok with the woman not only not being responsible and getting pg, but let's let her kill the baby SHE chose to create (when you have sex and you are agreeing to have it, then you are choosing to take the risk of getting pg) that's just great. it's like saying "go ahead, be irresponsible, dont think or asume responsability for the consecuences that you created" we are not talking of something that magically happened here. if the woman has sex she is supposedly agreeing to accept all consecuences and be responsible.


----------



## loving-my-babies

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Leonor*
Doesn't it upset you that people do 12, 15 and even 20 abortions? Also, do you know when those women become mothers they are usually terrible mothers? I have a friend whose mother used abortion constantly for contraception and she was the accident child (doctor refused because it was too late). Her mother used to grab her and hit her head against the wall.

Remember when you're pro-choice, you're also supporting these people.

I don't think the inside the body argument has any value, unless the woman was raped. Responsible women don't get pregnant by accident in the 21st century.

If this was my website I would ban all pro-choicers and pro-wars. I'm brutaly honest.


so would I.


----------



## Aura_Kitten

Quote:

if the woman has sex she is supposedly agreeing to accept all consecuences and be responsible.
for some women, "being responsible" means having an abortion.


----------



## loving-my-babies

Quote:


Originally Posted by *klothos*
for some women, "being responsible" means having an abortion.


I think being responsible is not getting pg in the first place. not regretting your pg and taking the easy way out.


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loving-my-babies*
it's not all about what is convenient to you.

It's not a matter of "convenience." If a man sticks his hand up my vagina without my permission, I don't think, gee, this is "inconvenient." No one has the right to BE inside my body without my permission.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loving-my-babies*
if the woman has sex she is supposedly agreeing to accept all consecuences and be responsible.

Sorry, but all she's agreeing to do is have sex. If that. If she's raped, she's not even agreeing to that.

Some women don't even know that sex causes pregnancy. Or they do, but they don't know how to prevent it. Or they do, but they don't have contraception available to them. Or they do, but they don't know how to use it properly. Or they do, but it fails.

In my opinion, what's irresponsible is bringing a child into this world that you can't care for, when you have the opportunity to prevent it.


----------



## Aura_Kitten

so apparantly you think...

1) all women who get pregnant by accident were irresponsible, and
2) that abortion is an easy choice.

disgusting, both.

Quote:

In my opinion, what's irresponsible is bringing a child into this world that you can't care for, when you have the opportunity to prevent it.


----------



## loving-my-babies

Quote:

It's not a matter of "convenience." If a man sticks his hand up my vagina without my permission, I don't think, gee, this is "inconvenient." No one has the right to BE inside my body without my permission.
I was not talking about rape. That is a whole other story. I am talking about the woman who has sex, doesn't use protection and gets pregnant. this woman is extremely irresponsible if she chooses to abort. because she asked for it. i mean how are you not asking to get pg by having unprotected sex?

Quote:

Sorry, but all she's agreeing to do is have sex.
sorry, but it is common knowledge that sex leads to pregnancy.

Quote:

Some women don't even know that sex causes pregnancy.
sorry, but this is pretty impossible. especially in this country and in this day and age.

Quote:

In my opinion, what's irresponsible is bringing a child into this world that you can't care for, when you have the opportunity to prevent it.
you are not "preventing" it by aborting. preventing it means not getting pg at all. aborting is getting rid of the consecuence you asked for youself by engaging in sexual relations.


----------



## Aura_Kitten

Quote:

sorry, but it is common knowledge that sex leads to pregnancy.
uh, no, it's not, even in this country, day, and age.

i can't tell you how many young girls i counseled who were facing unwanted pregnancies because they honestly did not know what led to pregnancy. there were other girls that were terrified they were pregnant because they had oral sex.


----------



## loving-my-babies

Quote:


Originally Posted by *klothos*
so apparently you think

1) all women who get pregnant by accident were irresponsible, and
2) that abortion is an easy choice.

disgusting, both.

yes and yes.

I got pg, I used protection but it failed. I knew that even though I was using protection, there was a chance it would fail, and in that case I was assuming all responsability for my actions. abortion is the easy way out. it's saying "ok, I had sex, had a great time, now this is a mistake, so I'll kill the baby" please tell me HOW is this not easy? If abortion was not killingm, then why do women feel guilty and so sad, even have depression for life after having an abortion? it is clearly wrong. and certainly the complete opposite of AP in my honest opinion. anyway, I dont see the point of us discussing this any further because let's be honest, we're not going to change each other's POV's. I respect your POV even though I strongly disagree with everything you have said.


----------



## loving-my-babies

Quote:


Originally Posted by *klothos*
uh, no, it's not, even in this country, day, and age.

i can't tell you how many young girls i counseled who were facing unwanted pregnancies because they honestly did not know what led to pregnancy. there were other girls that were terrified they were pregnant because they had oral sex.


well that is an education issue. if you don't know how you get pg then how do you know how to have sex? i mean, please, this is simply not true. if you think you are pg by having oral sex, then you DO KNOW that sex leads to pregnancy!!!!


----------



## loving-my-babies

and let's say you don't know how you get pg. ok. I accept it. but ALL WOMEN THAT ABORT DON'T KNOW HOW THEY GET PG? please, most women that abort know perfectly well how you get pg. you're going to tell me that all women that abort are uneducated and teens? what about mothers that abort? what about women that abort, while in their 20's just because they don't want to be botheres? THIS does not seem irresponsible to you?


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loving-my-babies*
I was not talking about rape. That is a whole other story.

Oh, so then it's perfectly ok to "kill the baby" (your words) if its mother was raped?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loving-my-babies*
you are not "preventing" it by aborting.

Yes, you are preventing a baby from being born that you are unable to care for.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loving-my-babies*
ALL WOMEN THAT ABORT DON'T KNOW HOW THEY GET PG?

No, no one said that. Here are the other things I said:

"they don't know how to prevent it. Or they do, but they don't have contraception available to them. Or they do, but they don't know how to use it properly. Or they do, but it fails."

And even women who don't fall into any of these categories STILL have the right to their own bodies. Sorry, but a woman agreeing to have sex is STILL only agreeing to have sex, not agreeing to carry a pregnancy to term.


----------



## LavenderMae

Carmen, you are coming off as a very judgemental to say the very least.

I did know that sex is how you get pregnant when I got pregnant at 17. I knew we should have been more careful. I did the most responsible thing I could at the time and that was to not bring a baby into the world I couldn't mother, period. You can think of women who abort as dumb, evil, heartless or whatever but it only makes you seem like the very things you accuse the women who abort of. I am not a "killer" I chose to stop the embryo I was carrying from developing into a baby and that is my truth. Yours is obviously quite different and that's fine but you aren't the only one in the universe that matters. Your opinion isn't the ultimate truth and your opinion isn't the right one. I think you need to step off your high horse for just a minute and think about what you are saying about a lot of great mamas here on this very board.
I'm going to open myself up a bit here because I think you could use some perspective.
I was depressed and very sad after I had the abortion because I wanted to be able to have the baby, NOT BECAUSE IT IS WRONG, NOT BECAUSE I THINK IT IS KILLING. It was very difficult to realize I just couldn't be a mother then. It took a lot of soul searching and heartache to do what I knew I needed to. It was the right decision but I still felt a loss for *what could of been*. Abortion is hardly an easy way out for most women.
You aren't being respectful in the least so I seriously doubt you respect the pro-choice point-of-veiw. I would take your word for it but your post speak loud and clear.


----------



## pugmadmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loving-my-babies*
...If abortion was not killingm, then why do women feel guilty and so sad, even have depression for life after having an abortion? it is clearly wrong. ...

I know women who feel guilty, sad and depressed after giving birth. In fact, I was one of them. Is giving birth wrong? Do you think my right to give birth should be taken away? If not, why not?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loving-my-babies*
...abortion is the easy way out...

Abortion is a _surgical_ procedure. I have yet to undergo a surgical procedure that was "easy". Even abortion pills are hard on a woman's body.

But saying abortion is the "easy way out" sure is a good way to demonize women who have had abortions. Let's see, they can't "keep their legs shut" and then they take "the easy way out." Very pro-woman there...


----------



## plum

sheacoby.

back to the original post, i am a pro-choice attachment parenting mom. there. isn't that simple? we do not run around, encouraging women to murder their children. we love children but we also love our rights as females and as adults and as such, we have the rights to do what is best for us, our lives and our bodies.

have a little compassion for women in situations you are not in. i'm sure you don't want to be in someone's bedroom, so why are you so willing to butt in on someone's medical decisions?

why is it so hard to believe that pro-choice women are also AP? i think that it is because you want to distance yourself as far as possible. LMB, your sig is not that much different from SBF's. she's not a demon, she's as much a loving mother as you are.


----------



## RubyV

My cousin became pregnant at age 12. She thought condom was short for condominium.

She was forced to have the baby as punishment for opening her legs.

What was worse, forcing a child to parent, or an abortion?

In NYC, I did peer safer sex counseling in HS (early 90's). A HUGE number of girls had no idea how their bodies worked. Many thought that peeing afterward prevented pregnancy. That withdrawal is 100%.

I can go on and on.


----------



## loving-my-babies

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sbf*
Oh, so then it's perfectly ok to "kill the baby" (your words) if its mother was raped?

oh no! it's NEVER ok to kill a baby! it never makes it "ok" but in rape cases at least it's understandable why, and maybe even considerable.

Quote:

And even women who don't fall into any of these categories STILL have the right to their own bodies. Sorry, but a woman agreeing to have sex is STILL only agreeing to have sex, not agreeing to carry a pregnancy to term.
see, this doesn't make sense to me. when I had sex at 16 and got pg, I was NOT only agreeing to sex. I was agreeing to sex and the POSSIBILITY of a pregnancy. because you know sex leads to pregnancy. so agreeing to only sex, is like blinding yourself and not wanting to see the reality of it. the reality is sex leads to pregnancy. period.


----------



## loving-my-babies

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sheacoby*
Carmen, you are coming off as a very judgemental to say the very least.

I did know that sex is how you get pregnant when I got pregnant at 17. I knew we should have been more careful. I did the most responsible thing I could at the time and that was to not bring a baby into the world I couldn't mother, period. You can think of women who abort as dumb, evil, heartless or whatever but it only makes you seem like the very things you accuse the women who abort of. I am not a "killer" I chose to stop the embryo I was carrying from developing into a baby and that is my truth. Yours is obviously quite different and that's fine but you aren't the only one in the universe that matters. Your opinion isn't the ultimate truth and your opinion isn't the right one. I think you need to step off your high horse for just a minute and think about what you are saying about a lot of great mamas here on this very board.
I'm going to open myself up a bit here because I think you could use some perspective.
I was depressed and very sad after I had the abortion because I wanted to be able to have the baby, NOT BECAUSE IT IS WRONG, NOT BECAUSE I THINK IT IS KILLING. It was very difficult to realize I just couldn't be a mother then. It took a lot of soul searching and heartache to do what I knew I needed to. It was the right decision but I still felt a loss for *what could of been*. Abortion is hardly an easy way out for most women.
You aren't being respectful in the least so I seriously doubt you respect the pro-choice point-of-veiw. I would take your word for it but your post speak loud and clear.

Sheacoby, First of all, why do you have the right to come here and say aborton is a good thing, and yet I don't have to right to think the opposite? I am stating my opinion, like it or not, it's my opinion. In my personal experience I have met several women who have aborted and let's say it has traumatized them, to say the least. You say that my opinion is not the ultimate truth, well, you're isn't either. I am not saying that I am ultimately the one that ir right, I am discussing something with fellow MDC mamas here, not thinking that you are bad mothers, not thinking that you are murderers. Just saying that I would not abort because I think it is = as killing. this is my personal opinion, just like in the ear piercing thread, people thought it was almost "child abuse" to pierce little girl's ears, well, I pierced my dd's when she was a baby. I understand that some people are not ok with that. and I am ok with them not being ok with it. you know? I was 16 and pregnant and didn't even consider abortion because that TO ME would have been the easy way out. you can continue to have the life you lead before, you can continue your life without being put in a difficult situation of thinking how to raise that child, I grew up SO FAST when I had my dd, because I felt she needed a mature mother. I gave her that. It was my choice to give her the best, and that started by giving her life./


----------



## loving-my-babies

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pugmadmama*
I know women who feel guilty, sad and depressed after giving birth. In fact, I was one of them. Is giving birth wrong? Do you think my right to give birth should be taken away? If not, why not?

I had this too. But It went away, my child was there to remind me of how grateful I should be for this wonderful creature growing inside of me.

Quote:

Abortion is a _surgical_ procedure. I have yet to undergo a surgical procedure that was "easy". Even abortion pills are hard on a woman's body.

But saying abortion is the "easy way out" sure is a good way to demonize women who have had abortions. Let's see, they can't "keep their legs shut" and then they take "the easy way out." Very pro-woman there...








Ok, I totally agree with that, surgical procedures are hard. but it is the easy way out because it's hard for what? a couple days? then you get to go back to your old life, unaltered. You go back to whatever you were doing before

have you seen a video of an abortion? I have. Have you seen how the innocent baby tries to escape the metal scraper? (or whatever it's called) when I saw that video, i swear I have never cried more to see how there unborn babies, escape from the weapon that will take life away from them. and yet, 20 minutes later, or 24 hours later, the mother will be trying to forget because abortion is so painful to remember. Is it not painful to the baby? yes it is. If our bodies were meant to have abortions, we'd have a button on our body to press when we don't want to continue the pregnancy. It's not like that. our bodies are made to have sex, get pregnant, and carry that baby, that LIFE to term.


----------



## loving-my-babies

Quote:


Originally Posted by *plum*







sheacoby.

back to the original post, i am a pro-choice attachment parenting mom. there. isn't that simple? we do not run around, encouraging women to murder their children. we love children but we also love our rights as females and as adults and as such, we have the rights to do what is best for us, our lives and our bodies.

have a little compassion for women in situations you are not in. i'm sure you don't want to be in someone's bedroom, so why are you so willing to butt in on someone's medical decisions?

why is it so hard to believe that pro-choice women are also AP? i think that it is because you want to distance yourself as far as possible. LMB, your sig is not that much different from SBF's. she's not a demon, she's as much a loving mother as you are.

First of all, I didn't call SBF a demon. why so defensive?

You say we have the right to do whatever we want with out bodies. sure! but not with someone else's body! the baby is ANOTHER being, not the same being that you are. it grows inside of you, yes, but it's not you. it's another being. you are not aborting yourself. you are aborting a separate human being. if killing inside the uterus is fine, then I think we should make killing outside the uterus fine too. I mean, what is the difference? nothing.

And in my opinion AP is all about gentle parenting, loving a child from the time it is conceived. and how can you love a child and then kill it,. It just doesn't make sense. This is why A LOT of AP mamas don't understand how there can be a link between abortion and AP. it's not just me. I remind you, the OP asked that question. she didn't see the link either.

I find abortion is selfish. That attitude of "It;s my body, I'll do what I want with it" yes, but you chose to engage in sexual relations, which by general knowledge, can mean getting pregnant, so you CHOSE to take the chance. but then you want to take it back. I honestly don't think abortion is FOR the baby,. it's a selfish act only FOR the benefit of the mother.


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loving-my-babies*
in rape cases at least it's understandable why, and maybe even considerable.

Are you saying it would be understandable to consider killing a baby (again, your words) if one has been raped?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loving-my-babies*
I was agreeing to sex and the POSSIBILITY of a pregnancy. because you know sex leads to pregnancy. so agreeing to only sex, is like blinding yourself and not wanting to see the reality of it.

If you know that your action can cause pregnancy, then you are agreeing to the possibility of getting pregnant. But that is not the same as agreeing to carry a pregnancy to term.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loving-my-babies*
You say we have the right to do whatever we want with out bodies. sure! but not with someone else's body!

EXACTLY!!! The fetus does NOT have the right to use someone else's body (the woman's)!!!

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loving-my-babies*
you are aborting a separate human being.

No, it is NOT separate! It is the opposite of separate! Do you understand what the word separate means? It means APART! This is the point. It is NOT separate/apart from the woman. That's why HER rights are involved.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loving-my-babies*
if killing inside the uterus is fine, then I think we should make killing outside the uterus fine too. I mean, what is the difference? nothing.

Excuse me, but that is a pretty huge freaking difference! Whether or not it is inside the woman's body makes all the difference in the world when it comes to whether or not she has a say in it. If you don't see that, then I don't know what else I can say to you.

That's like saying in a rape case that it makes no difference whether or not the man's penis was inside the woman's body.

When something is inside my body, my rights are involved.

MY BODY, MY RIGHTS.


----------



## TiredX2

Slightly OT:

But it has been said multiple times to "just keep your legs together." Okay, whatever. Are you saying though that a woman with a serious (medical) reason to not become pregnant should never be able to have sex again?

Quote:

I had this too. But It went away, my child was there to remind me of how grateful I should be for this wonderful creature growing inside of me.
You obviously have not gone through severe clinical depression if that was cure enough. Do you think women who have suffered post-partum psychosis should continue have children?


----------



## plum

i tried to be nice. ugh why bother anymore? i'm just happy there are so many great pro-choice mamas on this board







. you guys are awesome!


----------



## TiredX2

Plum---










Excellent sig


----------



## mquester

Instead of fruitlessly debating with people who are pro-choice, those who don't believe in abortion should try to promote more effective birth control options for all women (and girls!) We need more choices and more support in our society for mothers who DO choose to keep their pregnancy.

Advocate longer maternity leaves and state-funded daycare if you really want to help stop non-medically necessary abortions !

Personally I believe women who do have non-medical abortions should do so during the first trimester - for both their sakes and the baby's. My friends who have had abortions all grieved for the child they lost - one still does - but it's a choice each of them felt they had to make due to life circumstances.

I personally would never have an abortion, but I've had friends who literally felt they had no other options. Some women have jobs they need to keep to survive where a 40 week pregnancy isn't an option - due to chemical exposures, physical limitations while pregnant, etc... Employers DO fire women for being pregnant despite the laws - it happened to me and 2 other women I'm friends with.

When people ask if I'm pro-choice or pro-life I respond that I'm pro-mother and that women in the US need more support for whatever choice they make...Fathers do to actually.

-MQ


----------



## daricsmami

Quote:

oh no! it's NEVER ok to kill a baby! it never makes it "ok" but in rape cases at least it's understandable why, and maybe even considerable.
Why is it understandable or even considerable? Because that woman has a right to her own body, right? Because a woman shouldn't be forced to carry to term a potential baby she doesn't want, right? Well then, what's the difference between me and a rape victim from having an abortion? I'm sure I would fit all of the criteria.










If abortion should be illegal, than it should be illegal across the board.

And the "keep your legs closed" argument slays me. There's always something people use against others to make themselves "morally superior". Well you know what, I think we should kick all the single and teen mothers off welfare, because they didn't keep their legs closed. Why should my taxes go to supporting women who chose to keep their children?? If they just got married and did things the right way, they wouldn't be on public assistance.

Do you realize there are people that actually agree with the above statement? Doesn't that sound extremely bigoted and lumping all single mothers into a monolithic group? It doesn't address the fact that all of these women are individual with individual problems.

Please stop lumping women who have chose abortion into a big lump of murderers.


----------



## daricsmami

I found this interesting:

Marsupials can "abort" their fetuses. Placental mammals can't. Placental mammals either need medical abortions or have spontaneous abortions (miscarriage).

Example: If a mother kangaroo feels she is threatened in her environment (lack of food/water as an example) and feels she can't take care of the baby, she will stop her milk supply (remember baby kangaroos are still fetuses when they are "born") and the fetus will die. Fertile marsupials keep a back-up of embryos in their body and will give birth to the next one when their environment is more suitable to raise a joey. By contrast, placental mammals must carry the fetus to term, despite the mother's environment.

This article is in this months Discover (Jul 2004) magazine.

Thinking about this article inconjuction with women who are drug addicts, homeless, in abusive relationships, etc. raises some interesting ideas.

*disclaimer* I'm not trying to compare humans to animals or vice versa. I just really thought this was an interesting article, especially in regards to abortion.


----------



## plum

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TiredX2*
Plum---










Excellent sig









thanks. i love your location.


----------



## lotusdebi

If I had been forced to continue my first pregnancy, I would have killed myself. Adoption wasn't a solution. The pregnancy itself was a problem. I would not have survived the pregnancy due to my severe mental illness being in complete control of me. Yes, I was on meds. No, they didn't help. My illness is extremely difficult to treat. I was psychotic. The pregnancy was unplanned and unwanted. I was already very suicidal, and my boyfriend at the time had to watch me all the time to make sure I didn't hurt myself. I was also living in a cockroach-infested apartment I couldn't afford, across the hall from a crack dealer. I was working for a guy who was sexually harrassing me and I couldn't find another job. My boyfriend couldn't keep a job at all. We were surviving off of Ramen noodles.
A few months later, faced with being homeless and living on the streets again (I had been kicked out at age 16 and house-hopped or lived in the woods, slept on playgrounds, etc. for the next two years), I overdosed on my meds and ended up unconscious in the ER, hooked up to machines, with a tube up my nose and down my throat, pumping in charcoal to neutralize the meds.
Go ahead, suggest psychiatric hospitalization for the suicidal pregnant woman. Problems with that: most of the psych hospitals in the area are closing down. The few that are left don't have room for anyone else. After the suicide attempt that put me in the ER, I was released. No psych hospitalization. No required psych appts. Nothing. Do you really think I would have been put in a psych hospital for threatening suicide? Even if I was, they would have held me for 72 hours, then let me go if it was involuntary (which it would have been - I've been abused in psych hospitals before). During that 72 hours, I would have been forced on meds without given info about the meds (even the names of the meds - it has happened to me before). Those meds may have caused birth defects, just like the meds I was already on. Then, you'd have me continue the pregnancy and put the baby up for adoption? A baby with severe birth defects. A baby with a history of severe mental illness in the family (depression, bipolar, AND schizophrenia). A baby who was also exposed to illegal drugs and lots of alcohol while in the womb. A baby who would probably be further damaged by my attempts to miscarry. Would you have adopted this baby? Would you adopt all the babies like that?

You have not walked in my shoes. You do not know what it's like to be me. You do not know what it's like to be psychotic throughout a pregnancy. I went through it again when I was pregnant with my son. That was a wanted pregnancy, when I was in a stable relationship, and when I was more mentally stable than I had ever been before. I still lost my mind. I still set fire to the living room. I still had extremely strong urges to hurt myself and others. I ranted, I raved, I hallucinated, I had delusions. I barely made it through that pregnancy intact. I considered abortion a number of times even then, even when I wanted a child.

Is my suicide better than me having an abortion? You would take away my right to save my own life, so that you could bring an unwanted life into this world. And you would lose both of us.

Abortion MUST remain legal. You can't possibly imagine all of the circumstances that women face that makes them choose abortion. You can't decide that we can or should continue our pregnancies. You don't know - you CAN'T know - what we are experiencing. It needs to be our choice. Or you are choosing to kill women in order to save the -possibility- of children who are unwanted and unloved.

And, for the record, I did and do not regret having an abortion. It was the best decision for me at that time. I was relieved. I regret getting pregnant in the first place, but I don't see how I could have avoided that when I was so out of my mind all the time.


----------



## rainsmom

What is such a crime..........is that we have to even talk about this issue at all!!!!! Why are we going back in time!? Why do we, as women, have to continue to fight for our rights......? TO keep the government out of our bedrooms and off our bodies??? It really burns me up!!!!! What will life be like for women, when my dd grows up?!?

ANd yea......the "Keep your legs closed" slogan makes about as much sense as the "Just say no to drugs" slogan! GET REAL!!!!!!!!


----------



## CookieMonsterMommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loving-my-babies*
yes and yes.

Iabortion is the easy way out. it's saying "ok, I had sex, had a great time, now this is a mistake, so I'll kill the baby" please tell me HOW is this not easy? If abortion was not killingm, then why do women feel guilty and so sad, even have depression for life after having an abortion?


I CANNOT begin to tell you how pissed I am that you have taken it upon yourself to JUDGE literally millions of women, haven never met most (or any) of them.....That is BEYOND insulting. NO ONE that I have ever known or couseled had that attitude, and I am speaking with plenty of experience with teen through middle age, white, black, asian.....

Many times it's a 'you're damned if you do, yoiu're damned if you don't" type of thing....the lesser of two evils. It is a gut wrenching, heart breaking decision, because you are killing the POTENTIAL of a baby and all the good things a baby can bring. When I had a miscarriage, did I mourn because a baby died? No, I mourned over the potential baby was never going to materialize. Her heart had not yet begun to beat, not did she have a brain when she stopped growing. I may have named her, and call her a baby, but that is all symbolic, as well as my personal sentimentality regarding the matter.

And what about the fetus feeling pain??? What kind of being that does not have a functioning brain or heart or nerves can feel pain. I seriously hope that you have never taken antibiotics, because those cute little streptococci might have been in excruciating pain, you know. They are alive too.










I am very upset that a supposedly loving person could be so heartless and judgemental to such a large group of women and mothers....That definately steps over a LOT of boundaries. Has anyone here said that those who are anti-choice are all "misogynistic, control freaks who hate women and are christian fanatics more concerned with going to heaven than human welfare"? NO-because that would have been BS, and horribly close minded, not to mention insulting....just as your generalization was!














:






























Like it was said before, I gave birth at 16 years old, and it was my damn CHOICE to do so. Who would you have been to tell me to drop out of school, go on welfare, work full time, not be able to BF, have to put my son in daycare all day, struggle for a at least a large portion of my life. And if I had given him up for adoption?? He's a mixed baby-they are the hardest to "sell" in America....very few are on the market for a biracial baby. Or if he were white, what if he had mantal or physical abnormalities. he would have rotted in an orphanage (or children's home-call them what you will, I prefer to call a horse a horse.). Sounds real great-many mothers would LOVE to give their potential child that kind of life..














:

I am sorry for any typos, I am too upset to fix them now....

--kelly


----------



## CookieMonsterMommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mquester*
Instead of fruitlessly debating with people who are pro-choice, those who don't believe in abortion should try to promote more effective birth control options for all women (and girls!) We need more choices and more support in our society for mothers who DO choose to keep their pregnancy.

-MQ


But unfortunately MANY prolifers also believe in abstinence only education....







So don't teach em how to prevent pregnancy, but F--- em if they do get pregnant, then slam them against the wall when they have the nerve to apply for welfare......









That's like the "Just say no" slogan....but then make it illegal to have rehab facilities!!?!? WTF-would that make any sense?


----------



## TiredX2

Wow, thanks to all the strong women who have been willing to share their personal stories.

I hope it makes a difference!


----------



## loving-my-babies

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sbf*
EXACTLY!!! The fetus does NOT have the right to use someone else's body (the woman's)!!!



ehh, excuse me? the fetus does NOT ASK to be born. the woman's body creates him with he man's sperm. it is the couple's fault if she got pg. not the fetus' fault.

arg, I just find this extremely cruel and anti-attachment parenting.
but you know what? neither of our POV are going to change here so why bother and continue discussing the subject. after all I'm still going to change it is selfish and it's killing a child and you will think the opposite, so let's just leave it at that. OK?

what ticks me off is that you would not circ a living baby, no THAT is too cruel, but you would kill a fetus. right? it just doesn't make sense!!!! this is contradicting!


----------



## librarymom

I agree. THANK YOU for sharing. Your posts are very powerful and I appreciate you sharing.









Why can't we as women have sex for pleasure?? Why is every encounter an implicit agreement to HAVE A BABY???







: That is utter nonsense and completely SEXIST. Men NEVER have to make this distinction, yet they are equally as responsible.


----------



## loving-my-babies

anyway, why do you keep quoting "keep your legs crossed" when you are referring to me?? I don't recall me saying that. I don't think you should keep your legs crossed, I think it's a matter of responsability and respect for the unborn child.

and I have a question... you keep saying that it was a baby it was a "potential baby" does this mean you don't believe in abortion after a certain point? because at 20 weeks... it's a baby!


----------



## loving-my-babies

Quote:


Originally Posted by *librarymom*
I agree. THANK YOU for sharing. Your posts are very powerful and I appreciate you sharing.









Why can't we as women have sex for pleasure?? Why is every encounter an implicit agreement to HAVE A BABY???







: That is utter nonsense and completely SEXIST. Men NEVER have to make this distinction, yet they are equally as responsible.


I think (and I don't think it's right or wrong, I just think it's how it is) our bodies are made for that. sex leads to pregnancy wether we like it or not. it's not maybe the way we'd like it to be, heck I'd love our bodies to be programmed so you could not get pg by having sex just like that. That would save this discussion and so many more issues. our nature is that, I think.


----------



## LavenderMae

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loving-my-babies*
Sheacoby, First of all, why do you have the right to come here and say aborton is a good thing, and yet I don't have to right to think the opposite? I am stating my opinion, like it or not, it's my opinion. In my personal experience I have met several women who have aborted and let's say it has traumatized them, to say the least. You say that my opinion is not the ultimate truth, well, you're isn't either. I am not saying that I am ultimately the one that ir right, I am discussing something with fellow MDC mamas here, not thinking that you are bad mothers, not thinking that you are murderers. Just saying that I would not abort because I think it is = as killing. this is my personal opinion, just like in the ear piercing thread, people thought it was almost "child abuse" to pierce little girl's ears, well, I pierced my dd's when she was a baby. I understand that some people are not ok with that. and I am ok with them not being ok with it. you know? I was 16 and pregnant and didn't even consider abortion because that TO ME would have been the easy way out. you can continue to have the life you lead before, you can continue your life without being put in a difficult situation of thinking how to raise that child, I grew up SO FAST when I had my dd, because I felt she needed a mature mother. I gave her that. It was my choice to give her the best, and that started by giving her life./

YOU POINT OUT TO ME WHERE I SAID OR PROMOTED ABORTION AS A GOOD THING!!!!!!!!! FWIW, I didn't just get to go back to my life after the abortion. It did change the coarse of my life forever. You have a very simplistic, self- righteous attidude about abortion. You obviously just want to judge so I'll leave you to it.


----------



## librarymom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loving-my-babies*
our nature is that, I think.


Well you may think that, but I reject that statement completely. Just because I have the ABILITY to become pregnant does not mean it is my "nature". Good grief. I am also able to live with only one kidney, but no one says it "our nature". Does that make a woman who cannot conceive "unnatural"?


----------



## loving-my-babies

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sheacoby*
YOU POINT OUT TO ME WHERE I SAID OR PROMOTED ABORTION AS A GOOD THING!!!!!!!!! FWIW, I didn't just get to go back to my life after the abortion. It did change the coarse of my life forever. You have a very simplistic, self- righteous attidude about abortion. You obviously just want to judge so I'll leave you to it.


sheacoby, it's not about you. I am talking to you about your particular situation. I am just staing my opinion and just because you all dont agree with me you say I am all sorts of things when all I am doing is stating my opinion,

and about going back to your life, what changes your life more?
keeping the child. what is harder? keeping the child. This is what I mean by "it's the easy way out" because you choose to stop the pg for a reason, because it would be HARDER to continue it, right?

I will just say that I am looking at my son's face right now, his little brown eyes, looking at me just wanting to be loved. I could not do that to him, because to me he has always been a person, a soul, a spirit, whatever you want to call it. And also, I haven't even mentioned this but since I am also christian and believe life beings at conception I could never agree. to me there's a reason as to why god created our bodies this way, but I understand we all have different religious beliefs and that is ok. also, I am from chile which is a very conservative country and thankfully abortion is illegal.


----------



## loving-my-babies

Quote:


Originally Posted by *librarymom*
Well you may think that, but I reject that statement completely. Just because I have the ABILITY to become pregnant does not mean it is my "nature". Good grief. I am also able to live with only one kidney, but no one says it "our nature". Does that make a woman who cannot conceive "unnatural"?


librarymom, I read this but i am not going to answer for the sake of me, and to prevent all of you throwing stones through my computer monitor








(just trying to lighten up the subject here!!







)


----------



## LavenderMae

I haven't read anyone saying abortion is a "good thing". I am not offended by your opinion, I am offended by how you are choosing to express it.

Quote:

sheacoby, it's not about you.
NICE!

Quote:

and about going back to your life, what changes your life more?
keeping the child. what is harder? keeping the child. This is what I mean by "it's the easy way out" because you choose to stop the pg for a reason, because it would be HARDER to continue it, right?
NO ,I wouldn't say that is true, I don't know why all women who abort make that decision. I have no idea under what circumstances they are aborting and neither do you.


----------



## librarymom

No stones here, loving-my-babies. Just disagreeing.


----------



## rainsmom

Again I say.......its the judgmental attitude from the prolifers that gets this thread flamin'! We arent judging YOU........for whatever your beliefs are. We dont want the CHURCH involved in our government, and the government involved in our personal choices as women to bear children. PERIOD! ITs not about god, its not about morality..........its about choice. Its about our rights as women.

On the first page of this thread, I was amazed at how respectful some of the prolifers were in stating their views. It had me actually thinking about what they were saying, not agreeing, but at least I could "get" where they were coming from. When someone starts pointing fingers, looking down, making judgments and grouping certain women together, forget it! Youve lost us. You cease to be heard in any respectful manner. (Where is that IGNORE option!!!)

Once you let the government run your body and the decisions regarding it, theres no stopping it. Thats not the country I want to live in......


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loving-my-babies*
the fetus does NOT ASK to be born. the woman's body creates him with he man's sperm. it is the couple's fault if she got pg. not the fetus' fault.

It doesn't matter if the fetus asks to be born or not. It doesn't matter whose fault it is that it is there. It does not have a "right" to continue living inside of another person's body.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loving-my-babies*
what ticks me off is that you would not circ a living baby, no THAT is too cruel, but you would kill a fetus. right?

Not only that, but I would not even pierce a baby's ears. Even THAT would be too cruel for me. So figure that one out.

Once a baby is born, it has RIGHTS. As long as it's still inside another person's body, its existence there is a priviledge, granted by the host.


----------



## Lucky Charm

Quote:

As long as it's still inside another person's body, its existence there is a priviledge, granted by the host
That is profound and moving. And i agree with it totally.


----------



## KoalaMama

Quote:

sorry, but it is common knowledge that sex leads to pregnancy.
Irony of all ironies... Many who fight for laws that make abortion illegal also fight to keep sex education (and contraception) out of the schools and hands of young people. But of course we all know that you just need to tell them *not* to have sex.









Quote:

I respect your POV even though I strongly disagree with everything you have said.
Really? Because most everything you've written here sounds entirely disrespectful to me. Right to the point where you agreed that in a perfect world all of us pro-choicers should be banned from this site.

Quote:

oh no! it's NEVER ok to kill a baby! it never makes it "ok" but in rape cases at least it's understandable why, and maybe even considerable.
Good grief! So now you're capable of judging how much pain a woman might be in, and whether or not that's enough pain to support her having an abortion? So would you propose women took their cases to some suit and asked whether or not her situation warranted approval for a state sanctioned abortion? "Well, this was a case of date rape, so no, I think she should carry to term. After all, she should have known not to wear that low cut blouse. But this one - well, he broke into her bedroom window. Hand me that red stamp of approval." If this weren't so disgusting it would be funny.

What you seem to be missing here is PRO-CHOICE IS NOT PRO-ABORTION! The point is not the abortion, it's the CHOICE. It's MY body and I refuse to give anyone else the right to tell me what I can and cannot do with it. Period.

I'm really sad to see the horrible turn this conversation has taken. I was quite proud of how everyone was discussing this sensitive issue with kindness, respect, and understanding. It's unfortunate that not everyone can hold to those same high standards.

And to those of you who have given so much by sharing your personal stories... wow. Thank you for that.


----------



## loving-my-babies

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaToFallon*
What you seem to be missing here is PRO-CHOICE IS NOT PRO-ABORTION! The point is not the abortion, it's the CHOICE. It's MY body and I refuse to give anyone else the right to tell me what I can and cannot do with it. Period.


wait a minute... I actually didn't separate these two. I thought pro-choice meant pro-abortion!!!!!!!!!! since evereone responded to me justifying why abortion is not necessarily a bad thing, I thought you all thought abortion is not bad, and doing it is ok......









ok, can you explain what you as pro-choice believe???


----------



## KoalaMama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loving-my-babies*
wait a minute... I actually didn't separate these two. I thought pro-choice meant pro-abortion!!!!!!!!!! since evereone responded to me justifying why abortion is not necessarily a bad thing, I thought you all thought abortion is not bad, and doing it is ok......









ok, can you explain what you as pro-choice believe???

Honestly, I think you should go back and re-read what people have been saying. It's been said many, many, many, many times in this thread... Pro-choice means just that. I belive it's a woman's choice what happens to her body. Whether or not I would consider an abortion personally is irrelevant. What is relevant is it's not my place to tell you or anyone else what you can or can't do with your body. I can't make that decision for anyone else, so I surely don't want anyone else making it for me. My body, my choice. Any clearer?

Making assumptions like "I thought you all thought..." is never a good thing. Next time ask before you go on the attack and you might learn a little more from the conversation.


----------



## LavenderMae

Pro-choice means you think women should have the legal right to decide to abort or not.
I assume if someone was pro-abortion they would believe all women should have one or something. Hmmm not quite sure I have never met someone irl or on-line that was pro-abortion. Anyone who is please correct me if I'm wrong.

The whole thing about being pro-choice has nothing to do with abortion being good or bad.

Me being pro-choice does not mean I don't have certian opinions about abortion. It does not me I go to clinics/ob offices and stand outside and yell at women that they need to abort. It does not mean that I advice friends to abort if they become pregnant. It does not mean I would suggest to a woman who has an unplanned pregnancy she should abort. It does not make me pro-abortion.


----------



## TiredX2

I think the CHOICE should be left to a woman and her doctor. Period.

I would like you to answer my previous question:

Are you saying though that a woman with a serious (medical) reason to not become pregnant should never be able to have sex again?


----------



## daricsmami

Pro-choice:

The belief that women should have control over their own bodies. The belief that women should have the choice to abort, adopt out, or carry a pregnancy to term. The belief that a woman's right to control her body supercedes that of a fetus. No woman should be forced to lose control of her body, even if it's only for 9 months. As we all know, pregnancy changes you forever (physically, emotionally, and mentally) and a woman shouldn't be forced to be pregnant.

Pro-choice people do not take the decision to abort lightly. In fact, it's the opposite. An abortion is far from pleasant. No one rejoices over abortion.


----------



## loving-my-babies

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TiredX2*
I think the CHOICE should be left to a woman and her doctor. Period.

I would like you to answer my previous question:

Are you saying though that a woman with a serious (medical) reason to not become pregnant should never be able to have sex again?


good question. I don't have an answer, but good question. what kind of medical reasons would they be?

and melanie (sorry I didn't get your screen name), I'm sure it's happened to you that you throught you understood the subject and then you realized you had it wrong. you don't have to say it that way, you know.... I honestly always thought (not just now, ALWAYS) that pro-choice women thought abortion was fine if needed. and that they would not hessitate in getting one. Sorry but I think I have the right to give my opinion EVEN IF i don't get the whole story, because at least I learn something from it.


----------



## TiredX2

Quote:

what kind of medical reasons would they be?
Lets just say her doctor says that she CAN never carry a baby full term. (so she is physically able to get pg, but cannot carry it full term)


----------



## Sustainer

Many many pro-choice people would NEVER have an abortion themselves. Being pro-choice means believing that each woman has the right to make that decision for herself. Pro-choice isn't some euphemism for pro-abortion that we use because we don't want to call ourselves pro-abortion. The reason we don't call ourselves pro-abortion is that we really aren't pro-abortion.

Nobody's crazy about abortion, it's just that I'm even less crazy about the idea of forcing a woman to go through pregnancy and birth against her will.

Personally, I can't imagine having an abortion myself, unless I was raped.


----------



## loving-my-babies

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TiredX2*
Lets just say her doctor says that she CAN never carry a baby full term. (so she is physically able to get pg, but cannot carry it full term)

I am guessing you mean the woman can get pg, but will miscarry naturally because she can't keep the pregnancy (her body won't keep the baby in for some reason)
well, I think this would be natural. It would not be man-made. KWIM?
Like a miscarriage, the baby is lost but it's a natural thing that sometimes happens, and it is not the mother's fault. it just is.


----------



## TiredX2

Quote:

Nobody's crazy about abortion, it's just that I'm even less crazy about the idea of forcing a woman to go through pregnancy and birth against her will.


----------



## loving-my-babies

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sbf*

Personally, I can't imagine having an abortion myself, unless I was raped.


ditto there!


----------



## loving-my-babies

if you think about it, it's not so hard to get confused. because pro-lifers (including myself) are against abortion, and it's natural to think that pro-choicers are the "opposite" so if prochoicers are the opposite of pro-lifers (which are against abortions) the prochoicers would be FOR them,. you know? THIS is where I got confused


----------



## Sustainer

I can't imagine anyone not even hesitating over the decision to have an abortion. People don't just say "oh who cares if I get pregnant, I'll just have an abortion!" You know? People agonize over this decision.


----------



## daricsmami

Quote:

pro-choice women thought abortion was fine if needed. and that they would not hessitate in getting one.
What does this statement mean??

And re: hesitation

If I, by some type of miracle, got pregnant (I'm celibate at the moment so this is a stretch), I would *consider* an abortion. But of course there would be hesitation. What do you think women who choose abortion are? Heartless and cold? Do you know how many people you know that have had at least one abortion? People you wouldn't even think. And I doubt you would think them heartless. It's easy to find fault with a group of people until you meet the real, living individual.

Maybe talking to women IRL can help you understand what pro-choice is all about. Deep down, no one likes abortion, whatever your belief. But pro-choice people just realize that we aren't all the same and that abortion is the hardest decision a woman can make. Looking down on them only further marginalizes them and makes them feel worse than they already probably do.


----------



## KoalaMama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loving-my-babies*
and melanie (sorry I didn't get your screen name), I'm sure it's happened to you that you throught you understood the subject and then you realized you had it wrong. you don't have to say it that way, you know.... I honestly always thought (not just now, ALWAYS) that pro-choice women thought abortion was fine if needed. and that they would not hessitate in getting one. Sorry but I think I have the right to give my opinion EVEN IF i don't get the whole story, because at least I learn something from it.

Hey, no one's going to beat you up for not being 100% clear on what pro-choice means. But it's a good lesson to learn that we shouldn't jump in with guns blazing without first asking questions and listening to what's being said. There are lots of really amazing posts in this thread. I think reading through it will give you a great handle on where many of the pro-choice mamas stand.


----------



## TiredX2

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbf

Personally, I can't imagine having an abortion myself, unless I was raped.

ditto there!
What's ironic is that I am adamently pro-choice and I don't think I would have an abortion even then. I can think of other scenarios, but I don't think rape would cause me to think abortion.


----------



## Sustainer

The opposite of the pro-choice position is the anti-choice position, which is that women should not be allowed to choose for themselves whether to continue a pregnancy or whether to terminate it.


----------



## plum

i'm sorry, LMB, but you seriously didn't understand that until now? i guess i'm a bit shocked.

anyway, ITA with mamatofallon. i'm not going to state whether or not i would have an abortion; i feel it is unnecessary and i think it drives a wedge into the pro-choice camp. i believe in EVERY woman's right to choose and don't want anyone making that decision for me!

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaToFallon*
Honestly, I think you should go back and re-read what people have been saying. It's been said many, many, many, many times in this thread... Pro-choice means just that. I belive it's a woman's choice what happens to her body. Whether or not I would consider an abortion personally is irrelevant. What is relevant is it's not my place to tell you or anyone else what you can or can't do with your body. I can't make that decision for anyone else, so I surely don't want anyone else making it for me. My body, my choice. Any clearer?

Making assumptions like "I thought you all thought..." is never a good thing. Next time ask before you go on the attack and you might learn a little more from the conversation.


----------



## TiredX2

Quote:

I am guessing you mean the woman can get pg, but will miscarry naturally because she can't keep the pregnancy (her body won't keep the baby in for some reason)
well, I think this would be natural. It would not be man-made. KWIM?
Like a miscarriage, the baby is lost but it's a natural thing that sometimes happens, and it is not the mother's fault. it just is.
How about if she has cancer, or psychotic depression, or any number of things which would allow her to carry a baby but maybe die? Maybe want to kill herself? Maybe...?

It is NOT black and white. That is my point.

BTW, I just pointed out I *personally* would not (necessarily) have an abortion due to rape becuase I wanted to show that you can feel very strongly one way for yourself, but not want to infringe upon others rights.


----------



## Lucky Charm

Quote:

wait a minute... I actually didn't separate these two. I thought pro-choice meant pro-abortion!!!!!!!!!!
I'm with Plum. I am shocked as well. I am refraining from clicking on the puke emoticon and the eyeroll.

I have never met a woman that has had an abortion that actually "wanted" to have one. In my experience, these particular women felt they had little choice and few options and felt they "needed" to have an abortion.

As for me, i don't think i could ever have an abortion, but i feel funny typing that because i have never been faced with any type of situation that might warrant one as far as i am concerned. If my life were in danger i would seriously consider it, because i already have 3 living breathing children walking the face of the earth that *need* me, and they must be my first priority. take care of the ones you have they say....

But i am uncomfortable with typing that, because i do not want to come across as judgmental, because whats good enough for me might not be good enough for another, and what i might feel as insurmountable might not be to another, and what we must do, is keep our reproductive rights our own, free, with choice. I just cannot for the life of me ever let anyone dictate what they feel is right and give them power over my body.

And all this talk of keeping legs closed reeks of condescending judgment, that sex is bad, that women must be punished.

After reading some of the posts, i am afraid womens orgasms might be outlawed, i mean, then we would have enjoyed it! and we cant have that


----------



## pugmadmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loving-my-babies*
if you think about it, it's not so hard to get confused. because pro-lifers (including myself) are against abortion, and it's natural to think that pro-choicers are the "opposite" so if prochoicers are the opposite of pro-lifers (which are against abortions) the prochoicers would be FOR them,. you know? THIS is where I got confused

This is a perfect example of why the term "pro-life" is a misnomer. When it comes to abortion, you either believe individual women should be trusted with that _choice_ or you don't. You are either pro-choice or you are anti-choice. This terms "pro-life" and "pro-abortion" are propaganda dreamed up by anti-choicers. All they do is confuse a complex issue even further.


----------



## lotusdebi

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pugmadmama*
This is a perfect example of why the term "pro-life" is a misnomer. When it comes to abortion, you either believe individual women should be trusted with that _choice_ or you don't. You are either pro-choice or you are anti-choice. This terms "pro-life" and "pro-abortion" are propaganda dreamed up by anti-choicers. All they do is confuse a complex issue even further.


----------



## Lucky Charm

Pugmadmama, once again, you made an excellent point, and ITA.


----------



## loving-my-babies

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pugmadmama*
This is a perfect example of why the term "pro-life" is a misnomer. When it comes to abortion, you either believe individual women should be trusted with that _choice_ or you don't. You are either pro-choice or you are anti-choice. This terms "pro-life" and "pro-abortion" are propaganda dreamed up by anti-choicers. All they do is confuse a complex issue even further.


I agree. It should not be "pro-life" then if you are not "against life".
well, and now that I know that pro-choice just means the woman choosing for herself, I really don't mind that at all, hopefully women will choose *not* to have abortions... but that's in my dream world, unfortunately! My dh was telling me the other day how incredibly shocking it was to him to see like 50 pages in the phone book for abortion clinics... since we come from a *very* conservative country we don't see abortions there being offered like a teeth whitening procedure is offered. (so common and popular)

and abortion is legal in how many states? (or is it federal... hmm, again, sorry but I'm foreign!)


----------



## mshollyk

first of all, wow, something productive actually happened?!! maybe we are a little closer to understanding each other?!! YAY!!!






























second, it is my understanding that something like 82% of counties in the US do not have any abortion providers...where do you live, loving-my-babies, that there are that many providers?


----------



## Lucky Charm

Abortion is legal in every state i think, its the time limit i believe that separates some states. (meaning late term vs first trimester).

I remember when i was pregnant with my third child, and had to go to the downtown office for my check up. I got there and had to ring the doorbell and be buzzed in, and there was an armed guard outside. I later found out, that two of the doctors (there were 6) provided choice terminations for their patients (it wasn't a clinic in any sense, just that two of the docs provide them for their "own" patients). But i believe it was only till 12 weeks. (i dont know what the law in florida specifies).


----------



## loving-my-babies

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mshollyk*
first of all, wow, something productive actually happened?!! maybe we are a little closer to understanding each other?!! YAY!!!






























second, it is my understanding that something like 82% of counties in the US do not have any abortion providers...where do you live, loving-my-babies, that there are that many providers?


I live in Pennsylvania.


----------



## TiredX2

Did he maybe mean like 50 individual listings?

Because, just for the sake of arguement, I just went and looked in the Qwest Dex "Seattle Metro: Yellow Pages for the Entire Seattle Area." In 1647 pages of listings, there are 9 for abortion alternatives and 10 for abortion providers. Together they take up about one page (including the ads). This is for something like 2 million people.


----------



## mshollyk

75% of counties in PA do not have providers, and PA has some of the most stringent laws in the country about abortion. quite a few PA women come to NY to get abortions because they have problems getting them in PA. it isn't quite as easy teeth whitening, it would seem.


----------



## loving-my-babies

I'm gonna go check the yellow pages and see how many dh really found. I'll be back later.. gotta go!


----------



## spero

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sheacoby*
Hmmm not quite sure I have never met someone irl or on-line that was pro-abortion. Anyone who is please correct me if I'm wrong.

This was asked (by you) and answered (by me) on page 2 of this thread. I was absolutely pro-abortion.

Quote:

_I assume if someone was pro-abortion they would believe all women should have one or something._
No, I just believed (with a passion) that abortion was perfectly OK (for any reason, even for birth control) if somebody wanted one. Or two. Or five. I even wrote a term paper on the subject in seventh grade...very controversial at the time (1978) and my social studies teacher almost didn't allow it.


----------



## TiredX2

But that is still pro-CHOICE. The woman should be able to choose for any reason to have an abortion. On the more radical side, perhaps, but not pro-abortion no matter what. Pro-life individuals, meanwhile, are often against abortion for any reason. I see a very big difference.

BTW, there are sects that are pro-abortion. Some feel that no one should have sex, some feel people are just evil and no more should be born, etc... Rare, but they do exist.


----------



## mshollyk

skellebelle, saying that you were pro-abortion when you were 12 isn't saying much. how could you possibly have any real perspective on what you were saying? how much did you know actually about birth control? my parents were pretty thorough about my sex ed, but there was A LOT i did not know until i became sexually active.


----------



## spero

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mshollyk*
skellebelle, saying that you were pro-abortion when you were 12 isn't saying much. how could you possibly have any real perspective on what you were saying? how much did you know actually about birth control? my parents were pretty thorough about my sex ed, but there was A LOT i did not know until i became sexually active.

I was pro-abortion (yes, pro-ABORTION) until I was almost 30 years old. Sugarcoat it & call it "pro-choice" if you want, but I SUPPORTED ABORTION FOR ANYONE, AND FOR ANY REASON. To me, *that IS pro-abortion*. I attended my cousin's abortion (totally for birth control, which I thoroughly supported/encouraged at the time) when I was 21 years old. I saw the baby, ripped limb from limb and tossed in a sink like so much trash.

I think I have real perspective on what I'm saying. And you'd be surprised how much I knew at 12.


----------



## CookieMonsterMommy

50 pages in the phone book? That's more than we have for restaurant listings AND doctors offices in my phone book.....somehow I doubt the truth of this statement.

A anti-choicer making up stats to back up her point? Never!









Anyways, thanks Pug and all the others....this gets me too heated every once in a while and I need a break. Phew!

Best Wishes, Kelly


----------



## pugmadmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *skellbelle*
...I SUPPORTED ABORTION FOR ANYONE, AND FOR ANY REASON. ....

So do I. I'm pro-choice, not pro-abortion.

If you thought women should have abortions _instead_ of having the choice to either continue their pregnancy or have an abortion, then you were pro-abortion. If you thought women should be trusted to make their choices themselves, with no pressure to either to abort or carry to term, you were pro-choice.


----------



## mshollyk

abortion at any time for any reason is a pretty radical position, and probably not particularly safe, either. i'm assuming that you mean a woman can have as many abortions as she wants, and can have them up 8 months or so...if not, please clarify.


----------



## pugmadmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mshollyk*
abortion at any time for any reason is a pretty radical position, and probably not particularly safe, either. i'm assuming that you mean a woman can have as many abortions as she wants, and can have them up 8 months or so...if not, please clarify.

I think that believing that the government is in a better position than the woman herself to make those kind of decision is a pretty radical position.

Women are *not* unreasonable creatures who are only held in check by the patriachal government. Until a person truly believes that, then I suspect they will find my beliefs "pretty radical".


----------



## loving-my-babies

see, so there ARE pro-abortion people. well, that is what I strongly disagree with. not the choice. the abortion.


----------



## TiredX2

Clarification please.


----------



## Shonahsmom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pugmadmama*
I think that believing that the government is in a better position than the woman herself to make those kind of decision is a pretty radical position.



Exactly!


----------



## plum

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loving-my-babies*
see, so there ARE pro-abortion people. well, that is what I strongly disagree with. not the choice. the abortion.


----------



## pugmadmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loving-my-babies*
...My dh was telling me the other day how incredibly shocking it was to him to see like 50 pages in the phone book for abortion clinics... since we come from a *very* conservative country we don't see abortions there being offered like a teeth whitening procedure is offered. (so common and popular)...

My phone book covers a population of roughly 500,000 people. "Abortion Services" and "Abortion Alternatives" covers _one_ page. Please go check your yellow pages yourself and get back to us on how many pages the phone book _really_ has for abortion clinics.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loving-my-babies*
...also, I am from chile which is a very conservative country and thankfully abortion is illegal.

Abortion in Chile(bolds mine):

"_Despite the fact that undergoing or performing an abortion is illegal, *the per capita number of abortions in Chile remains one of the highest in Latin America*...

...Eighty percent of the criminal prosecutions of women who obtained abortions begin following reports to the police by the public hospitals where they sought treatment for *abortion-related complications*. Health care providers force some women to "confess" to having had abortions by threatening to withhold medical care...

...Researchers and health professionals estimate that one in five women who undergo abortions in Chile requires hospitalization for the treatment of complications..._"


----------



## RubyV

More interesting facts on chile from the site:

FACTS ABOUT ABORTION IN CHILE
From The Alan Guttmacher Institute

Estimated rates of abortion are highest in Chile and Peru compared to other countries in Latin America. Each year, almost one woman in every 20 (age 15-49) has an induced abortion.

-In Chile there are close to six abortions for every 10 births.

-Of the 451,800 pregnancies in Chile in 1990, an estimated 44% were wanted births, 21% were unwanted births, and the remaining 35% ended in induced abortions. 31,930 women were hospitalized after undergoing unsafe abortions that year.

-Researchers and health professionals estimate that one in five women who undergo abortions in Chile requires hospitalization for the treatment of complications.

-56% of women age 15-44 in Chile practice family planning (1989).

-A 1993 study in Brazil, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Mexico and Peru showed that women in those countries are familiar with teas and infusions made from herbs and other vegetable products that are believed to induce abortion.


----------



## KoalaMama

<sigh>

This pro-abortion talk is only confusing things more. Bottom line... Pro-choice is just that - you respect the right for a woman to legally have the CHOICE. Please don't confuse this with a moral standing on whether or not abortion is a good or bad thing. It's so not the point. I know this is an emotional topic, but the "what side of the cause are you on" part of it is pretty simple in my mind. Pro-choice means you don't think the government (or anyone else) should make the decision for women. Pro-life means you think abortion should be illegal, and no woman, under any circumstance, should be able to choose to have an abortion. Now, I know this is a pretty basic synopsis, but it's the nutshell version of what the sides are fighting for, no?

It's very interesting to me that people who are saying they're pro-life are following that statement with things like "unless it's rape" etc. Because that sounds like a personal moral weighing of the situation, not a political one. That "unless it's..." is a pro-choice argument. Unless of course you feel you're qualified to make that decision for someone else, or that someone else is qualified to make that decision for you.

More rambling...

Wondering just how many people that consider themselves pro-life would be thankful for the legal choice if it came down to saving the mother of their living children or aborting a fetus that didn't even have a heartbeat or a brain. I can't imagine explaining to my daughter that she would have to grow up without me because there was a potential baby that was more important.


----------



## librarymom

Good job with the statistics ladies. Your efforts are superb, and I appreciate you finding facts.


----------



## Sustainer

I don't think this has been made clear yet: Abortion is legal in every state. This is because of the Supreme Court decision Roe vs. Wade, which determined that it is unconstitutional for any state to outlaw abortion.


----------



## LavenderMae

Quote:


Originally Posted by *skellbelle*
This was asked (by you) and answered (by me) on page 2 of this thread. I was absolutely pro-abortion.

I completely forgot! I have to admit I still wouldn't have thought you pro-abortion.


----------



## loving-my-babies

Quote:


Originally Posted by *RubyV*
More interesting facts on chile from the site:

FACTS ABOUT ABORTION IN CHILE
From The Alan Guttmacher Institute

Estimated rates of abortion are highest in Chile and Peru compared to other countries in Latin America. Each year, almost one woman in every 20 (age 15-49) has an induced abortion.

-In Chile there are close to six abortions for every 10 births.

-Of the 451,800 pregnancies in Chile in 1990, an estimated 44% were wanted births, 21% were unwanted births, and the remaining 35% ended in induced abortions. 31,930 women were hospitalized after undergoing unsafe abortions that year.

-Researchers and health professionals estimate that one in five women who undergo abortions in Chile requires hospitalization for the treatment of complications.

-56% of women age 15-44 in Chile practice family planning (1989).

-A 1993 study in Brazil, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Mexico and Peru showed that women in those countries are familiar with teas and infusions made from herbs and other vegetable products that are believed to induce abortion.

I never said no one aborted in chile. But I do think many more people would if it were legal. i'd really be interested in knowing where you found these facts. not everything you read is true, you know... and I find it hard to believe that these stats are true because how would they reveal these stats knowing it's illegal & you would go to jail for it? it's a very "tabu" subject in chile. no one dares to talk about this publicly. i lived there all my life, and it's not a big country.


----------



## loving-my-babies

and let's say the stats ARE true, then it doesn't matter as long as whoever comits the crime IS CONSIDERED A CRIMINAL under chilean law. and if they get caught they will die in jail. and whoever does the abortion as well. and if they don't get caught then they will either have health consecuences and mental as well. that's enough punishment right there.


----------



## KoalaMama

Quote:

But I do think many more people would if it were legal.
More likely, if it were legal these women would not be going to some back alley butcher and would be receiving support and counseling before making their decisions, thus reducing the number of abortions. And more importantly, reducing the number of complications for women who are obviously going to do it anyway, legal or no.

Quote:

and I find it hard to believe that these stats are true because how would they reveal these stats knowing it's illegal & you would go to jail for it?
Pug included a link in her post. If you read what it says, many hospitals are forcing women to admit they had an abortion before agreeing to give them treatment. Also, if 31,930 women are being hospitalized for complications, they for sure know that that many attempted or had abortions.

Quote:

it's a very "tabu" subject in chile. no one dares to talk about this publicly.
Just because people don't talk about it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Full circle back to why making it legal saves lives, saves families, saves babies.


----------



## KoalaMama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loving-my-babies*
and let's say the stats ARE true, then it doesn't matter as long as whoever comits the crime IS CONSIDERED A CRIMINAL under chilean law. and if they get caught they will die in jail. and whoever does the abortion as well. and if they don't get caught then they will either have health consecuences and mental as well. that's enough punishment right there.

ARE YOU SERIOUS???????????

Are you seriously saying that a woman who, for whatever reason, chooses abortion deserves to die from infection? Or that a young girl deserves to spend her life in jail because she didn't birth a baby? How in the he** is that in line with any kind of gentle thinking?

How sick. I hope you are treated with more kindness and tolerance in life than you propose offering to others.


----------



## plum

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loving-my-babies*
and let's say the stats ARE true, then it doesn't matter as long as whoever comits the crime IS CONSIDERED A CRIMINAL under chilean law. and if they get caught they will die in jail. and whoever does the abortion as well. and if they don't get caught then they will either have health consecuences and mental as well. that's enough punishment right there.









talk about cold.


----------



## pugmadmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loving-my-babies*
... and I find it hard to believe that these stats are true ...

"_The Chilean Misinstry of Health calculates that the number of clandestine abortions averages 75,000 a year."_

Factor into that figure that illegal procedures are largely under-reported and the numbers add up.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loving-my-babies*
...it's a very "tabu" subject in chile. no one dares to talk about this publicly....

(bold is mine) _"The Mesa Feminista de Trabajo sobre Aborto (Feminist Working Group on Abortion) is the initiative of a group of women interested in debating and analyzing this issue in a country with one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the world. Abortion is totally prohibited in Chile, even when the woman's life or health is at risk. ......Clearly, unsafe abortion should be considered a serious public health concern and the responsibility of all Chilean society. *It is also a matter of human rights and social justice to the extent that those who are most like to resort to unsafe, clandestine procedures are poor women and young women, especially adolescents...*"_

Chilean women go public about having had abortions:

"...232 Chilean women, all older than 18, publicly admitted that they had all voluntarily had abortions, allowing their names and signatures to be published on Sep. 28 in a nationally distributed newspaper..."


----------



## pugmadmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loving-my-babies*
and let's say the stats ARE true, then it doesn't matter as long as whoever comits the crime IS CONSIDERED A CRIMINAL under chilean law. and if they get caught they will die in jail. and whoever does the abortion as well. ...

At least Chilean anti-choicers are honest. They don't care about women who dare to take control of their own lives. Let them rot in jail, let them die.

If anyone is wondering what the USA will look like when the legal right to abortion is taken away, look no further.


----------



## TiredX2

Just let me repeat from above:

Quote:

It is also a matter of human rights and social justice to the extent that those who are most like to resort to unsafe, clandestine procedures are poor women and young women, especially adolescents..."
I highly recommend the book "Back Rooms: Voices from the Illegal Abortion Era." It makes it quite clear that $$$ is the main factor when it comes to geting a safe abortion.


----------



## loving-my-babies

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pugmadmama*
"_The Chilean Misinstry of Health calculates that the number of clandestine abortions averages 75,000 a year."_

Factor into that figure that illegal procedures are largely under-reported and the numbers add up.

(bold is mine) _"The Mesa Feminista de Trabajo sobre Aborto (Feminist Working Group on Abortion) is the initiative of a group of women interested in debating and analyzing this issue in a country with one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the world. Abortion is totally prohibited in Chile, even when the woman's life or health is at risk. ......Clearly, unsafe abortion should be considered a serious public health concern and the responsibility of all Chilean society. *It is also a matter of human rights and social justice to the extent that those who are most like to resort to unsafe, clandestine procedures are poor women and young women, especially adolescents...*"_

Chilean women go public about having had abortions:

"...232 Chilean women, all older than 18, publicly admitted that they had all voluntarily had abortions, allowing their names and signatures to be published on Sep. 28 in a nationally distributed newspaper..."


ok, you are going to base this whole thing on 200 women? and all feminists? sure, you are going to the sources that you agree with. You are biased, you are not showing all the facts. you only show what you want to show! To be honest with you, I stand by the church and the chilean government on keeping abortion illegal. believe me, 200 feminists are not going to change that! you think this "feminist movement" is popular there? I lived there all my life and this is the first time I've heard of them. They don't make headlines, it will never be legal.

You think *I* am being cruel? *you* are the ones saying that you MUST have the choice to kill a human being because it's inside your body. THAT is cruel. All I am doing is supporting the idea that if you comit the crime, be prepared to do the time.

I feel saddened that this country has reached a point where a baby's life is less important than it's own mother's "freedom of choice".

What about morality? What about the pain? no one has asnwered that yet. or do you think unborn babies don't feel any pain?


----------



## SpiralChrissy

I'm an AP, pro-choice mama. I support the right to choose.
I haven't had an abortion but I've used emergency contraception.
I wasn't in a place where it would be wise to have another child.
I've struggled so long with severe post-partum depression that the idea of having another child was literally unsafe for me. I did the best thing for myself, my DH and my DS. I'm glad that I used the EC but if it had come to it, I may have chosen an abortion...or maybe I wouldn't have but I'm glad that it's my choice. I value this freedom above most of the freedoms we have in this country. I would fight tooth and nail to protect Roe v. Wade. I understand it's hot button issue but I wanted to share my opinion here.
Love and light to all you mamas!
Chrissy


----------



## lotusdebi

loving-my-babies,

Can you find some studies that aren't "biased" that say something different about what's going on with abortion in Chile?

I would like to know how you can be okay with women being forced into having unsafe procedures. I would like to know how you can be okay with women being forced to kill themselves because they don't have the choice to abort. Why don't you care about the health and well-being of women?


----------



## RubyV

Yes, I have morals. And I"m pro choice.

I think that for the majority of terminations (done during the first 12 weeks), the fetus does not feel pain. I come to this conclusion after reading non biased, basic biology papers on fetal development.

Those people I know personally who had late term abortions for poor prognosis had the heart stopped via injection in a procedure similar to an amnio.


----------



## LavenderMae

Carmen, there you go again being self-righteous.
From what I have read on the subject of pain that the very earliest most researcher/scientist etc.. say a fetus might be able to feel pain is 20 weeks gestation.
Okay, I thought you got this but I guess not. I'd say most pro-choice people don't consider abortion "killing" a human being. Also not everyone shares your religious believes and your beliefs really shouldn't dicate laws.
I do have morals ,being pro-choice doesn't make one immoral.


----------



## loving-my-babies

Quote:


Originally Posted by *RubyV*
Yes, I have morals. And I"m pro choice.

I think that for the majority of terminations (done during the first 12 weeks), the fetus does not feel pain. I come to this conclusion after reading non biased, basic biology papers on fetal development.

Those people I know personally who had late term abortions for poor prognosis had the heart stopped via injection in a procedure similar to an amnio.


oh really? do you remember being a fetus?

you are SUPPOSING babies don't feel pain, but no one really knows.
there is a lot of research out there but doctors are not God, therefore
they may think they know it all when they don't. No one can say we
are 100% certain babies being aborted at any point of the pregnancy do not feel pain.

and ofcourse, having the unborn baby's heart stop is fine, no pain, no problem right? you make it sound like the mother is asking the doctor for anesthesia so it doesn't hurt they baby when they are killing it. how sick.


----------



## loving-my-babies

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lotusdebi*
loving-my-babies,

Can you find some studies that aren't "biased" that say something different about what's going on with abortion in Chile?

sure, I will look for more studies on the subject.

Quote:

I would like to know how you can be okay with women being forced into having unsafe procedures.
I don't agree with the "procedures" in the first place. safe or unsafe, I don't care, it's abortion. this to me is like killing the baby safely and killing the baby unsafely... both kill it, so what is the difference??

Quote:

I would like to know how you can be okay with women being forced to kill themselves because they don't have the choice to abort. Why don't you care about the health and well-being of women?
I do care about the well-being of women. but not ABOVE the health of their children. The fetus inside you is your child. You created him together with your partner. why does your baby have to die if you made a mistake?


----------



## TiredX2

Carmen---

Still waiting to hear how many pages of abortion providers are in your phone book. Please report back.

Thanks,
Kay


----------



## loving-my-babies

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sheacoby*
Carmen, there you go again being self-righteous.
From what I have read on the subject of pain that the very earliest most researcher/scientist etc.. say a fetus might be able to feel pain is 20 weeks gestation.
Okay, I thought you got this but I guess not. I'd say most pro-choice people don't consider abortion "killing" a human being. Also not everyone shares your religious believes and your beliefs really shouldn't dicate laws.
I do have morals ,being pro-choice doesn't make one immoral.

again, what makes these "scientists" human gods? I mean, you may WANT to believe they don't feel pain. but no one can tell your for certain.
you may WANT to believe babies in-utero are not human beings but do you know
for certain? do you know for certain that what happens in-utero does not
stay in any way, in your subconsius? it may. we don't know enough to think we are gods and do with life as we please. there is life in-utero and many people blind themselves to believe the opposite.


----------



## LavenderMae

Quote:

I do care about the well-being of women. but not ABOVE the health of their children. The fetus inside you is your child. You created him together with your partner. why does your baby have to die if you made a mistake?
So if it is a matter of life and death , the woman should die? But back up if the woman dies so does the embryo or fetus. If I'm not healthy then my children lose out too. No the embryo I aborted was not my child, it only had the potential to be. Not everyone beliefs like you. There are other ways of seeing things. Not everyone beliefs in your god either, btw.
You really don't care if woman die from unsafe abortions, these are mothers , daughters, sisters, bestfriends etc...and you can coldly say basicly if they abort they deserve to die or if they do die oh well. And you are asking about others having morals!!!


----------



## loving-my-babies

one more thing... about abortion when the mother's health is at stake..

I would give my life for my children any day! I would not even think "gee, who comes
first, who is most important, me or my child?" my child comes first, in-utero, or not,
my baby comes first, as a mother, my first instinct is to protect my child. how could
I kill it? It goes against the course of life and nature itself, IMO.


----------



## TiredX2

Carmen----

still waiting


----------



## loving-my-babies

I have a question re: this too, any christian mamas here?

how do you feel about this?


----------



## TiredX2

Are you not going to answer? Because I would really prefer you to just say you are not going to than ignoring me, which I find incredibly rude.


----------



## loving-my-babies

Kay, sorry I didn;t see your post.

I will go look now, but I don't know why you are making such a big deal about this. my dh said it surprised and probably over-reacted since you are telling me that it's probably not possible that there are 50 pages. he said "50 pages" and I paraphrased what he said, but I doubt he actually counted the pages. the point I think he was trying to make, was that abortion is sold in the yellow pages very easily, with ads like "discreet" or stuff that promote it, and he thought it was sick. this was his point I think. but I can check the yellow pages anyway, I just don't see what the big deal is if we know it's probably not 50 pages and he was being sarcastic.


----------



## Lucky Charm

I am a Christian. Raised Catholic, and now I go to Non-denominational church.

I have a strong faith in God, and Christ.

But as squirmy as i can get with that (me personally), i remain staunchly pro-choice (*not* pro-abortion). Women must have reproductive freedom, regardless of where I stand with my God.

Lisa


----------



## loving-my-babies

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TiredX2*
Are you not going to answer? Because I would really prefer you to just say you are not going to than ignoring me, which I find incredibly rude.

kay, can you relax a little? no one is ignoring you!!! i didn't see your post, why would I not answer, this is a discussion after all, no hard feelings on my part even though we disagree FYI


----------



## LavenderMae

Well, if I got pregnant now and carrying that fetus to term would kill me I would abort because my children do come first. I hope to never be in such a heartbreaking situation but I know I would choose to live and continue being here for my children.
I don't just *want* to believe an embryo doesn't feel pain, I on a commonsense level think it is true. I think you just WANT to believe they can feel pain so abortion can be even more horrid and evil in your eyes something that only cold, uncaring, cruel, immoral women do.


----------



## TiredX2

Edited for







syndrome


----------



## librarymom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loving-my-babies*
kay, can you relax a little? no one is ignoring you!!!









:


----------



## loving-my-babies

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sheacoby*
Well, if I got pregnant now and carrying that fetus to term would kill me I would abort because my children do come first. I hope to never be in such a heartbreaking situation but I know I would choose to live and continue being here for my children.
I don't just *want* to believe and embryo doesn't feel pain, I on a commonsense level think it is true. I think you just WANT to believe they can feel pain so abortion can be even more horrid and evil in your eyes something that only cold, uncaring, cruel, immoral women do.


what does commonsense have to do with science? unless you are a fetus and have been living inside the uterus and then scraped with a metal weapon, I don't think you are in the position to say if a fetus feels pain.


----------



## TiredX2

Do you have *any* scientific basis for assuming that a human fetus at 10 weeks gestation can feel pain? We can all say, "Well we can't know for *sure* about anything," can't we? But, it really shuts a conversation down fast.


----------



## loving-my-babies

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TiredX2*
Carmen---

The "deal" is that you didn't say he was being sarcastic and said that you would look. Then ignored my requests.

I have trouble discussing things with others if I cannot trust the veracity of their claims or the fact that they are open to learning things.

Kay

k, I found it. there are more than 50 ads, not 50 pages, 50 ads. I just asked my wonderful dh and after telling me to tell you all "peace" he said it was quite sarcastic and he didn't think the comment was going to end up on the mothering forums, he just thought it was a private conversation with his loving wife, who came here and paraphrased him.

and hopefully, we CAN learn things. I have already learned a few.


----------



## LavenderMae

Well neither are you then, in the position to say wether or not a fetus can feel pain.
I think a lot of science it based on commonesense but anyway I do not think an embryo w/o a developed brain/nervous system etc.. would have the ability to feel pain. I use my commonsense a lot in life doesn't anyone else?
A metal weapon, please.


----------



## loving-my-babies

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TiredX2*
Do you have *any* scientific basis for assuming that a human fetus at 10 weeks gestation can feel pain? We can all say, "Well we can't know for *sure* about anything," can't we? But, it really shuts a conversation down fast.


that's the point. abortion is something unnatural, and on top of that it's done without knowing 100% the real facts (if they feel pain or not, if there is life or not)


----------



## loving-my-babies

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sheacoby*
Well neither are you then, in the position to say wether or not a fetus can feel pain.
I think a lot of science it based on commonesense but anyway I do not think an embryo w/o a developed brain/nervous system etc.. would have the ability to feel pain. I use my commonsense a lot in life doesn't anyone else?
A metal weapon, please.










what do you want to call it? it's metal, isn't it? in my eyes it's a weapon because it takes life, it's a metal scraper that takes life = a metal weapon.

and as a side note... wouldn't chatting be faster? lol


----------



## TiredX2

I do consider it a point that you are only willing to see things one way.

We are supposed to come up with "evidence" but you don't have to.

Would you accept any evidence that a fetus DOES NOT feel pain until ___blank___ # of weeks?

And, what if they did? Would that make abortion okay in your eyes if the fetus had an anesthetic applied first?

I just feel like we are going around and around on this issue and not getting anywhere. Is there *anything* that would change your position?


----------



## LavenderMae

The medical instrument is called a curette (sp?) and it may or may not be used in a first trimester abortion.


----------



## loving-my-babies

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TiredX2*
I do consider it a point that you are only willing to see things one way.

We are supposed to come up with "evidence" but you don't have to.

Would you accept any evidence that a fetus DOES NOT feel pain until ___blank___ # of weeks?

And, what if they did? Would that make abortion okay in your eyes if the fetus had an anesthetic applied first?

I just feel like we are going around and around on this issue and not getting anywhere. Is there *anything* that would change your position?


why should I change my position and you not?

and abortion would not be ok in my eyes with an anesthetic. abortion is abortion, to me. no exceptions.
and I agree that we are going round and round with this, not getting anywhere, and as I can see, we are really never going to change our minds. Do you think it's time we stop? maybe we've reached a point where we have made all of our points loud and clear. Let me know what you think and I will leave


----------



## TiredX2

First, here is something I found interesting. "Can a fetus feel pain?":

Quote:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pain.htm

Quote:

why should I change my position and you not?
I'm not asking you to change your position. I am saying that there are things that could make me change mine. Are there any for you?


----------



## TiredX2

If the pain of the fetus does not actually influence your decision in any way, why dwell on that reasoning? I'd rather discuss facts that actually effect our decisions/views.


----------



## LavenderMae

Carmen , I don't even think your point is to change minds but is to condemn. No, you won't be changing my mind.
I don't want you to change your mind but for you to maybe see abortion in a less black and white light. I thought maybe if you could see real women behind the issue you would be less judgemental and onesided. Oh, well I tried.


----------



## loving-my-babies

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TiredX2*

I'm not asking you to change your position. I am saying that there are things that could make me change mine. Are there any for you?

mmm (thinking) maybe there are. but I would never agree with late abortion. there, you could not change my mind. but early, mmm (still thinking) your thoughts are welcome.


----------



## TiredX2

When you say "late term" do you mean late term (24+ weeks) of a healthy infant who is being carried by a healthy mother?


----------



## loving-my-babies

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TiredX2*
When you say "late term" do you mean late term (24+ weeks) of a healthy infant who is being carried by a healthy mother?


mm, no, I would say from when their heart starts beating. so I said it wrong, I didn;t mean late term in the pg. and yes, healthy mother & child.
if you could prove the fetus has NO PAIN at all (I saw a video of an abotion once, it was awful, it showed the 20 week fetus trying to escape the metal scraper) then I would re-consider my position.


----------



## Aura_Kitten

this thread is getting ridiculous.

l-m-b, i'd call you a troll and leave it at that except that i've seen you post elsewhere here at MDC.









Quote:

you are SUPPOSING babies don't feel pain, but no one really knows.
there is a lot of research out there but doctors are not God, therefore
they may think they know it all when they don't. No one can say we
are 100% certain babies being aborted at any point of the pregnancy do not feel pain.
uh, yeah, we *can* say we are 100% certain that at some point the embryo doesn't feel pain ~ until about 9 weeks gestation, *the spinal cord has not yet fused to the brain stem*. that needs to happen in order for feeling (and motion) to begin. so saying that an embryo prior to that "might still feel pain but only g-d knows for sure" is just ignorant.


----------



## geekgolightly

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TiredX2*
Do you have *any* scientific basis for assuming that a human fetus at 10 weeks gestation can feel pain? We can all say, "Well we can't know for *sure* about anything," can't we? But, it really shuts a conversation down fast.


it's when the spinal cord and nerves are being formed. i wouldnt know exactly "when" it is, and have wrestled over this myself. i am pro-choice, but i waffle when it comes to abortions which would cause physical pain. i have the same problem with slaughtering of animals, and the same problem with the death penalty.


----------



## KoalaMama

Quote:

abortion is abortion, to me. no exceptions.
But I thought you said it was different (understandable?) if it was rape?

And I asked about abortion for health reasons before, but you never answered so I'll try again. Hypothetical... You're pregnant and diagnosed with cancer. You can't have treatment because of the pregnancy but the doctors tell you you're definitely not going to make it if you don't get treatment, and the pregnancy will likely kill you anyway. Do you attempt to carry the pregnancy to term and leave your existing children without a mother, or do you terminate the pregnancy and save yourself?


----------



## geekgolightly

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loving-my-babies*
mm, no, I would say from when their heart starts beating. so I said it wrong, I didn;t mean late term in the pg. and yes, healthy mother & child.
if you could prove the fetus has NO PAIN at all (I saw a video of an abotion once, it was awful, it showed the 20 week fetus trying to escape the metal scraper) then I would re-consider my position.

20 weeks is FAR TOO LATE in the pregnancy for an abortion IMHO


----------



## loving-my-babies

Quote:


Originally Posted by *klothos*
this thread is getting ridiculous.

l-m-b, i'd call you a troll and leave it at that except that i've seen you post elsewhere here at MDC.










how rude and insulting. FYI, Kay (sorry forgot your screen name) and I were actually reaching a point where we agreed on some things, I believe. And what exactly is a troll? (I said you were rude and insulting because I assumed being a troll is an offense, and it seems like a bad one)

again, what is a troll?


----------



## LavenderMae

A troll is a poster who just post at a site to start trouble. Some of your post have definitely been trollish but I don't think you meant them to be.


----------



## loving-my-babies

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaToFallon*
But I thought you said it was different (understandable?) if it was rape?

And I asked about abortion for health reasons before, but you never answered so I'll try again. Hypothetical... You're pregnant and diagnosed with cancer. You can't have treatment because of the pregnancy but the doctors tell you you're definitely not going to make it if you don't get treatment, and the pregnancy will likely kill you anyway. Do you attempt to carry the pregnancy to term and leave your existing children without a mother, or do you terminate the pregnancy and save yourself?


I answered this question. read the thread.

I didn;t say it was understandable, I said it was MORE understandable, meaning, I would be more understanding before stating my opinion because it is a special circumstance. I believe abortion is abortion, but if you missed it (and apparently you did) I was actually learning new things and considering other POV's.


----------



## loving-my-babies

why is having a different point of view suddenly "trollish"??

am I not allowed to think differently? am I not allowed to disagree?

why is "not agreeing" = as "starting trouble"

I have said several times, if you want we can stop the discussion right now and I will leave. you think I like being attacked like this? you think I like being called a troll? I happen to be a VERY sensitive woman and this actually hurts me.


----------



## plum

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loving-my-babies*
I happen to be a VERY sensitive woman and this actually hurts me.

oh really? like you haven't said anything cold or insensitive to anyone on this thread







.


----------



## loving-my-babies

Quote:


Originally Posted by *plum*
oh really? like you haven't said anything cold or insensitive to anyone on this thread







.

oh whatever...


----------



## LavenderMae

Others are sensitive too and you have posted a lot of very insensitive things in this thread. It's not your POV it is how you are choosing to express it, two very different things.
You have every right to express your opinion but if you do it in such an inflammatory way you have to expect people to call you on it.


----------



## Aura_Kitten

Quote:

Others are sensitive too and you have posted a lot of very insensitive things in this thread. It's not your POV it is how you are choosing to express it, two very different things.
You have every right to express your opinion but if you do it in such an inflammatory way you have to expect people to call you on it.
yes. that's what i was referring to.


----------



## linnea

Goodness. Ain't it dead yet (this thread)?







:


----------



## pugmadmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loving-my-babies*
ok, you are going to base this whole thing on 200 women? and all feminists? sure, you are going to the sources that you agree with. You are biased, you are not showing all the facts. you only show what you want to show! ...

I've shown you the respect of reading your posts, kindly show me the same respect. Please.

I quoted the 200 women because you claimed "no one" spoke about abortion publically in Chile. That's it. Then, I quoted the *Ministry of Health* as saying that 75,000 abortions a year occur in Chile to provide the hard numbers (although I still believe those numbers are low, as offical reports of illegal acts tend to be.) So, the Ministry of Health is biased? They don't know the "facts" of their own country? If they don't, they who does? If you think my research is so deeply flawed, _then do your own_ and post it.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loving-my-babies*
...if you could prove the fetus has NO PAIN at all ...then I would re-consider my position.

I couldn't find the breakdown of when women in Chile have abortions, but in the United States, approx. 60% of all abortions occur prior to the ninth week of pregnancy. As others have pointed out, the fetus is physically incapable of feeling pain at that point.

For more information on abortion in Latin America, go here. It's very interesting to note that in Chile, 35% of pregnancies end in abortion and compare that to the United States where 30% of pregnancies end in abortion. So much for the "if it's legal, more women will do it" theory. In countries that have both legal abortion and comprehensive birth controlreadily available, the abortion rates are lower still (ie Belgium and the Netherlands.)


----------



## Ilaria

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sweetbaby3*
I am a Christian. Raised Catholic, and now I go to Non-denominational church.

I have a strong faith in God, and Christ.

But as squirmy as i can get with that (me personally), i remain staunchly pro-choice (*not* pro-abortion). Women must have reproductive freedom, regardless of where I stand with my God.

Ditto all that, except I am still a practicing Catholic.


----------



## TiredX2

Quote:

For more information on abortion in Latin America, go here. It's very interesting to note that in Chile, 35% of pregnancies end in abortion and compare that to the United States where 30% of pregnancies end in abortion. So much for the "if it's legal, more women will do it" theory. In countries that have both legal abortion and comprehensive birth controlreadily available, the abortion rates are lower still (ie Belgium and the Netherlands.)










This discussion has been very interesting to me because it has revealed that there is a greater divide between anti-abortion and pro-choice camps that I had previously realized. Not in the majority of their actual beliefs, but in what they view the other "camp" to believe. It makes me wonder if actually most people are pro-choice, just varrying with the amount of grey they see in the issue? Anyone else see what I am saying?

Why I said 24 weeks, is because a healthy 24 week fetus would be viable. *That* is where I get uncomfortable w/elective abortions. Of course, I fully believe that it is between a woman and her doctor about what constitutes a need for abortion, but past that point using abortion as birth control feels increasingly wrong to me. Of course, well under .1% of abortions are probably done on healthy women w/healthy fetus past the 20 week point. Most late term abortions are of children who were *wanted* until circumstances interviened.

Sometimes I think the view of abortion is very skewed (purposely by some). As a PP mentioned--- 60% of abortions are performed on women less than 9 weeks pg. I had early u/s with both of my children and they were definately pretty much unformed blobs at that point (uhh, I think that's the head, it could be the butt though). While I don't think anyone is supporting using abortions as birth control, it seems to be a fact of life that they will be *back up* birth control.


----------



## loving-my-babies

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pugmadmama*
I quoted the 200 women because you claimed "no one" spoke about abortion publically in Chile.


So, the Ministry of Health is biased? They don't know the "facts" of their own country? If they don't, they who does? If you think my research is so deeply flawed, _then do your own_ and post it.

I couldn't find the breakdown of when women in Chile have abortions, but in the United States, approx. 60% of all abortions occur prior to the ninth week of pregnancy. As others have pointed out, the fetus is physically incapable of feeling pain at that point.

For more information on abortion in Latin America, go here. It's very interesting to note that in Chile, 35% of pregnancies end in abortion and compare that to the United States where 30% of pregnancies end in abortion. So much for the "if it's legal, more women will do it" theory. In countries that have both legal abortion and comprehensive birth controlreadily available, the abortion rates are lower still (ie Belgium and the Netherlands.)[/QUOTE]


----------



## loving-my-babies

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pugmadmama*
So, the Ministry of Health is biased? They don't know the "facts" of their own country?


I couldn't find the breakdown of when women in Chile have abortions, but in the United States, approx. 60% of all abortions occur prior to the ninth week of pregnancy. As others have pointed out, the fetus is physically incapable of feeling pain at that point.

For more information on abortion in Latin America, go here. It's very interesting to note that in Chile, 35% of pregnancies end in abortion and compare that to the United States where 30% of pregnancies end in abortion. So much for the "if it's legal, more women will do it" theory. In countries that have both legal abortion and comprehensive birth controlreadily available, the abortion rates are lower still (ie Belgium and the Netherlands.)[/QUOTE]


----------



## geekgolightly

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pugmadmama*
but in the United States, approx. 60% of all abortions occur prior to the ninth week of pregnancy. As others have pointed out, the fetus is physically incapable of feeling pain at that point.

good to know. thanks for pointing out that stat. although i wish it were higher, it certainly downplays the horror pro-lifers tend to throw at people.


----------



## KoalaMama

Quote:

It makes me wonder if actually most people are pro-choice, just varrying with the amount of grey they see in the issue? Anyone else see what I am saying?
Exactly!!! I was actually going to post this on the _why are you pro-life_ thread last night after reading all the "I'm pro-life except when..." posts. It seems to me that a lot of people are buying into the propoganda and really don't understand what pro-choice really means in the first place.


----------



## geekgolightly

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaToFallon*
Exactly!!! I was actually going to post this on the _why are you pro-life_ thread last night after reading all the "I'm pro-life except when..." posts. It seems to me that a lot of people are buying into the propoganda and really don't understand what pro-choice really means in the first place.


um, excuse me?

i dont think you understand what it means to look deeply into an issue damned be politics. (pointing out here why your wording is really really wrong. i took offense to it. do you want people to word things like this?)

i am certainly not talking about LAWS, i am talking about what i think, ponder, mull, worry over at night.

if you would like to discuss LAW that is an issue almost wholly unto itself. forgive me for wondering what it might be like if life could be controlled such that no one was ever hurt.


----------



## KoalaMama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *geekgolightly*
i dont think you understand what it means to look deeply into an issue damned be politics. (pointing out here why your wording is really really wrong. i took offense to it. do you want people to word things like this?)

I'm not entirely sure what I said that offended you, but I'm truly sorry that I did. Totally not intended, I swear. I was posting about the issue in terms of labeling, that's all. I see a lot of people express that they're pro-life as in NOT pro-choice, but their comments are very much in line with what many pro-choice people believe as well. There's a whole lot of propoganda around the issue, and I think it's hard for people on either side to see that it's ok to be pro-choice in the legal sense and still be pro-life. Does that make any sense? I truly think the labels are faulty, not the view points.


----------



## Sustainer

It is impossible to discuss the pro-choice position independently of the law, because the pro-choice position is: "abortion should be legal." That's what pro-choice means.


----------



## loving-my-babies

why did that post appear as if i wrote it? i was trying to quote someone...


----------



## pugmadmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *geekgolightly*
...i am certainly not talking about LAWS, i am talking about what i think, ponder, mull, worry over at night.

if you would like to discuss LAW that is an issue almost wholly unto itself...

You cannot seperate the law out of this issue. The law *is* the issue. You either believe the law should state that women should be making this choice or you believe the law should state women should not have this legal choice in the first place. With the latter position comes the *unavoidable* issue of how to enforce that law.

When the issue of how to enforce a law banning abortion comes up, I notice that many anti-choice advocates are much less willing to publically state their views. It's one thing to talk about the so-called rights of the unborn, it's quite another to admit that to enforce those "rights", you are willing to punish the women and health care providers who will seek out illegal abortions. I've heard the idea tossed around that it won't be women who are punished, but the doctors who perform the abortions, which is completely unworkable. Many women will perform the abortions alone or have friends help them. Then what? And once abortion is criminalized, then it's a very small step to seeing women who have abortions as criminal themselves.

Which is why I am so glad that Chile came up. When legal abortion is taken away, abortion doesn't stop in that given society and individual women are severely punished, upto and including death. And _that_ position is called "pro-life"???

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loving-my-babies*
...then it doesn't matter as long as whoever comits the crime IS CONSIDERED A CRIMINAL under chilean law. and if they get caught they will die in jail. and whoever does the abortion as well. and if they don't get caught then they will either have health consecuences and mental as well. that's enough punishment right there.


----------



## geekgolightly

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sbf*
It is impossible to discuss the pro-choice position independently of the law, because the pro-choice position is: "abortion should be legal." That's what pro-choice means.

actually its very possible to discuss, ponder, mull over and think about a "pro-choice" position philisophically - ethical and moral schemas of pro-choice. im surprised that you think its only a legal or political issue.


----------



## geekgolightly

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pugmadmama*
You cannot seperate the law out of this issue. The law *is* the issue. You either believe the law should state that women should be making this choice or you believe the law should state women should not have this legal choice in the first place. With the latter position comes the *unavoidable* issue of how to enforce that law.

When the issue of how to enforce a law banning abortion comes up, I notice that many anti-choice advocates are much less willing to publically state their views. It's one thing to talk about the so-called rights of the unborn, it's quite another to admit that to enforce those "rights", you are willing to punish the women and health care providers who will seek out illegal abortions. I've heard the idea tossed around that it won't be women who are punished, but the doctors who perform the abortions, which is completely unworkable. Many women will perform the abortions alone or have friends help them. Then what? And once abortion is criminalized, then it's a very small step to seeing women who have abortions as criminal themselves.

Which is why I am so glad that Chile came up. When legal abortion is taken away, abortion doesn't stop in that given society and individual women are severely punished, upto and including death. And _that_ position is called "pro-life"???

the law is NOT the issue that i was discussing. i was discussing nuance within a pro-choice stance. if that is something that you do not wish to think about or talk about, please feel free to skip over my posts.


----------



## TiredX2

I'm confused









How can I argue when I can't even follow this!?!?!







:


----------



## Lucky Charm

Quote:

I'm confused
Me too. and I have a headache.


----------



## TiredX2

Well, I have a headache and sore sinuses.

Can ya top that? Can ya? Can ya?


----------



## Lucky Charm




----------



## TiredX2

I am the Champion!


----------



## grnbn76

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TiredX2*
I am the Champion!









I'm STILL in labor. Contractions every 2-4 min for definately 3 days (more, if you want my opinion about it, but for some reason, they won't count those days because the cxs went away at night).
Dilated to 5cm.

STILL NO BABY!!!!!!!!

I win.


----------



## kama'aina mama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *grnbn76*
I win.























Yes. Yes you do!

loving my babies... you need to edit those posts and type


> at the beginning of the phrases that are a direct quote.


----------



## TiredX2

If you are the winner, are they going to take my DDDC away? NOOOOOOO!


----------



## librarymom

grnbn--are you *sure* you're pregnant?? Maybe you just ate some really bad burritos or seafood 39 weeks ago?????







:








:







:







: (not at you...good luck!







)


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:


Originally Posted by *geekgolightly*
actually its very possible to discuss, ponder, mull over and think about a "pro-choice" position philisophically - ethical and moral schemas of pro-choice. im surprised that you think its only a legal or political issue.

Pro-choice means in favor of choice. In favor of women having the choice. In other words, in favor of it being legal. The phrase "pro-choice" refers to a point of law.


----------



## Aura_Kitten

is anyone else astounded that this thread has been allowed to go on for 19 pages (and counting!) without being shut down?!







i think this is a record!


----------



## geekgolightly

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sbf*
Pro-choice means in favor of choice. In favor of women having the choice. In other words, in favor of it being legal. The phrase "pro-choice" refers to a point of law.

and what about all the people within the unbrella of pro-choice are we not allowed to look at information from within that umbrella? it's sad to think that would be true, but as this issue is so polarizing i se for most people it is true.

i am interested in discovering information. i am not talking about LAW. the law should never change, IMHO, as if you allow one limitation then you open the pandoras box of control of reproductive rights and edge closer to a world of Atwood Handmaidens. (and the recent case of the women who refused a C-sectionbecause she didnt want a scar despite the clear evidence that one of her her babies would die if a C-section was not done.. and in fact that baby did die http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/19/colb.csection/ challenged this for me, but i still believe in pro-choice stance)

This is why the LAW isn't an issue for me, but shouldn't we discuss the nuance within the law, and be able to educate ourselves and all women out there?


----------



## CharlieBrown

i am ap and pro-choice, but it is my private views.


----------



## Aura_Kitten

... if they're your private views... why did you post here?










:: snicker ::

~ klothos, feeling a little cheeky tonight.


----------



## TiredX2

Klothos---

See title of this thread for explanation:
http://www.mothering.com/discussions...d.php?t=161706

:LOL I'm assuming sdgirl just doesn't want to impose her personal beliefs on others (thats what she is meaning by private).

What kinda cheeks were you referring to?







or
















Kay


----------



## Aura_Kitten

:LOL


----------



## TiredX2

:








Remember this is a family site :LOL


----------



## CharlieBrown

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TiredX2*







:








Remember this is a family site :LOL

I needed a good chuckle. Thanks.


----------



## CharlieBrown

klothos said:


> ... if they're your private views... why did you post here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maybe i should say personal, not private. and yes, i don't try to push my beliefs on others but i can post and let you know where i stand. the thread asked a question and i answered it. period.
> 
> thanks


----------



## Aura_Kitten

... but the OP asked...

_Just wondering if anyone who is pro-choice could explain how they feel it fits with the Ap style of putting kids first._


----------



## CharlieBrown

Quote:


Originally Posted by *klothos*
... but the OP asked...

[/I]

What does OP stand for?

Thanks


----------



## aussiemum

Original post. Or original poster.


----------



## a~...Mamacitaa~...

my question is that why do women have abortions when most states have a surrender safely laws. I think the problem is that these laws are not known to everybody. Also i belive in a womens right to her own body.


----------



## hunnybumm

Sorry I haven't ready the rest of the threads, but it is way too long and it is too late.

I consider myself to be pretty AP but I am pro-choice. I believe it is a womans right to choose, but I think abortion without a very good reason is wrong. Good reasons in my mind are: rape, incest, the mother will die from carring the baby to term, the baby will die reguardless, the mother's life is in jeopardy and the baby has no chance of survival. However, I personally don't think I could have an abortion unless my baby would have no chance of survival AND my life was in jeopardy, just a personal choice for me.

Also, I don't want the government to have any more control over me, my body and my choices then they already do. I also think that a woman should have the choice to have an abortion eventhough I find in most cases it is wrong.


----------



## TiredX2

Quote:

my question is that why do women have abortions when most states have a surrender safely laws.
I can't believe that any mother would discount the life-changing ability of pregnany enough to completely discount it from consideration.


----------



## a~...Mamacitaa~...

i agree with hunnyBumm, the government already meddles too much.


----------



## Calm

Howz this one for twisted...

I am pro-life, not pro-choice, but I don't think it should be made illegal. And I am an AP mama to the extreme. To qualify - I don't think a mama should consider taking the life of the unborn, I seriously don't think that choice is hers to make. The choice should be made BEFORE she becomes pregnant. Rape is different, that choice was then taken from her. However, the baby had nothing to do with the event. My friend had a baby after rape. It is the body's decision whether or not to miscarry, not the mother's. Soooooo, I don't like that we can have this choice, as I know too many women who use it as contraception. But the choice I am referring to is the MENTAL choice, not the legal choice. I stand firm that it should be kept legal, as it is none of the government's business.

Try that one on for size.


----------



## Calm

That was confusing. In a nutshell, I am pro-choice aswell, I just think it is a shame that we consider it a choice.


----------



## iris0110

This is a really hard issue for me in many ways. I have found that many people assume that you should be pro-life/pro-choice because you are such and such. If you are ap you must be pro-choice, if you are pagan you must be pro-choice (the ancient midwives knew how to bring about an early miscarriage using herbs) if you are a SAHM you must be pro-life, and the biggest one I have heard lately is that because my daughter was stillborn and I mourn her loss I must be pro-life. None of these things are true. I am pro-choice because I believe that a woman should be able to decide for herself when she is ready to be a mother. Just because I loved my daughter deeply and mourned her loss the same as I would have if she had been an infant doesn't mean that I think all women want to have babies and in a different situation I might have made that choice too. I see all of the children in America whose mothers gave birth to them because some one convinced them that abortion was wrong. The mothers are miserable and the children are miserable. I don't see how this helps anyone. But I don't want to argue about this from that standpoint. The fact is that I may or may not be an ap mother. I do the things that I do because I believe they are best for my children and my planet and myself. If it would not be good for myself, my children or my planet for me to have another child, then I wouldn't have another child. I think in the long run the main reason I am pro-choice is because I don't see how it is in anyone's best interest to bring an unwanted child into the world. I have heard the adoption argument, but there are just so many children sitting in orphanages and in foster care that no one wants so I don't buy it. The fact is that as a woman I feel I should have more rights than a theoretical child, because if I have learned nothing else from losing my daughter, I have learned that until a baby is born alive, there are no gaurantees that it will be.


----------



## Sustainer

Excellent post.


----------



## girlndocs

Hey Calm --

Thing is, it's _always_ been a choice. For thousands of years women have aborted unwanted pregnancies by various means. There's really no stopping it (although, of course, making the appropriate changes to our society would make it less common).

I think a lot of people have this idea that abortion suddenly got all popular after the evil evil feminists pushed through Roe vs. Wade, yanno? But if you look at history in every culture, even the ones where the men condemned abortion, their women were secretly doing it.

Anyway ... hey, I might have got here late, but I got here!







I really enjoyed reading all the passionate, intelligent pro-choice mamas!


----------



## Calm

Good point, Kristin. I often (especially recently with these threads happening) think about the historical aspect. It even makes me question "natural" - is abortion natural? Well, if you consider that choice is natural, then yes. Hmmm...mulling mulling mulling....


----------



## iris0110

Kristin: Thank you, that is just what I was thinking. Midwives have been helping women with their fertility for ages, and not just delivering babies. It's to bad that we so quickly forget history.


----------



## MyBabiesCome1st

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rainbow*
One can be pro-life and pro-choice. AP is about so many things, including respect for the individual. I respect that a woman has the right to choose how her body is used. The baby can not live without her body feeding it. The baby is not viable in and of themselves. Not even modern medicine can help the baby thrive- and when they try in the later months one can assume it is much more painful and much more invasive than the abortion itself if they were to spend a day in NICU.

Also, lets remember that abortion is abortion. Legally speaking there is NO seperating when it is ok and when it isn't. Either it is legal or it is not. I'm pro-choice because I vote legal. I think the pro-life movement should be called the anti-choice movement because it is a legal standing that supports the end of that choice. pro-choice doesn't mean pro-abortion.

You know, really- I'm unsure why people ask. I've NEVER seen anyone change their position on abortion. Maybe it happens though, I don't know...

Although it did not happen on this board, i have changed my opinion. I used to consider myself "Pro-life" but after debating this topic frequently (in the past on other boards) I began to see the issue like you say. I vote to give the choice.

Just wanted to let you know, though probably infrequent, people sometimes do change their minds...so please don't give up on speaking out Mama. Moms like me appreciate it!


----------



## Aura_Kitten

although i stopped posting on this thread awhile back, i have still been following it...

and i just wanted to put in that today, as i was singing my son to sleep at his bedtime, it occurred to me how thankful i am to have the right to choose when and how i have kids, and how many... and how thankful i am that ** I ** made the choice that i made. there was nobody telling me that i had to keep my son... and nobody telling me that i had to abort him. it was purely MY CHOICE...

and i feel like because i made the choice that i did, i love him more for it, and i am better able * psychologically * to deal with being his mommy.


----------



## lab

Quote:


Originally Posted by *klothos*
and i just wanted to put in that today, as i was singing my son to sleep at his bedtime, it occurred to me how thankful i am to have the right to choose when and how i have kids, and how many... and how thankful i am that ** I ** made the choice that i made. there was nobody telling me that i had to keep my son... and nobody telling me that i had to abort him. it was purely MY CHOICE...



Well said!


----------



## AugustLia23

I am an AP mamma and I consider myself pro-choice all the way. I don't believe I or anyone else has ther right to tell ANY woman what to do or not to do with HER body!

That being said, I could never see myself having an abortion under any circumstances...unless myself or my baby were in grave danger of not making it.

~Kailia


----------



## Primrose Burrows

Quote:


Originally Posted by *simonee*
an embryo or fetus is not a baby. that's why they're called embryo/fetus.


A toddler is not a teenager, either. I have no problem calling a fetus a fetus, but I do have a problem not calling a fetus a human. DNA-wise, there's no difference between a fetus and an 80-year-old.

I think the problem with both movements (of which I am a member of neither) is that their rhetoric quite often does not make sense, and neither side will look past the rhetoric and actually see that the other side might have a point.

In my opinion there'd be a lot fewer abortions if the pro-choice movement and the prolife movement would get off their respective soapboxes and actually DO something to help women, especially the ones who really want to continue their pregnancies and can't because there are no resources available to them. Plenty of access to free abortions, but no access to free prenatal care, nappies, or daycare.

Kelly


----------



## CookieMonsterMommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Primrose Burrows*
I have no problem calling a fetus a fetus, but I do have a problem not calling a fetus a human. DNA-wise, there's no difference between a fetus and an 80-year-old.

Kelly, Is there anyone here who is debating that a fetus has the same genetic make-up as an 80 y/o??

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Primrose Burrows*
I think the problem with both movements (of which I am a member of neither) is that their rhetoric quite often does not make sense, and neither side will look past the rhetoric and actually see that the other side might have a point.

Sorry, but I won't listen to anyone's "point" about taking rights away from myself, my mother, my sister, my potential daughters and about 50% of the rest of the population. (whether or not you ever exercise that right is your CHOICE. This is where my issue lies, not in the validity of why or why not abortion is "wrong")

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Primrose Burrows*
Plenty of access to free abortions, but no access to free prenatal care, nappies, or daycare.

I agree about the daycare (don't know what a nappie is BTW).....BUT where are you getting this information about plenty of free abortions but no free prenatal care?? In MANY states, Medicaid does not pay for abortions. In ALL states, Medicaid does pay for prenatal care (or they may have another prenatal program for low income women).

Not to mention....MANY women do not wish to complete their pregnancy for reasons OTHER than not having day care, etc. Many are in school, many are in abusive relationships which they may not be ready to leave, many just don't want a child right now, many have health issues (not necessarily life threatening), many are in a transitional period (moving, about to get married, just starting college or new career, ect) and are not ready to remain pregnant. Are these "good" enough reasons? Yes-because that is what THE WOMAN has decided, and I repect her and trust her enough to make her own decisions.

Best Wishes,
Kelly


----------



## CookieMonsterMommy

A fetus is a human being.

An embryo or a zygote, while made up of human material is not a "human being" yet--it does not have the necessary functioning systems or brain functions.

I am prepared to be flamed, and that's fine with me. I said what I said as a student nurse, as a childbirth educator/doula/future midwife, as a woman, and as a mother of one living child and one miscarried embryo (who was mourned because she was wanted and hoped for and dreamed about. Romantically and Spiritually, yes I lost my baby. But as far as science and medicine and facts go, what passed out of me was by no means a "baby").

Kelly


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CookieMonsterMommy*
Kelly, Is there anyone here who is debating that a fetus has the same genetic make-up as an 80 y/o??

where are you getting this information about plenty of free abortions but no free prenatal care?? In MANY states, Medicaid does not pay for abortions. In ALL states, Medicaid does pay for prenatal care (or they may have another prenatal program for low income women).

I was about to post these exact same things. How are DNA comparisons relevent? And where is there plenty of access to free abortions? Certainly not here.


----------



## Calm

A "nappy" is a diaper, a term used in Britain and Australia - I believe originating from "napkin"? (I am an Aussie)

Warning - about to get metaphysical.

"Mind" cannot be found. We know where the brain is - in the head. The brain is the mainframe/motherboard of the body - serving to connect and serve feedback loops via electro/chemical/neuronal impulses. There is speculation that the "mind" - where we "think" - is in the brain. There is no evidence of this. I believe the mind is in the individual cell - every individual cell. My evidence is that when the sperm and egg meet, they think. They manage to divide (much like a whole person ie reproduction) and form tissue, organs, organism.

The mind is the only thing that make us an individual - it is where we produce thought, and all personality traits including memory (which can be stored in the "brain"). With this belief, therefore I also believe that the moment the two DNA holders (egg/sperm) meet and form one "cell", there is "mind" - therefore "person". It looks like a bunch of cells, then much like a prawn, then somewhat like a monkey and then like a human.

Why does what it looks like have any bearing on how human it is? How can one say DNA means nothing? The only way to clone a human is via DNA - nothing else clones. If someone says to me DNA means nothing and cells mean nothing - they do not understand DNA nor cells.

PS - I am pro-choice.


----------



## philomom

Here is a woman who is AP and pro-choice.

Abortion should be rare but legal.

Think of the daughters and granddaughters who might be affected by the outlawing of abortion.

It is not something I have ever done, but would under certain mitigating circumstances. (rape, severe birth defects)


----------



## CookieMonsterMommy

Again, I set myself up for a cook flaiming. And again, this is okay with me.









Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm*

I believe the mind is in the individual cell - every individual cell. My evidence is that when the sperm and egg meet, they think. They manage to divide (much like a whole person ie reproduction) and form tissue, organs, organism.

In this definition (which I do respect, btw), a plant has a mind and it would be wrong to cut flowers, or eat a carrot for that matter. (I'm not compairing an embryo to a carrot). Of course there is the nucleus in each individual cell which tells that cell when/if to divide/reproduce, excrete waste, morph, etc....

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm*
Why does what it looks like have any bearing on how human it is?

If you are refering to what I posted, I NEVER said that ANYTHING is based on the looks of the embryo/fetus/whatever. I am talking about stages and phases of development. How it looks, really, is inconsequential. There are many cultures who feel that a fetus does not have a soul until it takes it's 1st breath. Other cultures think it has a soul when sperm and egg meet. I'm not sure, really, where I stand on that-somewhere in the middle I suppose....

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm*
How can one say DNA means nothing? The only way to clone a human is via DNA - nothing else clones. If someone says to me DNA means nothing and cells mean nothing - they do not understand DNA nor cells.

I'm not saying DNA means nothing. I'm saying that in EARLY stages, to me, DNA really means little. It says that it is made of human material. The mole on my back contains plenty of human DNA, as does my hair. (Again, not compairing an embryo to a mole, per se, just illustrating a point about how I feel DNA fits in. Obviously a mole will never grow into a human if left alone, I realize that.) And to assume 1st that I think DNA means nothing was wrong, but to draw upon that to come to the conclusion that I do not understand DNA or cells is insulting. I am months away from graduating a private university with a bachelors in science (with a 3.7 GPA if that matters). If someone says to me that I do not understand DNA or cells-they do not understand (or know) me.

Again, I say this as a woman who had (and grieved) a miscarriage.

Hope this clarifies without making me seem like a monster.


----------



## Sustainer

The "how can dna mean nothing" comment may have been directed at me.

I didn't say that it means nothing, either -- just that I don't think it's relevent to the point of discussion being addressed.


----------



## Calm

I don't flame







so no worries there.

I wonder about plants too, also some studies I did regarding plants show that they can actually think, which puts an interesting spin on eating animals/plants on the whole. But this is research in progress for me.

"I'm saying that in EARLY stages, to me, DNA really means little."

At what stage would DNA mean more than little?
For it does not change.

And true about the relevence to the discussion, it is irrelevent to me to be honest, however, how relevent it is to us is inconsequential if it happens to be relevent to another - which I noticed in a post it is.

And my ponderance upon the looks of a fetus/embryo are because that is the only thing that differs in its development. We can but speculate on the arrival of "soul" or "mind", but one thing that is not speculation is whether it is human or not - including "having human material". So, what else is it that makes it differ if it is not simply the way it appears? Maybe that it hasn't completed its development, ie, cannot breathe on its own, etc. Just wondering, is all.

PS - You don't seem a monster, Kelly. You are allowed your POV, and it is a shame that you have to write a clause such as that in a post so people don't get offended. What is strange, is that we are batting for the same team, so I may switch to basketball until I find reason to play baseball again. LOL! I am with you - and Alice - and no offense was intended.

Blessings.


----------



## Primrose Burrows

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CookieMonsterMommy*
Kelly, Is there anyone here who is debating that a fetus has the same genetic make-up as an 80 y/o??

Maybe not. I was just responding to the poster who said that an embryo/fetus is not a baby. An embryo is not a fetus, for that matter. Mentioning different stages of development, IMO, is scientifically irrelevant.

Quote:

Sorry, but I won't listen to anyone's "point" about taking rights away from myself, my mother, my sister, my potential daughters and about 50% of the rest of the population.
That's not all they're saying, the same way the pro-choice movement isn't saying You Must Have An Abortion At All Times. Nobody's listening to each other, so how can they tell what each other is saying?

Quote:

I agree about the daycare (don't know what a nappie is BTW).
A nappie is a diaper.

Quote:

....BUT where are you getting this information about plenty of free abortions but no free prenatal care?? In MANY states, Medicaid does not pay for abortions. In ALL states, Medicaid does pay for prenatal care (or they may have another prenatal program for low income women).
.

That's true, if you're eligible for Medicaid. Some women aren't, but are still too financially handicapped to have a baby on their own. The middle classes fall through the cracks in the system _way_ too much.

Quote:

Not to mention....MANY women do not wish to complete their pregnancy for reasons OTHER than not having day care, etc. Many are in school, many are in abusive relationships which they may not be ready to leave, many just don't want a child right now, many have health issues (not necessarily life threatening), many are in a transitional period (moving, about to get married, just starting college or new career, ect) and are not ready to remain pregnant.
I'm not advocating a repeal of abortion laws. What I'm saying is that there's a difference between wanting to end a pregnancy because giving birth may end your life and wanting to end a pregnancy because, gee, I might have to take a semester off.

Pregnancy takes but nine months, and adoption IS an option. I don't think abortion laws should be repealed--I just think the pro-choice movement should help women do more than have easy access to abortions they might not even want.

Kelly


----------



## willowsmom

I'm an AP mom and I'm Pro-choice. Being a mother, to me, has nothing to do with being pro choice. I don't think the government should tell women what to do with their bodies. Whether it be abortion, birth control, whether or not to have a c-section or natural childbirth, home birth etc... Period.

And I'm sure as hell not going to judge another person for a personal choice that she or he makes. I do things that other people judge me for (Extended breastfeeding, co sleeping, babywearing, cloth diapering) and it's none of their business. Neither is this.

Good question.


----------



## Calm

Quote:

A nappie is a diaper.
I guess not all posts are read before posting, ie:

Quote:

Nobody's listening to each other, so how can they tell what each other is saying?


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Primrose Burrows*
I was just responding to the poster who said that an embryo/fetus is not a baby. An embryo is not a fetus, for that matter. Mentioning different stages of development, IMO, is scientifically irrelevant.

The fact that abortion is not baby-killing is important, I think.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Primrose Burrows*
That's not all they're saying, the same way the pro-choice movement isn't saying You Must Have An Abortion At All Times. Nobody's listening to each other, so how can they tell what each other is saying?

I listen to people who are not pro-choice. I know what they are saying. I listen, I understand, and I respond. If someone has an ethical problem with abortion and claims she would never have an abortion herself, I respect that. But if someone tries to tell me that I shouldn't have the right to make that choice for myself, I have a huge problem with that.

Quote:

What I'm saying is that there's a difference between wanting to end a pregnancy because giving birth may end your life and wanting to end a pregnancy because, gee, I might have to take a semester off.
Um, having a baby means more than having to take a semester off. People don't have abortions because gee they might have to take a semester off.

Quote:

Pregnancy takes but nine months, and adoption IS an option.
Um, there's more involved than time. Having a baby is a major, life-altering (sometimes life-threatening) event and a truly profound experience. We are not just incubators. Emotionally, I could never give up a baby. My only options would be raising the baby or abortion. There is also the issue of over-population to consider.

Quote:

I just think the pro-choice movement should help women do more than have easy access to abortions they might not even want.
The pro-choice movement does not support abortions for women who do not want them.


----------



## boston

I don't see how a Natural Family Liver could be opposed to choice. Choice is ...choice. It doesnt = death. It could be a choice to live, too. I am pro-life & pro-choice.

What really bugs me is how anyone could care so much to cloth diaper, breast feed for 2, 3, 10 years, and wear all their children in little pouches 24/7 and yet STILL support Bush & his war. A war = hundreds of thousands of already born people (at least half are children) are going to die a painful, tragic death.

I say, stop worrying so much about choice and focus on the MASS MURDER that is war. Help make this country better for women and children if you care so much what other people do with their bodies.


----------



## Calm

Good post, Alice. I did want to point something out though -

Quote:

Um, having a baby means more than having to take a semester off. People don't have abortions because gee they might have to take a semester off.
Some women do actually think that way. Horrific, but true. A girl once told me she wanted to get pregnant once she finished study, but since she got pregnant just a little too early, she terminated.

Quote:

Emotionally, I could never give up a baby
That is what abortion is. Once we hold the baby we see how real it is, but until that point, it is the _great debatable "unseen"_ factor. Giving up the baby once we see it as the precious life it is of course is _much_ harder. We would rather kill it than go through that.

Calm - still fighting to keep it legal, and still fighting for the rights of the ones who can't fight it for themselves.


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm*
A girl once told me she wanted to get pregnant once she finished study, but since she got pregnant just a little too early, she terminated.

That is a very rare exception. Practically all abortions are performed because the woman is not physically, emotionally and/or financially prepared to have a baby. However, I still support the right of the person you mention to control her own reproduction, even though I would not make the same choice myself.

Quote:

That is what abortion is.
No, an abortion is giving up a potential baby, just as using contraception is giving up a potential baby, but it is not giving up an actual baby.


----------



## Calm

I shall leave the reference of contraception and abortion as being alike to speak for itself.


----------



## Sustainer

I did not say that they are the same thing, nor did I draw any connection between them other than that they both deal with something that has the potential to become a baby.


----------



## Calm

Ok. I like your point of view, anyway.

This is really hard for me as I have noticed that I am the only one who is pro-choice who is also fighting for the rights of the unborn. If I had some back up, I may be able to continue, but I have none as I am with pro-choice people, but I don't think like them in the most part. I will always believe _the unborn is a person, a human being with the same rights as me and a newborn_ - completely the same.

I don't need to *distinguish* the difference between the unborn and a newborn to stay my case for pro-choice. If one pro-choice person also thought that the life of the baby was EQUAL to the mother or a newborn, then I would have an ally. Do I need an ally? Maybe not. But how can I fight for both sides and not go crackers?

Why does pro-choice mean you have to believe the unborn is just *potential*, or that its life *lay at the mercy of the mother*, or that it should *be able to sustain its own life* to be considered a life, or that it *begins at implantation*, or it is *not human*, but simply a *fetus/embryo* - why must it be the same points? Why must pro-choice always be about diminishing the life of the unborn? Does anyone pro-choice believe what I do? Anyone?

Sustainer - no offense given nor taken.







I am out of this for now, I feel way too alone.


----------



## Sustainer

No offense taken. While I do see the fetus as a potential baby/person rather than a full-fledged baby/person, the fact that I am pro-choice is not based on that. I am pro-choice because nothing/nobody has the right to live inside of someone else's body. It is a privilege, which must be granted by the host, not a right.


----------



## Primrose Burrows

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sustainer*
Um, having a baby means more than having to take a semester off. People don't have abortions because gee they might have to take a semester off.

Actually, they do. I've seen it done for less.

Quote:

The pro-choice movement does not support abortions for women who do not want them.
No, they don't. But IMO (and it's just IMO), they don't stand up for women who want to have their babies and feel they can't because of finances, family issues, etc., and (again IMO) there's not enough stress on the option of adoption.

Kelly


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Primrose Burrows*
Actually, they do. I've seen it done for less.

I don't think you can really know what is going through their minds and what all of their real reasons are. It's not really anyone's business, anyway.

Quote:

But IMO (and it's just IMO), they don't stand up for women who want to have their babies and feel they can't because of finances, family issues, etc.,
I think we do that just as much as anyone.

Quote:

there's not enough stress on the option of adoption.
I'm not going to encourage a woman to have a baby and give it away. I don't think it's fair to the child. (OR to the mother.) I personally think that the responsible thing to do is either raise the child yourself or terminate the pregnancy. I also think it's emotionally healthier for the mother, in general.


----------



## Deirdre

Hi Calm, since you got metaphysical can I do it too?









It really is the only way I can explain why I am pro-choice and how I view terminating pregnancies. It is my belief that the Universe, God, the One, the Alpha and the Omega (or whatever one chooses to call it) is made up of many souls. These souls act individually and yet they are all part of the ONE - we are all connected to one another and there is no separation between us or God. We are God.

I also believe that at any given point in time an individual soul will choose to take on human form in order to learn something, to try something, to be something -- to help that soul on its path to becoming the grandest version of the greatest vision it ever had about what that soul truly is - to move that soul ever closer to it's truest essence (pure love)at which time it will have nothing more to learn or discover and will return to the ONE. And so each soul makes many journeys here to the physical world and chooses to leave it when the lesson for that journey is complete.

When a woman becomes pregnant and chooses to terminate a pregnancy I believe two equally important things are happening - one soul is choosing to take on a particular human form while at the same time the soul of the mother is making a choice to not allow that soul to do that. Now this is difficult because you essentially have the clash of the desires of two different souls. And while I am not crazy about the idea of one soul impeding or blocking the desires of another soul, I believe that it must somehow be essential to the growth of the mother's soul to make that choice. I also believe that the soul that no longer has this human form to continue in will simply choose to become another human form or perhaps even wait until that mother chooses to get pregnant again and not terminate. In other words, it is my spiritual understanding that you can't kill a soul, ever. And so, similar to when a mother miscarries her baby, I believe that soul will simply choose to take on another human form --- perhaps even the future pregnancy of that same mother.

This is what I believe...I hope it makes sense


----------



## Calm

Still reading, just coming in to clap.

clap clap clap

(sorry, can't be bothered with my slow butt computer opening new windows at the mo.)

I agree, and it is this and purely this that I think is the positive in it all.


----------



## sohj

T

E=mC^2

Some might get this.

This "life" part of the debate is a red herring. Life is not a finite quantity. Energy and matter shift all the time, and there is a finite amount of the TOTAL of matter and energy available.

Another pro-choice mother here. And I can guarantee you that if I became pregnant again, I would most definately have an abortion. And, no, carrying to term and giving up for adoption is NOT an option. End of story.


----------



## Calm

Don't forget to take ya pill then.


----------



## sohj

Calm:

You _are_ aware, aren't you, that some women do take their pill and getting pregnant anyhow? Some people have a harder time finding the right hormonal mix for "the pill".
I know two women who have gotten pregnant while on the pill. One got pregnant three different times, on three different contraceptive pill formulas.










Just thought that comment was a little too flip and assumes an awful lot.








: It also isn't actually an answer to what I wrote. I _said_ IF I got pregnant. It does NOT say, If I have unprotected sex at the wrong time and get pregnant.

And besides, for me, the diaphram works just fine.


----------



## Calm

Just a little joke, really, but now I can see it seemed flippant. In high school, my friend was on the pill, and used a condom. The condom broke, and as she was drunk, she threw up her pill. Bingo, pregnant. So, yeah, I have an idea of the risks we take. I use the diaphram myself, only I am probably taking a risk there as I never had it resized after bub. Must get on to that.


----------



## Aura_Kitten

you know, on the subject of birth control ~ we use natural family planning. and i realized how thankful i am that it's my CHOICE to use whatever birth control i feel comfortable with, and whatever is right for ME and MY BODY and MY FAMILY... hormonal birth controls make me sick and aggravate my endometriosis. barrier protection decreases sensation and irritates my skin. some of the materials they are made out of make me break out in a rash on the most sensitive part of my body. and they *all* smell gross. so that leaves abstinence, or tuning into my body and learning my own rhythms. i'm thankful that i don't have anyone telling me what method i have to use, or that i have to use anything. i CHOOSE to use natural family planning, and like anything else, yes, it could fail, and i CHOOSE to take the risk of ending up with another child.

because, frankly, i love sex, i love being pregnant, and i love having babies, and i love raising kids! i love being a mother. if i got pregnant, we'd struggle through it and i'd keep the child. i can't imagine any other way, for MYSELF. but i don't feel i have the right to make that decision for anyone else, because i know there have been times in my life when i honestly would not have been able ~ mentally, physically, emotionally, or economically ~ to go through with a pregnancy.

i hope that someday our world will be able to eliminate the NEED and DESIRE for abortion. i hope someday all women everywhere will be fully empowered and educated. until then, we need to keep abortion SAFE and LEGAL.


----------



## Primrose Burrows

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sustainer*
I'm not going to encourage a woman to have a baby and give it away. I don't think it's fair to the child. (OR to the mother.) I personally think that the responsible thing to do is either raise the child yourself or terminate the pregnancy. I also think it's emotionally healthier for the mother, in general.


Wow.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I don't understand the logic of how ending a pregnancy is healthier emotionally than giving birth and helping another couple (or single) make a family. I'm not saying adoption isn't emotionally draining or an incredibly hard decision, but I can't see how it's _better_ than abortion.

If everyone thought along this train of logic, the number of adoptions would be severely limited, and there would be millions of childess women who'd be deprived of having a baby of their own. I don't mean disrespect, and you're as entitled to your opinion as I am. I just don't follow.

Kelly


----------



## boston

I think that some people feel like it's emotionally healthier for them to end a pregnancy and others feel its emotionally healthier to put a baby up for adoption. And that's okay. We have different feelings about it. Reasonable people are on both sides of this issue.

Personally, I could never give up a baby of mine for adoption. That would ruin my life. Abortion goes against my beliefs. For this reason I expect that if I ever get mistakenly pregnant, I am going to have another baby. Guess what? I am very careful.

However I think that having an abortion wouldnt destroy my life quite to the degree that being forced to give up a baby would. It's just not the same thing. One is an actual child brought to term and born alive. Another is a fetus, a potential child. Abortions are not done on babies, they're done on very early fetuses that would never survive and have not developed into children yet.

I still think abortion = killing. It is life, after all. And it has the potential to be a child, so it is morally wrong to do it, in my very humble opinion. However, I think it is wrong to expet women to suffer (for the rest of their lives) the pain of being separated from their children.

If someone is comfortable adopting, that is wonderful. Wonderful! I hope to adopt someday, if I can find a way to do it that I am certain is not an exploitation of the birth mom. (this is why I am very wary of international adoptions!) But it is not fair to tell someone they ought to have a baby and give it away.
That is a highly personal choice, and one that even I, opposed to abortion, can understand as being equal in bad vibes to abortion, for some people.


----------



## lotusdebi

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Primrose Burrows*
You're entitled to your opinion, but I don't understand the logic of how ending a pregnancy is healthier emotionally than giving birth and helping another couple (or single) make a family. I'm not saying adoption isn't emotionally draining or an incredibly hard decision, but I can't see how it's _better_ than abortion.

If everyone thought along this train of logic, the number of adoptions would be severely limited, and there would be millions of childess women who'd be deprived of having a baby of their own. I don't mean disrespect, and you're as entitled to your opinion as I am. I just don't follow.

Kelly

I agree with Sustainer. I know that I would never be able to give a child up for adoption after going through 9 months of pregnancy. I could handle having an abortion. I couldn't handle giving a child up for adoption. That would destroy me.

What really bothers me about this post, though, is the idea that anyone else is entitled to my child. I am not an incubator for someone else! For those women who are unable to have children, there are many options - including adopting or fostering older children (of which there is no shortage). If I become pregnant and don't want a child, it is NOT my responsibility to continue my pregnancy and give my child to some poor childless woman. It is my responsibility to do what's best for me in that situation. That may mean termination. And that is my RIGHT. I am not depriving ANYONE ELSE of having a child if I terminate.
Again, I AM NOT AN INCUBATOR! Don't treat me as though I owe anyone a child. I don't.


----------



## Jennifer3141

I don't understand how you could be AP and NOT be pro-choice.

Jen


----------



## boston

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lotusdebi*
What really bothers me about this post, though, is the idea that anyone else is entitled to my child. I am not an incubator for someone else! For those women who are unable to have children, there are many options - including adopting or fostering older children (of which there is no shortage). If I become pregnant and don't want a child, it is NOT my responsibility to continue my pregnancy and give my child to some poor childless woman. It is my responsibility to do what's best for me in that situation. That may mean termination. And that is my RIGHT.









hear, hear!

As women, we do not have the RIGHT to have children. If we are barren, other women do not OWE us babies.

OT rant: The baby market really disturbs me, to be honest. I would be psyched to get a pre-made baby, personally, because I do not ever want to go through that HELL that is pregnancy/childbirth ever, EVER again, plus, I don't want to help populate an over populated world. At the same time, I don't want to support an industry that reduces 3rd world women to brood mares for the benefit of rich 1st world women. What would be really nice is maybe helping poor women raise their own children. Wouldnt that be more fair? Oh well...


----------



## Sitara

adoption!! why is that not an option for the mother? they can give their baby up for adoption. is that too hard? maybe it is. it's easier to abort the baby without seeing it because ofcourse giving birth and giving the baby up would be too hard on the mom.. what about the baby? don't babies have rights?
you said yourself "she aborted her babies" so you DO believe they are babies![/QUOTE]

have you ever considered what it feels like to grow up being told how "greatful" you should be because you werent aborted....instead you were "given up for adoption" and you're supposed to be happy about that? Happy about being aborted from your heritage, your identity, your natural family?? Happy that you're separated from your mother, happy to not know if you have any siblings or even what race you are? happy to wonder if every women walking down the street...could be her? happy that your name was changed because your new parents didn't like your old one, happy that your birth certificate was sealed by the govt. and you were issued a new fake one that says your adoptive parents are your parents of live birth?

its not a right to have a child, but I do believe it is a right to chose what you want with your own body.

IMO abortion and adoption need to be kept entirely separate. They do not go together.


----------



## Sitara

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boston*
: What would be really nice is maybe helping poor women raise their own children. Wouldnt that be more fair? Oh well...


not only would that be fair, that would be humane! That would be the correct thing to do for the child and the mother. Separation is not necessary just because of poverty, if all of these adoptive parents out there truly cared for whats best for the children, wouldn't they be working hard to keep the mothers and children together? why not adopt the mothers and help them raise their new grandchildren?

sorry off on a rant.....kinda off topic too...my apologies


----------



## boston

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sitara*
why not adopt the mothers and help them raise their new grandchildren?

sorry off on a rant.....kinda off topic too...my apologies

Exactly. I dream of setting up a nonprofit that does just this. Instead of raising 20K to buy a baby from Haiti, why not raise 20K to help a poor Haitian momma raise her child?


----------



## EFmom

Somewhat OT:

While I completely agree that adoption is not the flip side to abortion, please realize that some of the comments made here are offensive to parents who have adopted children.

Quote:

Instead of raising 20K to buy a baby from Haiti, why not raise 20K to help a poor Haitian momma raise her child?
Children adopted internationally are not "bought." That is highly offensive and totally ignorant. If you really want to know why adoption costs a considerable sum of money, either do a little research or pm me and I'll be glad to explain.

If people want to donate money to organizations that help the poor in other countries, that's a wonderful thing. But it is not the responsibility of the infertile (unless the wish to do so).


----------



## sagira

Before having a baby, I was pro-life for myself, pro-choice for other women. Now that I lost my father and am a mother and understand how complex this issue is and how precious our babies are (and human life in general), I'm pro-life.

Only when a woman was raped I think it's not her choice anymore.

For me the choice happens when the woman agrees to have sex. She should accept all the consequences and responsibility that come with that.

Cheers,


----------



## Calm

Quote:

For me the choice happens when the woman agrees to have sex. She should accept all the consequences and responsibility that come with that.
This is singly the best statement I have _ever_ read about this issue. Responsibility BEFORE the act - there is nothing more to add.


----------



## Sitara

EFmom said:


> Somewhat OT:
> 
> Children adopted internationally are not "bought." That is highly offensive and totally ignorant. If you really want to know why adoption costs a considerable sum of money, either do a little research or pm me and I'll be glad to explain.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> OFF TOPIC
> 
> exchange of money for a child no matter who it goes to is buying. Infact a couple countries this year have haulted adoption to the united states because of trafficing of children. Are you saying that you received a child from overseas for free? Lawyer fees, agency fees, paperwork, etc. all costs money, but essentially you're paying that money so you can get a child by adoption.
> 
> I have done alot of research on adoption.


----------



## boston

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EFmom*
Children adopted internationally are not "bought." That is highly offensive and totally ignorant. If you really want to know why adoption costs a considerable sum of money, either do a little research or pm me and I'll be glad to explain.

I have done research. Sorry you find it offensive, but I chose that word intentionally to highlight the problem. I see a disturbing trend. There is a huge market for children. Especially for 3rd world children in 1st world countries. And I've seen documentaries that exposed how women in the 3rd world are tricked into giving up their babies. They're told they aren't good enough and that their kids will have a better life in the states. So of course they give them up. Maybe they do have a better life. But it's manipulation and profiting off of human life that I find disturbing. Adoption agencies make a ton of money off of these deals. Look at China. I wonder where international adoption industry ranks in their economy. At 20K per pop it's a pretty sweet deal for them. And this is why I will not support such an industry.


----------



## meco

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pugmadmama*
I'm pro-life, I'm also pro-choice. I think individual women should have the right to choose continue their pregnancies or legal abortion.


ita









I am against it for myself and would never, ever consider it as an option.

But for others, I think it should be an option.


----------



## lotusdebi

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sagira*
For me the choice happens when the woman agrees to have sex. She should accept all the consequences and responsibility that come with that.

Would you have all mentally ill and mentally disabled women "fixed"?
Or would you force them to carry pregnancies to term, and then take their babies from them?

I suffer from rapid cycling bipolar disorder. As a part of that disease, I experience manic episodes. During those manic episodes, I have been known to be promiscuous. I don't have the necessary filters in place during those times. I don't have the ability to be responsible. Logic ceases to exist in my mind.
So, what if my birth control (if I'm even in the state of mind to use it) fails?
What if I'm not mentally stable enough to deal with a pregnancy or a child?

Do we use the mentally ill and mentally disabled as incubators so that infertile women can have their babies?

Or do we practice eugenics?


----------



## willowsmom

Ok...this is a bit off topic...and I'm sorry if this offends anyone..but I just have the need to voice an opinion. Why do we feel the need to say..."I would NEVER have an abortion...but for other women it's their choice." I'm guilty of this also. As women, who have struggled for years to have rights to our own bodies...why can't we just say that we support our fellow women in the choices that they make, period. This is of course directed to Pro Choicers. I realize that many Anti Choicers (and I'll get to why I call it that in a moment) don't support a woman's choice. Hence the name.

I said it in an earlier post...and yes...I'm a crazy liberal tree hugging "pinko"...The arguement on abortion IS and SHOULD BE whether or not we want the government making our bodily choices for us. The issues on this particular table do not begin and stop at abortion. They include a HUGE range of women's reproductive rights. The reason I (and many others) say Anti-Choice...is that the issue isn't about the morality of abortion or life...it's about a choice. And you're either for choices...or against them.

Personally...I don't want my FAMILY telling me what I can do with my body, much less the government.

All I'm saying is...if you think abortion is wrong morally...that's fine. I support your belief. But do you want your choices taken away? How about your mother's choices? Your daughter's?

Unfortunately...it will be a debate that is long standing and not likely to come to silence in our lifetime. Perhaps our children will decide once and for all.

Again, I apologize if I've offended anyone or stepped on any toes...we're all about stating our opinions...this one is just mine.


----------



## orangebird

I am SUPER late in this discussion, but the AP woman in me does not want the government having any say over what I do during my pregnancy (what tests I refuse, what I eat or drink or what herbs or drugs I take or don't take) or how I conduct myself during labor. I don't want them telling me where, when or how I birth my baby, it's as simple as that.


----------



## orangebird

Quote:

Would you have all mentally ill and mentally disabled women "fixed"?
Yes.


----------



## lotusdebi

Thank you, willowsmom. I appreciate all the pro-choicers here at MDC. But, what gets me the most about that statement (I would never have an abortion, but I believe others should have that choice) is that it's short-sighted. I don't believe in "nevers". You don't know what situation you might find yourself in that makes you consider an abortion. There have been a large number of women who thought they'd "never have an abortion," but found themselves in a position where it was the best - or only - choice for them. I really think it's important to keep in mind that life isn't perfect, stuff happens, and you don't know how you're going to deal with that stuff until you're in that situation. Theory and reality do not necessarily coincide.


----------



## loftmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *willowsmom*
The arguement on abortion IS and SHOULD BE whether or not we want the government making our bodily choices for us.











worth repeating: _And you're either for choices...[or] against them._


----------



## lotusdebi

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mara*
Yes.

Seriously?
You don't have an ethical problem with that?
You support eugenics?

Who else would you have "fixed"?

Why do you think that mentally ill and mentally disabled women shouldn't have the right to reproduce if they choose?

And how does your response in any way go along with what you posted before it?

Only certain women get to choose? You get to decide who those women are?

Should we also "fix" all poor women? All women of color? All women who won't raise their kids in a certain religion? All women who might carry a "defective" gene?

Do you only want "perfect" people in the world?


----------



## willowsmom

Thank you ladies







Yes...OR that's what I meant ...I fixed it ...darnit. lol <slapping hands for being insolent>


----------



## boston

Quote:


Originally Posted by *willowsmom*
Why do we feel the need to say..."I would NEVER have an abortion...but for other women it's their choice." ...why can't we just say that we support our fellow women in the choices that they make, period.

I say it because I am religiously opposed to abortion and when I talk about choice I want people to know that even though I am opposed to it, I STILL think women ought to have the right to choose for themselves. I say it to make sure that anti-choice people notice that not every pro choicer believes that abortion is alright. I marched in Washington DC for choice last spring because I think *not* having a choice is even *more* wrong than chosing the thing I disagree with. I do not think that my beliefs ought to be imposed on other people.

Furthermore, I understand that women all over the planet have been terminating unwanted pregnancies forever and they will continue to do so forever. It is only logical that we acknowlege that fact and focus on improving things, if we want things to change.


----------



## willowsmom

Boston-

In my experience...anti choicers don't care what pro choicers believe and don't believe any further than we believe in choice. What needs to be said is that Pro Choice does not necessarily mean Pro Abortion. But...apparently it all gets lost in translation.

I do have to say...that I think it's wonderful when women who are religiously opposed to abortion itself, have the wherewithall to differentiate between the act of abortion and the right for a woman to decide her choices for herself. For that...as a woman, I thank you.


----------



## Aura_Kitten

_What really bothers me about this post, though, is the idea that anyone else is entitled to my child. I am not an incubator for someone else!_

ITA ~ i was going to write this same thing.

one thing i haven't been seeing discussed a lot yet here, or maybe it was early on in the thread + i've forgotten, is the idea that we wouldn't even need abortion if women had a better place in the world. if women were fully EMPOWERED and on EQUAL footing with others, they would have the right and ability at all times to think through the act of intimacy (i.e., "responsibility before the act" as someone put it), they would have the freedom to feel safe, secure, and loved with their PARTNER (i use this term purposely: "One that is united or associated with another or others in an activity or a sphere of common interest"), and every child they bore would be LOVED and WANTED ~ BEFORE conception. they would have the right to concscious conception. they would also have the right to choose WHEN, WHERE, and HOW to give birth. because let's not limit this discussion to just abortion rights for a minute: a woman's reproductive rights also extend to her birth choices. do we really want doctors being able to force women to birth their babies in hospitals? how about forced c-sections? these are _already happening._

willowsmom said it perfectly: _The arguement on abortion IS and SHOULD BE whether or not we want the government making our bodily choices for us._

no. i don't.

and completely







T ~ someone said: _I do not ever want to go through that HELL that is pregnancy/childbirth ever, EVER again_ ... that makes me sad. even at their worst moments, i considered my pregnancies a gift, a precious little bit of unity with my smallest ones, to be treasured and appreciated. yes, pregnancy can be uncomfortable (for me, one was downright painful and debilitating at times) but nevertheless it is a beautiful, sacred time. i want more women to be able to so fully love and accept themselves and their babies to feel the same way about their own pregnancies. i want women to stop saying that pregnancy is hell, because that scares other women, and IMO it also degrades the experience and disempowers the mother.

/NAK


----------



## Aura_Kitten

here it is! _. It is only logical that we acknowlege that fact and focus on improving things, if we want things to change._


----------



## Sitara

Klothos


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mara*
Yes.

Yikes. Why stop there? Why not prevent stupid people, mean people, and Republicans from breeding, too?

It's possible that if I were fully evaluated by a psychiatrist, I would be diagnosed with a mental illness. So I'm glad you're not king.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Klothos*
that makes me sad. even at their worst moments, i considered my pregnancies a gift, a precious little bit of unity with my smallest ones, to be treasured and appreciated. yes, pregnancy can be uncomfortable (for me, one was downright painful and debilitating at times) but nevertheless it is a beautiful, sacred time. i want more women to be able to so fully love and accept themselves and their babies to feel the same way about their own pregnancies. i want women to stop saying that pregnancy is hell, because that scares other women, and IMO it also degrades the experience and disempowers the mother.

My pregnancies were not hell, but I do acknowledge that some women go through hell during their pregnancies. And for me, my second labor, birth, and post-partum (blood clot) were hell. Luckily, having my son in my arms was/is heaven, and makes it worth it.


----------



## meco

Quote:


Originally Posted by *willowsmom*
Ok...this is a bit off topic...and I'm sorry if this offends anyone..but I just have the need to voice an opinion. Why do we feel the need to say..."I would NEVER have an abortion...but for other women it's their choice." I'm guilty of this also. As women, who have struggled for years to have rights to our own bodies...why can't we just say that we support our fellow women in the choices that they make, period.

Not at all offended, but since I am one who agrees with that statement I want to respond







I reserve the right to voice my opinion. I want people to understand that you CAN be pro-choice but not BELIEVE in abortion. I _would_ never have an abortion....ever. I can say this with 100% absolute conviction--I am morally and ethically opposed to it FOR ME.

But of course, I believe there should be a choice. But it is NOT so cut and dry as pro/anti-abortion. Choice is the key. I am pro-life but also pro-choice. I think people need to know there are more than 2 options. Information is key.

My sister is deeply religious, and she is also deeply pro-life/anti-abortion. She did not realize that you can be personally against abortion but not for voiding the woman's right to choose what they do with their own bodies. For me, it is about showing the various avenues. Not always so black and white. There are some different paths here. (clichés abound :LOL)

Simple for me.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *willowsmom*
The arguement on abortion IS and SHOULD BE whether or not we want the government making our bodily choices for us.

ITA...I do not believe that right will ever be taken away, and we/they are fools if it is taken away (you can make it illegal, but we all KNOW it will NEVER stop). I really do not think people can take away this right and sleep at night---and least I hope not.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lotusdebi*
I don't believe in "nevers". You don't know what situation you might find yourself in that makes you consider an abortion. There have been a large number of women who thought they'd "never have an abortion," but found themselves in a position where it was the best - or only - choice for them. I really think it's important to keep in mind that life isn't perfect, stuff happens, and you don't know how you're going to deal with that stuff until you're in that situation. Theory and reality do not necessarily coincide.

I do believe in nevers. I know. Others may not, but I do not and will not waver in my position. I have ALREADY been in a position where some would waver and the thought NEVER crossed my mind. I simply do not believe in it in any situation (rape, incest, accidental, even my health, etc.). I do not interfere with nature in this instance. Whatever life has in store for me. I do not feel I am one to step in and alter it. I would never be given more than I can ultimately handle--and yes, I believe this. I am a strong minded and iron willed person, and I trust myself wholeheartedly.

Just like I do not believe in other things and would never practice them, I can say with the utmost conviction that this is one of those things.

Some people are not every person. People are different, and so are their reactions to situations. Fortunately for me, I would never be the "only" choice for me (with parents who are active foster parents with an adopted son--and hopefully 3 more daughters on the way!!!--and with a mother who has an adopted brother, father, grandfather and nephew--who almost was aborted, I have many other options some might have-familial support and determination on their part that I *never* have to do consider abortion an option)--and I know some are not this fortunate. But I am, and for that I am thankful.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boston*
I say it because I am religiously opposed to abortion and when I talk about choice I want people to know that even though I am opposed to it, I STILL think women ought to have the right to choose for themselves. I say it to make sure that anti-choice people notice that not every pro choicer believes that abortion is alright.....

Furthermore, I understand that women all over the planet have been terminating unwanted pregnancies forever and they will continue to do so forever. It is only logical that we acknowlege that fact and focus on improving things, if we want things to change.

I agree with Boston on this issue of course, and thought her words reiterated what I feel.


----------



## meco

Quote:


Originally Posted by *klothos*
willowsmom said it perfectly: _The arguement on abortion IS and SHOULD BE whether or not we want the government making our bodily choices for us._

no. i don't.

I do not either......but can I not be vocal about being against it personally? Sure it should be a choice, but I hope not the first one or the ONLY one for some people.

And while some people equate pro-choice with pro-abortion (would be great to retire that stereotype!), some people do not acknowledge the other options. There are so many layers to this issues, so very many.

Quote:

i want women to stop saying that pregnancy is hell, because that scares other women, and IMO it also degrades the experience and disempowers the mother.
Klothos, I agree with the beginning of quote, but if pregnancy is hell why not be honest? Just curious. I never even really thought about this?! I am not sure why, but not of this perspective--or any for that matter







: When I hear people who hate it, I think sure, that was their experience.







But then again we need to understand each and every person is different.


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:


Originally Posted by *meco*
I simply do not believe in it in any situation (rape, incest, accidental, even my health, etc.).

I hope you don't mind me asking you this, but what if you and the fetus were both certain to die if the pregnancy were carried to term, but an abortion would save your life?


----------



## Calm

You know the one thing that makes me think abortion of a healthy baby is ok? Those situations where a young girl is carrying the child of her own father. This one tears at me and I simply cannot fathom her being forced to deliver. I would face the burning fires of h--l, or terrible karma, or whatever one's religion dictates to help ease a pregnant child of such burden. If for no other reason, situations like this need terminations to remain available, safe and legal.

Ps, Alice - good question. (my answer was not related to it, just to save confusion).


----------



## Darrel

Question ........ It's wrong to circ a baby boy ? It's wrong to spank/beat a kid ... It's wrong to yell at a kid?

But it's not wrong to abort a baby?

I will never understand the reasoning behind such a barbaric act


----------



## Calm

I totally understand your thoughts, Darrel. I struggle with it too. It is definitely a loaded topic. I have come to realize that the difference in thoughts on this lay directly on how "real" or "human" a person considers an unborn baby to be. It is very easy to justify abortion when you don't see it as a baby. We don't give such "choices" to people if they intend on harming an already born person. End of story. So, therein lay the debate - no more, no less - do the unborn have as much right to defense as a criminal on death row?


----------



## boston

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Darrel*
It's wrong to circ a baby boy ? It's wrong to spank/beat a kid ... It's wrong to yell at a kid?

If you feel this way then you'll understand that it's wrong to take away the child's reproductive freedom.


----------



## RubyV

Quote:


Originally Posted by *klothos
and completely :OT ~ someone said: [I*
I do not ever want to go through that HELL that is pregnancy/childbirth ever, EVER again[/I] ... that makes me sad. even at their worst moments, i considered my pregnancies a gift, a precious little bit of unity with my smallest ones, to be treasured and appreciated. yes, pregnancy can be uncomfortable (for me, one was downright painful and debilitating at times) but nevertheless it is a beautiful, sacred time. i want more women to be able to so fully love and accept themselves and their babies to feel the same way about their own pregnancies. i want women to stop saying that pregnancy is hell, because that scares other women, and IMO it also degrades the experience and disempowers the mother.

/NAK

Both my pregnancies were pure, unadulterated hell. Nothing degrading about admiiting it. I think it's degrading and disempowering to insist that for all women, pregnancy is wonderful. IMO, it belittles her, and isolates her. I hated pregnancy. I hated vomiting multiple times a day, the multiple hospitalizations for dehydration, the 4 weeks of labor, the 4th degree epi that was needed to save my baby but has left me unable to enjoy sex beause of the horrible pain. When I said how sick I felt, how horrible it was, everyone was horrified that I was unhappy, because pregnancy is supposed to be a trancendental experience. Bullshit.

I'm not picking on you, but the idea tha women have to like pregnancy. I loved my baby, and appreciated being pregnant, so I am insulted by the idea that I feel otherwise because I HATE pregnancy.


----------



## lotusdebi

I'm another one who hated being pregnant. I'm not looking forward to going through that again. I was psychotic throughout most of my pregnancy. You can't imagine what that's like until you've been there. I love my son, but I'm not sure I could go through that hell again for another child. Labor and delivery were much, much easier than the rest of my pregnancy!


----------



## meco

What are my chances of survival? 50/50? Better odds? Nothing is a guarantee (of course nothing is an absolute, and while I still believe in never and it exists for each and every one of us--maybe instead of NEVER we say "The chances of me doing this are virtually nonexistent." Never is just more succinct and better explains my personal feelings.)

Of course I do not mind you asking. But the odds of that actually happening are slim. If I happen to one day be in that slim portion, well, I would have to cross the bridge when I came to it. But it could still fall into that virtually nonexistent category by all means.

I would exhaust EVERY option before I even consider it, and even then I am not sure I would. Seeing as how that diagnosis is not common--or is there something I do not know about?--I would not really be to concerned with that "what if." Not to mention, people defy odds all the time.

My grandfather, by all accounts, should have died in a fiery plan crash in the 40s. Instead, he somehow survived, stayed in the hospital for 5 years, was one of the first organ/live skin transplants (his Dr. later went on the win the Noble Prize in part for the work he did on my grandfather in pioneering organ transplantation). What if they left him for dead? Or Dr. Joseph Murrary did not give him a chance by doing new, innovative procedures on his body? He would not have gone on to have 13 kids, 17 grandkids and a great grandson. And organ transplantation might not be as advanced and commonplace today if he had not allowed those things to be tested on his body (not to mention, the free lunch program--since he was an abandoned child and poor, he instituted the first free lunch program in Alabama which he later shared with Lady Bird Johnson and then it became a national program under her husband). Would these things have happened if he someone had not tried to beat the odds? Sure, but would they have happened as that time or as quickly--we will never (there is a never for ya!) know. Well, in this case, I might just be willing to take my chances.

Maybe I die, but what if 1000s of other womens and babies are saved b/c of it? Or what if I survive some radical new procedure? And it saves other people's lives?

Maybe I was meant to go? It was my time. I am not afraid of death, as I know it is the cyclical nature of life and birth. And I certainly would not be said to die in the name of saving others if perchance I was willing to try a radical new procedure.

I could compare this to hundreds of other situations...try this new chemo or you will die, never have kids you could die, never....b/c you could die. If people were not willing to risk themselves or the chance of death, then we would not get to far. You have to take risk right?

What if a child was diagnosed with terminal cancer? Would you just kill the kid and say well, he was going to die anyway? Probably not, you would probably do whatever it took you survive.

While I do believe in nevers, I do not believe in "what ifs" to rule my life. What if I got hit by a car today while walking to the store? Or I was shot while someone held up the corner store? Those are the chances I am willing to take by living every day. I have to otherwise I would leave my apartment or experience life. What if they say my baby and I will die and we don't?

A simple question, no simple answer.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm*
You know the one thing that makes me think abortion of a healthy baby is ok? Those situations where a young girl is carrying the child of her own father. This one tears at me and I simply cannot fathom her being forced to deliver. I would face the burning fires of h--l, or terrible karma, or whatever one's religion dictates to help ease a pregnant child of such burden. If for no other reason, situations like this need terminations to remain available, safe and legal.

A young girl of course, ita. And I do believe is should be safe and legal to all. Of course it should be a choice, not everyone is in a place where they can have a baby or want to have a baby or whatever the case (of course I still think adoption should be the first consideration for healthy adults, as it is an extremely selfless act). And if it was not a young girl and she was not being forced to deliver then there are no worries on your part. It is her choice--whether she chooses to have one or not.


----------



## Primrose Burrows

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deirdre*
Hi Calm, since you got metaphysical can I do it too?...

When a woman becomes pregnant and chooses to terminate a pregnancy I believe two equally important things are happening - one soul is choosing to take on a particular human form while at the same time the soul of the mother is making a choice to not allow that soul to do that. Now this is difficult because you essentially have the clash of the desires of two different souls. And while I am not crazy about the idea of one soul impeding or blocking the desires of another soul, I believe that it must somehow be essential to the growth of the mother's soul to make that choice. I also believe that the soul that no longer has this human form to continue in will simply choose to become another human form or perhaps even wait until that mother chooses to get pregnant again and not terminate. In other words, it is my spiritual understanding that you can't kill a soul, ever. And so, similar to when a mother miscarries her baby, I believe that soul will simply choose to take on another human form --- perhaps even the future pregnancy of that same mother.

This is what I believe...I hope it makes sense









It makes sense if that's your belief. Christians have different ones, and it's all metaphysics, really. When we try to weigh our beliefs by our religion, whatever it may be, we just reach an impasse. That's why I think the only way to deal with it is to look at science, and even there the jury's still out.

I'm not part of the pro-life movement. I don't want to repeal _Roe_ (although I think it needs an overhaul).

I think that what Clinton said should be true. Abortion should be "legal but rare.". The problem is, it's being used (IMO) too often to relieve a symptom rather than to solve the real problem--the way women are thought of as second-class citizens and not given the programmes they need to have their babies _if they so choose_. Bringing God, or the Bible, or new age soul philosophy, or Anthroposophy, or _any_ esoteric beliefs isn't going to help anyone, and frankly, it's not valid legally. It's what bothers me about prolifers, and I think it goes both ways.

Edited to add: I'm not a Christian, btw--I'm a Unitarian Universalist.









Kelly,


----------



## sohj

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Primrose Burrows*
Wow.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I don't understand the logic of how ending a pregnancy is healthier emotionally than giving birth and helping another couple (or single) make a family. I'm not saying adoption isn't emotionally draining or an incredibly hard decision, but I can't see how it's _better_ than abortion.

If everyone thought along this train of logic, the number of adoptions would be severely limited, and there would be millions of childess women who'd be deprived of having a baby of their own. I don't mean disrespect, and you're as entitled to your opinion as I am. I just don't follow.

Kelly


Well, I think you have a rather limited view of the world.

I was terrified at the idea of being pregnant. My little guy wasn't planned. Nor looked for.

It wasn't the money or my job or any of the above. I was just terrified. I was raised by a woman with Munchausen's by Proxy and have a HUGE fear of hospitals and the medical profession. Doing anything that gets me sucked in to that world just turns my stomach and make my vision blur. I tried to have a homebirth and got screwed over by a sadistic midwife. I ended up in a hospital being treat like dirt. There is NO way I am going through that again.

Having an abortion is less invasive and has fewer possible side effects than pregnancy or birth.

HOW DARE YOU TRY AND TELL OTHERS WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO!!!

How would you like it for me to try and enforce my morals on YOU? Eh?

And you know those "millions of childless women"? Well, ads for those fertility clinics that busy playing God to the contrary, many of them are perfectly happy NOT having children. I was one before my son, and I have lots of friends who are the same.

And, besides, even if they want one, why is it the duty of someone to provide them with a child? What is this, the Handmaid's Tale?


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:


Originally Posted by *meco*
What are my chances of survival? 50/50? Better odds?

I'm just saying, hypothetically, what if both you and the fetus had 0% chance of survival if the pregnancy was carried to term, but you had 100% chance of survival if you had an abortion. Theoretically. (Obviously, in reality, things aren't that certain.) I'm not saying it's likely to happen, I'm just asking for the sake of the argument.


----------



## Calm

"So, therein lay the debate - no more, no less - do the unborn have as much right to defense as a criminal on death row?"

My own quote. Anyone care to have a shot?


----------



## phathui5

Quote:

But do you want your choices taken away? How about your mother's choices? Your daughter's?
The choice to end a baby's life before it's born, sure. The choice of where to work or what to eat, no. Not all "choices" are choices that I want people to be able to make. The choice to kill a 4-year old for example. If you believe that a preborn baby is a baby, then abortion is not an option.

Quote:

Question ........ It's wrong to circ a baby boy ? It's wrong to spank/beat a kid ... It's wrong to yell at a kid?
But it's not wrong to abort a baby?
Thank you.


----------



## phathui5

Quote:

I'm just saying, hypothetically, what if both you and the fetus had 0% chance of survival if the pregnancy was carried to term, but you had 100% chance of survival if you had an abortion. Theoretically. (Obviously, in reality, things aren't that certain.) I'm not saying it's likely to happen, I'm just asking for the sake of the argument.
But with all the medical technology now, that isn't realistic. If nothing else, you could wait until the baby had a chance of surviving, then induce labor and "save" the mother. Abortion isn't a lifesaving procedure.


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm*
"So, therein lay the debate - no more, no less - do the unborn have as much right to defense as a criminal on death row?"

My own quote. Anyone care to have a shot?

No, they don't. Once you are born, you have a right to your life. No one has a "right" to live inside of another person's body. When you're inside another person's body, your existance there is a privilege, subject to the consent of the host.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *phathui5*
If you believe that a preborn baby is a baby, then abortion is not an option.

Actually, even if I thought that a fetus was a baby, I would still support the right to abortion, because of what I said above: no one has the right to live inside of another person's body.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *phathui5*
But with all the medical technology now, that isn't realistic.

I didn't say it was realistic. It's a hypothetical question. I'm saying, "IF this were the case, THEN...?"


----------



## sohj

Thank you, Sustainer.


----------



## oldfashionmama

personally- being pro-life myself- i am shocked by the number of you who are pro choice. what about using that choice when it comes to preventing the baby from being conceived in the first place? by the way, i don't believe in birth control in any form either but that's beside the point. if you do then you should have used that choice in the first place. and for my last 2 cents, if you are pro choice then you are pro abortion becuz you are stating that abortion is ok. a baby is a baby no matter how far along you are.
ok throw your tomatos.


----------



## KoalaMama

Nothing to throw at you, but I would like to suggest that you read some of the wonderful comments other mamas have made on this thread. Pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion, or even that you think abortion is ok. What it means is that you don't believe you have a right to impose your will or beliefs on someone else - i.e. it's not my choice to make for you.


----------



## sohj

Off-Topic Jazz-Riff of the Mind:

You know, this thread (and others like it) have set my mind to rambling through some of the W-I-D-E assortment of people I have known. I have travelled a lot (inside this country and outside of it, too) and, when I travel, whether for business or personal reasons, I don't stay in my hotel room watching television. I get out, I start conversations with people. All kinds of people. I go to events everywhere I go. Maybe it is a hockey game, maybe a church supper, maybe a biker rally, maybe just the local bar, maybe a pizza parlor, maybe the library. Everywhere I go, I talk to people.

And, I have always found it really, really interesting how many women I have met who live in cities or larger (ie: More Anonymous) towns in areas of the country with a heavy "christian" anti-sex-before-marriage and all-sex-can-and-should-lead-to-procreation-outlook actually work in the sex trades.

Exactly _WHERE_ are their clientel coming from?









I wonder if it is a greater percentage than in a place like New York? It certainly is a greater percentage _among the people I know_. And, I do know a few people in the sex trade here in NYC, but precious few when taken in context of the total of people I know here.

I have considered that there really aren't a whole lot of job opportunities in some smaller places and maybe especially for a solo woman without much education (or even with it), it ends up being a default money-making option. Maybe this is a reflection of a greater number of opportunities for women in a place like New York.









And then there are the two women I knew who, yup, are illegal immigrants here and came from Mexico. As far as I know, neither knows the other. They are from different areas. They live in different places in the US now. *Both* were sold, by their families who had too many children to support already, to brothels in Mexico -- one was 11 and the other was probably about the same age, but she doesn't know because she doesn't know how old she is. She has no idea when she was born.

Both "serviced" American men who came to Mexico specially to "have" really young girls. And many of these people were, apparently, from places like Kansas and Missouri. At least, the one who doesn't know when she was born remembered those names of states, as well as Texas, Arizona, and Virginia and made a point of going to Massachusetts because she didn't know the name from any of her customers. And she remembers well how many of them were "christians" and called her by a whole lot of really unpleasant names. Including "Jezebel" ... when, if you consider it, is pretty bizzarre since their madams dressed and painted them up to please the specific orders of the Important American Clients.

Then there is the very old Ute woman I knew (don't know if she is still alive) who first had the misfortune to be sent to one of those disgusting "missionary" schools and beaten when she spoke her own "heathen" language ... then, when she was 13, she was sterilized before being allowed to return to the reservation.

There is a lot of hypocracy out there....and I think it is important to remember that in the here-and-now, for most women in the world, the legal right to control their own lives and bodies would be a really great thing.

No forced pregnancies, no forced sterilizations.


----------



## orangebird

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lotusdebi*
Seriously?
You don't have an ethical problem with that?
You support eugenics?

Who else would you have "fixed"?

Why do you think that mentally ill and mentally disabled women shouldn't have the right to reproduce if they choose?

And how does your response in any way go along with what you posted before it?

Only certain women get to choose? You get to decide who those women are?

Should we also "fix" all poor women? All women of color? All women who won't raise their kids in a certain religion? All women who might carry a "defective" gene?

Do you only want "perfect" people in the world?


LOL, sorry you see my one little "yes" that way. I love your response, you act as if I really feel that way. ROTFLMAO. Yes! I only want perfect people in the world. And I, as queen, get to say who gets to reproduce. bwah ha ha ha!!!

I am only in favor of sterilizing people who can't take care of themselves in other ways too, not anyone with a mental illness. But the severly mentally disabled? Some of them, yes. I have seen poor women with the mentality of three year olds get pregnant. I think that is sad and unfair for the women themselves and their caretakers and loved ones. They don't even understand what is happenning to their bodies and come labor why they are in so much pain. No I am not in favor of sterilizing any and/or every one with any handicap, just the severe. It can still be done with a court order but for some reason, and I may be wrong, I haven't looked into how difficult it is to get said court order, there are some sad situations. This isn't any big issue of mine or anything, I am not out there trying to get more people sterilized or anything, but when I saw that question some women and their situations popped into my head. If we can't allow those women to get abortions maybe it would be good if more of them were sterilized. I swear, I am not pro-sterilization of people (except republicans). I just answered the bold yes because I didn't feel like typing out any clarification last night, I was in a hurry to get off, but now I have a few minutes. You sure got offended, eh? Sorry about that. Really, I didn't mean it in the way you think at all. But it sure was fun reading your response, yes, I am for sterilizing all the poor, all the black, all the republicans! Sorry, that isn't me, although, you know, there are some scary white supremist people on this board (trust me, I'm not one of them, I'm about as liberal as it gets in that regard). But anyway, nice try, but you tagged the wrong person. But damn that was fun, I didn't realize I would get a response as out there as that. I really should have qualified, I could have saved you that coronary.

here is the original conversation:

Quote:

Originally Posted by sagira
For me the choice happens when the woman agrees to have sex. She should accept all the consequences and responsibility that come with that.

Quote:

Would you have all mentally ill and mentally disabled women "fixed"?
Or would you force them to carry pregnancies to term, and then take their babies from them?
And I answered "yes". If abortion is illegal then it is only right, and the humane thing to do, to sterilize alot of the severly mentally handicapped. At least unless someone can think of another idea, just off the top of my head I though "yes", I mean what else could you do?

What else could you do?


----------



## boston

Quote:


Originally Posted by *oldfashionmama*
personally- being pro-life myself- i am shocked by the number of you who are pro choice. what about using that choice when it comes to preventing the baby from being conceived in the first place? by the way, i don't believe in birth control in any form either but that's beside the point.


----------



## Calm

"What it means is that you don't believe you have a right to impose your will or beliefs on someone else - i.e. it's not my choice to make for you."

Just choosing this one as it is on this page, but I see it for most answers. The thing is, many choices are taken away from us legally and morally because we agree it is wrong - murder being one of them. It doesn't matter if the already-born are about to die, criminals, mentally or physically challenged or anything - it is not our choice to make whether we can kill them. We agree on this because we agree that once you take a breath, you have a right to life.

It still boils down to whether you think the unborn is equal to a newborn. Pro-choice, no matter how you phrase it, do not see them as equal. If we did, we wouldn't debate it. We don't sit here and debate whether killing an already born person is our right, or our choice, or whatever. We just don't. Why do people find it so hard to say "The unborn is lesser than the born. Therefore, when it comes to their life, we have a right to take it, we are allowed "choice"".

What if my will were such that I think we should be able to take the life of someone if we think they deserve it or in some way unfit to live? Well, this is exactly what has happened. Someone else (the majority, myself included) said that it was not ok and therefore - "imposed their will or belief on someone else."

So, let me quote it again:
"What it means is that you don't believe you have a right to impose your will or beliefs on someone else - i.e. it's not my choice to make for you."

Explain that again, now?


----------



## sohj

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm*
... Why do people find it so hard to say "The unborn is lesser than the born. Therefore, when it comes to their life, we have a right to take it, we are allowed "choice""...

And your point is?

Yes, of course the unborn is lesser than the born. It is still living off of the host.

The people who make other claims either have spiritual beliefs that tell them that those other claims are "true" or they are attached before birth to the _idea_ of a child and are imbuing all that "potential" with "actuality".

Life is a crap shoot and it is not all ordained by some "higher power".


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:


Originally Posted by *oldfashionmama*
what about using that choice when it comes to preventing the baby from being conceived in the first place?

Sometimes people are raped. Sometimes people don't know how to prevent pregnancy. Sometimes people use birth control but it fails.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *oldfashionmama*
by the way, i don't believe in birth control in any form either but that's beside the point.

I find this sentence quite amusing considering the sentences before and after it. I really don't think it's beside the point. I think it is the point. If you are against abortion then you might want to rethink your position on birth control.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *oldfashionmama*
if you are pro choice then you are pro abortion becuz you are stating that abortion is ok.

It is possible to be opposed to/against something and still think it is neither immoral nor should it be illegal. There are a lot of things I would never do to my own body. I am very anti-tattoo for example. I do my best to talk people out of them. However, I would oppose a law banning tattoos, because people have the right to make choices for their own bodies. I am pro-choice for tattoos but I am not pro-tattoo. Get it?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *oldfashionmama*
a baby is a baby no matter how far along you are.

Really? An egg that a sperm has just entered is a baby?

(How do you like them tomatoes?)


----------



## orangebird

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm*
Ok. I like your point of view, anyway.

This is really hard for me as I have noticed that I am the only one who is pro-choice who is also fighting for the rights of the unborn. If I had some back up, I may be able to continue, but I have none as I am with pro-choice people, but I don't think like them in the most part. I will always believe _the unborn is a person, a human being with the same rights as me and a newborn_ - completely the same.

I don't need to *distinguish* the difference between the unborn and a newborn to stay my case for pro-choice. If one pro-choice person also thought that the life of the baby was EQUAL to the mother or a newborn, then I would have an ally. Do I need an ally? Maybe not. But how can I fight for both sides and not go crackers?

Why does pro-choice mean you have to believe the unborn is just *potential*, or that its life *lay at the mercy of the mother*, or that it should *be able to sustain its own life* to be considered a life, or that it *begins at implantation*, or it is *not human*, but simply a *fetus/embryo* - why must it be the same points? Why must pro-choice always be about diminishing the life of the unborn? Does anyone pro-choice believe what I do? Anyone?

Sustainer - no offense given nor taken.







I am out of this for now, I feel way too alone.


I agree with you calm. I am pro choice and do think that a fetus ought be the moral equiliivant as any other person and don't think abortion should be entered into lightly. I am pro choice because I don't think anyone has the right to tell any woman what to do with her body. The reason everyone talks about when a fetus becomes a "baby" is because we have to, at some point, distinguish when it has legal rights seperate from it's mother. So that part makes sense to me, I understand all the qualification. When I think it _should_ have full individual rights may be different than when _you_ think it should have full individual rights, the government has to qualify it somehow since there are hundreds of different ideas all the way from when the sperm meets the egg to when it draws it's first breath. We must have a legal demarcation. But as far as my beliefs, I believe like you do, I think we ought value these lives more than we do, abortion should be rare. With that comes the commitment of education, more reasonable adoption costs, more value on family, women, and children in our culture, and all those other touchy feely concepts.


----------



## Calm

Thanks, Kimberly.

"And your point is?"

1) I wanted to hear someone say it. You did. Brave move.

2) This whole thing about "imposing our beliefs and will upon another" - We do it all the time, we have legalities preventing murder. This is imposing one's will upon another. Until recent centuries, taking human life was par for the course. We made it law not to do so - we imposed our will upon another. This argument does not hold up for those who see the unborn as equal. For taking life is no longer our choice - unless, of course, it is "parasitic" upon the "host". Is a breastfeeding baby not parasitic upon the mother?

3) I am not religious. I do not feel the way I do about unborn babies because of religion.

4) An aborted baby coughed. My baby played with her toes in-utero at less than three months. Explain to me how that is "potential".

5) I stand firm that it should be kept legal. However, diminishing the unborn the way some do is unnecessary. Show some respect for the "potential" future, is that too much to ask?


----------



## orangebird

Quote:

"And your point is?"








I don't have a point. Sorry, I was just saying I kindof agree. Not sure if we think the _exact_ same thing, but I agreed with what you typed. Sorry I don't have more of a point.


----------



## sohj

I didn't "diminish" the "unborn". My son's spirit exisited, but it wasn't inside of me. He was the visitor on the threshhold, neither out nor in. Once upon a time in western culture, we, too, understood the importance of threshholds and transformation. Now everything is an "absolute".

ETA: Mara, she was referring to my post. Not yours. She probably should have put it in Quotes with my name.


----------



## candiland

Yes, Calm, that is one of the things that kept me prolife for so long... I would get into abortion discussions and it seemed that prochoicers always diminished what the baby really was... a baby.

I totally get your point.

Throughout history, women have sought out knowledgable shamans and wisewomen to help induce miscarriage. Up until quite recently, a baby wasn't considered a baby until the quickening. When religious zealots sprang up and burned the midwives and wisewomen and herbalists and healers at the stake for being "witches" and "heretics", they put into place a male-dominant society in which women were stripped of the right to induce miscarriage AND of the right to practice "medicine". (And of the right to do pretty much anything 'cept for bear children and keep the home clean.)

I think we're seeing a backlash now. The pendulum (egads, spelling, anyone?) needs to swing far, far to the other side before it finds its resting place in the middle. And it will happen...

Anyhow, could any one of us look at a clump of cells and say "Yes, it's a baby" or "yes, it's a tumor" and know what we're talking about? If a woman passed a big, bloody clot, could you confidently identify it as a baby? This is when the majority of women have abortions. That is what is meant by "potential life", I guess.

Anyhoo, been ranting and raving for long enough. I just recently began considering myself prochoice after many, many years of soul searching. I could not take anyone's opinion at face value; I needed to find the answers within myself, and I am happy that I found the meeting between emotion and logic.
That's just my .02.


----------



## orangebird

I am still prochoice in the legal sense, you are right, breastfeeding babies are "parasitic" on their mothers, unfortunately alot of parents think you hardly even need a parent to raise a child- give it a bottle and throw it in daycare. I mean why not? We don't value children and mothering our children, those aren't respectable jobs, LOL according to THK, heck, teaching, an old women's profession, isn't even a real job (joking) I value babies while they are in the womb but I can understand the legal need to keep abortion legal. There is a dangerous slope near the illegalization of it. We need to first focus on the culture, change the way we see babies and moms. Stop being afraid to educate people of all ages about sex and contraception and the value of abstinence. If women thought they actually had a shot in the world they would maybe be more careful about what they do to their bodies. If they were confident and felt valuable in society I think the unwanted pregnancies would decrease. There I go all touchy feely, but I think it is true. We are still very individualistic and man centered in the US. I am for actions in those arenas to be tackled before we start telling people what they can do to their own bodies.


----------



## candiland

Xposted with mara... yes, I agree that removing the shame surrounding our bodies and their totally natural functions would be a great place to start. When you make something mysterious and "shameful" and then glorify it in Hollywood blockbusters, it leads to a very unhealthy attitude regarding sex and sexuality.


----------



## orangebird

Quote:


Originally Posted by *candiland*
Xposted with mara... yes, I agree that removing the shame surrounding our bodies and their totally natural functions would be a great place to start. When you make something mysterious and "shameful" and then glorify it in Hollywood blockbusters, it leads to a very unhealthy attitude regarding sex and sexuality.

Yes, absolutely. Unfortunately I spent a large part of my childhood growing up in Europe, I saw how they view sex, like they view everything else. It is just a natural part of life. The body is the body, they are very open and matter of fact about it. Not like here where half the country loses their minds over a split second of a shot of a nipple on TV. LOL! While there I saw nipples in the public square nearly every day. On lunch breaks in the summer women would take off their tops right there in the park downtown to get a few minutes of sun. My cousins and second cousins all seemed so normal and together and finished their college educations and started careers and then got married and had kids. Just so different. I said my time there was unfortunate because it makes me view this culture- now my culture- as so whacked.


----------



## KoalaMama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm*
"What it means is that you don't believe you have a right to impose your will or beliefs on someone else - i.e. it's not my choice to make for you."

<snip>

It still boils down to whether you think the unborn is equal to a newborn. Pro-choice, no matter how you phrase it, do not see them as equal. If we did, we wouldn't debate it. We don't sit here and debate whether killing an already born person is our right, or our choice, or whatever. We just don't. Why do people find it so hard to say "The unborn is lesser than the born. Therefore, when it comes to their life, we have a right to take it, we are allowed "choice"".

Since you're quoting me, I'll start by saying that my post was in response to the idea that pro-choice = pro-abortion, which I believe is completely untrue, as evidenced by a lot of thoughtful posts on this thread. I wasn't intending to say, or not say, anything about the rights of a fetus compared to a baby.

But on that... No, I don't think a fetus deserves the same rights as a person. And I definitely don't believe ""a baby is a baby no matter how far along you are". As has been said here many times before, nothing has a right to live inside of me unless I give it permission. I do not forfit my rights for a potential baby. And yes, I think it's a potential baby until it's capable of being born and surviving without my body acting as a host.

I also don't find it to be a hard thing to say. The reason I don't choose it as my first argument is because it is often seen as the differing point between the pro-choice/anti-choice sides. I believe it's much easier to find a common ground when you speak about the rights of the woman, and what making abortion illegal would mean to those rights. So really, it's not about when a baby becomes a baby in my mind. There are too many opinions on that one in any case.

Quote:

The thing is, many choices are taken away from us legally and morally because we agree it is wrong - murder being one of them. It doesn't matter if the already-born are about to die, criminals, mentally or physically challenged or anything - it is not our choice to make whether we can kill them. We agree on this because we agree that once you take a breath, you have a right to life.
Key phrase "once you take a breath, you have a right to life".

And not everyone agrees that all the choices "taken away from us" are acceptable. Consider the varied opinions on the death penalty and euthanasia.

Quote:

What if my will were such that I think we should be able to take the life of someone if we think they deserve it or in some way unfit to live? Well, this is exactly what has happened. Someone else (the majority, myself included) said that it was not ok and therefore - "imposed their will or belief on someone else."
It has never been the case that a fetus is considered a person, therefore there's no protection under any law that says they deserve the same rights as a person. The other things you describe cross into the violation of another person. Of course, that's your whole point.







But until there's some social standard that gives rights to a fetus (ack!!) then it's comparing apples and oranges.

And again, there are laws in some places that say taking lives is ok... think death penalty.


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm*
Is a breastfeeding baby not parasitic upon the mother?

Breastfeeding only happens with the consent of the mother. We do not force women to breastfeed, and we should not force women to be pregnant, either.

Outlawing murder in no way violates my rights. Outlawing abortion would violate my right to my body. No federal, state, local, or other government or legal entity has the right to claim my body as its jurisdiction. My body is under MY jurisdiction, and mine alone.


----------



## Bearsmama

I've been following this thread a bit--

Sohj-I really think your posts are quite eloquent, and I absolutely agree with your position on this topic. But I have to comment that the "Life is a crap shoot" quote sort of speaks to the difference of opinion around this topic, does it not? If I had a religious affiliation or some deep spiritual guiding principals, I might feel there is a purpose or "higher power" that guides my decision-making. Obviously, those that are pro-life/anti-choice feel that life is not a "crap shoot". Obviously, not everyone believes that life is a crap shoot.

Hope this makes sense...


----------



## whimsy

Anyone care to bear with me as I ramble through some thoughts?

I've been thinking about how some killing is legal. Death penalty, war, self defense, law enforcement (self defense). It is accepted because we are defending ourself against a threat. The threat of convicted person, a country or person that intends to bring harm to us, etc.

I can see how a woman in a crisis situation could also feel threatened by a pregnancy.

So what do you think? Valid comparison or no?

ETA - I should note that I can't seem to get 5 minutes to get a complete thought together, so forgive the disjointed logic. I'd like to explore this thought, but I am odviously going to need your help.


----------



## huggerwocky

i don't see how being pro choice means being anti life?

A woman's right over her own body is greater than someone's right to live.That simple.

Never heard of anyone being forced to donate bone marrow so save someone.


----------



## Primrose Burrows

Quote:

Well, I think you have a rather limited view of the world.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't think that the way I see the world can be accurately reflected by one opinion, though.

Quote:

I was terrified at the idea of being pregnant. My little guy wasn't planned. Nor looked for.

It wasn't the money or my job or any of the above. I was just terrified. I was raised by a woman with Munchausen's by Proxy and have a HUGE fear of hospitals and the medical profession. Doing anything that gets me sucked in to that world just turns my stomach and make my vision blur. I tried to have a homebirth and got screwed over by a sadistic midwife. I ended up in a hospital being treat like dirt. There is NO way I am going through that again.
According to the law, that's your right. I'm sorry you had a negative birth. However, I've found that one bad experience doesn't equal two. I had an awful birth and a difficult pregnancy with my last one, but the previous three were fine. The third was bliss, even with a retained placenta. The midwife couldn't have been more wonderful. All pregnancies aren't the same. Also, I'm wondering. How is your experience with your little guy now?

Quote:

Having an abortion is less invasive and has fewer possible side effects than pregnancy or birth.
This may be true, but I couldn't say, as I've never seen any scientific/medical statistics that prove or disprove it. I'd love to look at some. Preferably something that isn't propaganda produced by Operation Rescue or Planned Parenthood.

Quote:

HOW DARE YOU TRY AND TELL OTHERS WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO!!!
I didn't realise I had that much power. Abortion is legal, I have no authority to make it otherwise, and I've never said it _shouldn't_ be. My problem is one of degree, and because I don't think there are enough programmes in place for women who CHOOSE to have their babies.

And it's my opinion, so I don't understand why you're saying I'm telling others what they have to do.

Quote:

How would you like it for me to try and enforce my morals on YOU? Eh?

Quote:

And you know those "millions of childless women"? Well, ads for those fertility clinics that busy playing God to the contrary, many of them are perfectly happy NOT having children.
Most women can't afford fertility clinics. They cost in the tens of thousands of dollars. If I could afford one, I'd be pregnant now. There are lots of women who want kids (or more kids) and can't have them.

Quote:

And, besides, even if they want one, why is it the duty of someone to provide them with a child?
It isn't. As someone else on this board has said, offering a child for adoption is a completely selfess act. No obligation implied, or intended.

I don't mean to offend with anything I say. I'm very sorry you took it that way. I intend nothing personal, really.

Kelly


----------



## phathui5

Quote:

Life is a crap shoot and it is not all ordained by some "higher power".
That's your personal belief regarding this issue and spirituality.


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Primrose Burrows*
I'm sorry you had a negative birth. However, I've found that one bad experience doesn't equal two.

My first labor was long and difficult, so I felt like I deserved a shorter, easier labor with my second, but my second experience turned out to be much worse than my first. People shouldn't have to risk the possibility of going through hell again.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Primrose Burrows*
I've never seen any scientific/medical statistics that prove or disprove it.

Birth statistically carries a 3 times greater risk of death than abortion.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *phathui5*
That's your personal belief regarding this issue and spirituality.

No. That life IS all ordained by some "higher power" is the personal belief. That life is NOT all ordained by some "higher power" is the logical default position until someone wishes to prove their rather extraordinary claim that there IS a supernatural entity of some sort ordaining all of life.


----------



## Calm

Wow, and phew... breathe....

Ok, firstly, Kimberly - that must have felt terrible, to think that someone turned an agreement on you like that! I am so sorry I didn't quote that line properly, and mislead you. I felt terrible reading your post with the sad face. I did mean it as a quote of someone else, not to ask you your point. Excuse my irresponsible quoting there.

I find this a very interesting discussion, obviously, cos I'm still here. :LOL I can see who is firm and on what issues. BTW, good question, Whimsy, and also I liked your post Huggerwocky.

I wanted to address something before I go (one that isn't a point that would take me round in circles) and that is the breastfeeding issue.

Quote:

Breastfeeding only happens with the consent of the mother. We do not force women to breastfeed, and we should not force women to be pregnant, either.
In this country, and many others, we have an option other than breastfeeding. In times past, and in many countries still today, that option does not exist. And I noticed you are a fan of hypotheticals like me, Sustainer so, hypothetically speaking, if we had no formula to feed a newborn - if the mother chose not to breastfeed, would she get arrested for neglect? Of course. In fact, it takes much less than death from starvation for a mother to be arrested for neglect. So, in that sense, that is forcing the mother to breastfeed, right? In those countries where they have no other option, the mother MUST breastfeed otherwise the child will die. She cannot cry "poor milk supply" or any of the things we can get away with. She has to breastfeed. That is perpetuating the "parasitic" life of a baby as they are still not able to live without mom.

So, to spin that "parasite" (ick) point back in on itself, logically, that would mean that it is ok for a mother to starve her child by not breastfeeding, because she has a "right" to do with her body what she "chooses", as she is just a "host" (ick) and the baby should count its lucky stars it was born at all let alone able to have a meal.


----------



## Sustainer

Even if there were no formula, I would not support a court of law ordering a woman to breastfeed. It is her body, and breastfeeding is subject to her consent. Luckily, there are alternatives to formula. Another woman could breastfeed the baby. There would be people who would do whatever they could to keep the baby alive.


----------



## KoalaMama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm*
In this country, and many others, we have an option other than breastfeeding. In times past, and in many countries still today, that option does not exist. And I noticed you are a fan of hypotheticals like me, Sustainer so, hypothetically speaking, if we had no formula to feed a newborn - if the mother chose not to breastfeed, would she get arrested for neglect? Of course. In fact, it takes much less than death from starvation for a mother to be arrested for neglect. So, in that sense, that is forcing the mother to breastfeed, right? In those countries where they have no other option, the mother MUST breastfeed otherwise the child will die. She cannot cry "poor milk supply" or any of the things we can get away with. She has to breastfeed. That is perpetuating the "parasitic" life of a baby as they are still not able to live without mom.

So, to spin that "parasite" (ick) point back in on itself, logically, that would mean that it is ok for a mother to starve her child by not breastfeeding, because she has a "right" to do with her body what she "chooses", as she is just a "host" (ick) and the baby should count its lucky stars it was born at all let alone able to have a meal.

Not really, as there would just be another woman there to nurse that baby. Women have died in childbirth and their babies have survived, women have had poor milk supplies (which does happen on some small scale) and their babies have survived, etc. etc. Breastfeeding a baby does not require a birth mother.

Until a fetus can be easily popped out of one woman and into another, we're not even coming close to comparing apples to apples. And even if that were possible, it would still require an invasion of the woman's person, which a refusal to breastfeed does not. So I guess we'd never be comparing apples to apples.


----------



## KoalaMama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *whimsy*
I can see how a woman in a crisis situation could also feel threatened by a pregnancy.

So what do you think? Valid comparison or no?

Absolutely a valid comparison. I think this makes perfect sense.

Huggerwocky... love your point too!


----------



## girlndocs

Quote:


Originally Posted by *phathui5*
That's your personal belief regarding this issue and spirituality.

Well, there's the rub, ain't it?

*Her* belief system says it's all a crap shoot and a fetus isn't the equal of a born person.

*Your* belief system (i.e. your religion) says it's all ordained and life begins at conception.

How would it be acceptable for our government (which is supposed to have a seperation of church & state) to outlaw anything based on a certain religious belief?

It wouldn't.

You are entitled to your religious beliefs and no one is going to force you to have an abortion. But your religious beliefs cannot be allowed to limit the choices of women who don't _share_ those beliefs.


----------



## CookieMonsterMommy

Girl:









And to clarify (and back track a bit), when I refer to "Pro-Life" or "Anti-Choice" on this board, I am not referring to those of you who would not personally elect to have an abortion but choose to leave this decision up to the individual woman.
I am speaking about those of you who wish to make this procedure illegal and/or place limitations on it (i.e. the idealistic rape clause, the mother's life only clause, etc).

Personally, your personal opinions aren't all that important one way or the other (lets be real. I'm never going to decide to birth or abort a baby that I am not ready for based on what any of you think, and I doubt that my opinion of the matter would influence any of you in making your decision).

If you're trying to take away a right (that I may or may not ever choose to exercise, that my sister or my daughter or my mother may or may not choose to exercise, etc), or trying to villify those women who chose to exercise that right, then THAT is when I care. THAT is when I am affected. THAT is when I put my boxing gloves on and hop into the ring.

Kelly


----------



## Benji'sMom

Somebody's going to push their personal beliefs on somebody. It's one person's belief that a fetus is a child, it's another person's belief that a fetus is not a child. Someone is going to legislate their personal beliefs on others who don't like it, no matter what the law is. So when people say, "Don't legislate your beliefs on me," well, of course that's what's going to happen. Sometimes you'll be pleased with the results, sometimes you won't be.


----------



## girlndocs

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Benji'sMom*
Somebody's going to push their personal beliefs on somebody. It's one person's belief that a fetus is a child, it's another person's belief that a fetus is not a child. Someone is going to legislate their personal beliefs on others who don't like it, no matter what the law is.

That's simply not true.

Protecting the right of women to choose abortion *does not* force anyone to have an abortion.

Eliminating the right of women to choose abortion *does force* women to remain pregnant.


----------



## girlndocs

Oh, and I'm coming from the same place as CMM. I don't care what your personal beliefs are regarding abortion, or what your would personally choose to do. I do care when someone tries to take MY choice away from me and my daughter and her future daughters.

Y'all can debate the metaphysical and philosophical and religious points till the cows come home, I'm not personally interested in those, where the action is for me is the legality of my right to choose.


----------



## Benji'sMom

Reading "The right to choose" into the Constitution is still legislating a personal belief. "Forcing anyone to have an abortion" has nothing to do with it.


----------



## girlndocs

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Benji'sMom*
Reading "The right to choose" into the Constitution is still legislating a personal belief. "Forcing anyone to have an abortion" has nothing to do with it.

Um, no, preserving our *human* right to choose enables individuals to make their own decisions based on their own personal beliefs.


----------



## Benji'sMom

Um, yes, Labeling it as a human right is your personal opinion.


----------



## Calm

My friend does not have the right to kill the man who raped her. She wanted to, sometimes still does - but she does not have this choice. Does she have the right to? Not legally. To most, not morally. This "choice" was taken from her - to benefit what we consider the value of human life.

So, Benji's Mom has a valid point, sorry, but she does. Most are saying we have the right to take the life of the unborn, because we do not value its life as much as we value a rapists. We fight and fight and fight to end capital punishment (I certainly do), we fight to free the guilty from life imprisonment. Yet a totally innocent fetus's life is "debatable".

So when you say we have the right to choice, we don't, not according to many laws, and not according to my friend who was raped. It is a matter of opinion that we have the right to take the life of the unborn, that we can choose which life to end as long as it hasn't taken its first breath. And the ultimate choice you are taking is that of the unborn's - what if they wanted to live? Who are you to say whose choices are most important? Who are any of us to say?


----------



## CookieMonsterMommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm*
So, Benji's Mom has a valid point, sorry, but she does. Most are saying we have the right to take the life of the unborn, because we do not value its life as much as we value a rapists. Yet a totally innocent fetus's life is "debatable".

2 points I'd like to make here (the 1st of which being OT).
#1. I would feel 100% justified (morally and ethically) in killing the person who sexually assaulted me when I was 15. Yes, I'd be put in jail, but really, I think I'd be doing the world (okay, maybe just NY or whatever part of the US he lives in now) a great deal of service.

#2 Like I--and I think Girlndocs(correct me if I'm wrong hun)-- are trying to say is this: "I don't care why or if you do or don't like it, or why exactly you do or don't consider it a baby or do or don't think it should have rights. I care about laws being made, bills being passed and people being elected that wish to take this right away from *50% of the population* (again, whether or not one chooses to exercise their right is not my concern OR my business)."

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm*
It is a matter of opinion that we have the right to take the life of the unborn, that we can choose which life to end as long as it hasn't taken its first breath.

Sorry but it's NOT a matter of opinion that it's my right to choose (to take the life of the unborn) because it's VERY legal for me to get an abortion. Whether or not you think I deserve this right is a whole other ballpark.

That's like me saying to my neighbor "It's just your opinion that you have the right to cook foul smelling food so that everyone in this complex has to smell it!" because the fact is, it IS her right, there are NO laws against it, and there is NO legal way for me to force her not to do it.


----------



## Calm

I agree. I don't want it to be made illegal. No way. I agree with this and always have in my posts. I am pro-choice in this respect. But this thread is called Ap and Pro-choice?, and some of the answers are very un-AP. The love of children, and of pregnancies ups and downs, the new baby, the fetal development, the rights of the child, the rights of the unborn (in regards to women who want to stay pregnant), etc., all this goes out the window in this debate. I don't see why it should. I don't see it as necessary. I am also confused by this argument (not THIS particular one, but the arg. in general). As someone put it so well, we say it is wrong to do so many things, even ear piercing is frowned upon. Yet it is ok to abort a baby if the mother chooses. I don't get that. Well, I do, but let me state my position finally, to clear the air so you know where I stand once and for all:

It should be kept legal. However, I believe that a woman should have to go through more counselling, more proof she can't/won't mother, more support, more everything before aborting. Why? Because I aborted my baby, and if I had those things, I may have had the strength to have the baby!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I don't think it should stay the way it is, for Goodness sake, it reeks at the moment, it just REEKS! If you are going to abort/kill a child, born or not, you oughta make a damned good case for it, and give people a chance to show you that you can 1) mother - we have the strength and 2) like any defense for life, the baby deserves a defense.

If someone came and defended the life of my child, I would be holding her today. (I believe she was a girl) The fact that it was as easy as walking into a clinic and signing the line and saying "yes, go ahead" sickens me. No defense for my child. No education for me. No counselling for my loss. No NOTHING. Just whip in, take her out, go home. YUK.

As a woman who has BEEN THERE and a woman who KNOWS what all this is about, not speculation, not any of that - I would still like to see and wish I HAD seen some kinda defense on behalf of my baby. That is my position here. Leaving things as they are is no good. It isn't working. It is disrespectful of reproduction and life in general and there is no defense for the unborn. If you have to defend a case against killing a born person, then why can't we create defense for killing an unborn person? And my friend, who was raped, by the way, she had the baby - because she knew it was not the baby's fault.

In a nutshell, if what you want to hear is this, then here it is - yes, keep it legal. End of story? That just ain't good enough.


----------



## girlndocs

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CookieMonsterMommy*
"I don't care why or if you do or don't like it, or why exactly you do or don't consider it a baby or do or don't think it should have rights. I care about laws being made, bills being passed and people being elected that wish to take this right away from *50% of the population* (again, whether or not one chooses to exercise their right is not my concern OR my business)."


----------



## Calm

Quote:

"I don't care why or if you do or don't like it, or why exactly you do or don't consider it a baby or do or don't think it should have rights. I care about laws being made, bills being passed and people being elected that wish to take this right away from 50% of the population (again, whether or not one chooses to exercise their right is not my concern OR my business)."
I meant to say, this statement above is what I believe also. I take a different slant on it, but when it all boils down, that is pretty right. Here here. I would actually like _more_ choices to be available, not less. It really isn't the law-maker's right to stick their noses in most of the things they do. I am all about freedom, even with this issue. Most people don't argue it very well though, and make a hypocrite of themselves. But the statement I quoted above, well, I have to agree with that.

I resign my postition of resident feather ruffler on this issue, and hand the reigns over to someone who is more pro-life than even I.

Was fun, thanks for having me.


----------



## paccookie

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AmyB*
Although I like and practice a lot of ideas that have become conncted with AP I very much dislike the notion that Mom ought to become a human sacrifice for the "good of the children".

It's bad enough if Mom is supposed to entirely give up her own ambitions, pleasures and personality in order to devote herself 24/7 to pleasing a baby, but when Mom is expected to actually lay down her own life because a pregnancy went wrong (and the law or a moral guilt trip has put abortion out of reach) that is really far too much to ask.

If "putting children first" means putting women second--that is giving women a lower level of civil and human rights than other people get-- then I guess I'm not AP.

--AmyB

Very well said. I agree totally!


----------



## kblue

Yikes. I have to admit I am a bit shocked at some of the reasoning here.


----------



## kblue

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm*
I agree. I don't want it to be made illegal. No way. I agree with this and always have in my posts. I am pro-choice in this respect. But this thread is called Ap and Pro-choice?, and some of the answers are very un-AP. The love of children, and of pregnancies ups and downs, the new baby, the fetal development, the rights of the child, the rights of the unborn (in regards to women who want to stay pregnant), etc., all this goes out the window in this debate. I don't see why it should. I don't see it as necessary. I am also confused by this argument (not THIS particular one, but the arg. in general). As someone put it so well, we say it is wrong to do so many things, even ear piercing is frowned upon. Yet it is ok to abort a baby if the mother chooses. I don't get that. Well, I do, but let me state my position finally, to clear the air so you know where I stand once and for all:

It should be kept legal. However, I believe that a woman should have to go through more counselling, more proof she can't/won't mother, more support, more everything before aborting. Why? Because I aborted my baby, and if I had those things, I may have had the strength to have the baby!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I don't think it should stay the way it is, for Goodness sake, it reeks at the moment, it just REEKS! If you are going to abort/kill a child, born or not, you oughta make a damned good case for it, and give people a chance to show you that you can 1) mother - we have the strength and 2) like any defense for life, the baby deserves a defense.

If someone came and defended the life of my child, I would be holding her today. (I believe she was a girl) The fact that it was as easy as walking into a clinic and signing the line and saying "yes, go ahead" sickens me. No defense for my child. No education for me. No counselling for my loss. No NOTHING. Just whip in, take her out, go home. YUK.

As a woman who has BEEN THERE and a woman who KNOWS what all this is about, not speculation, not any of that - I would still like to see and wish I HAD seen some kinda defense on behalf of my baby. That is my position here. Leaving things as they are is no good. It isn't working. It is disrespectful of reproduction and life in general and there is no defense for the unborn. If you have to defend a case against killing a born person, then why can't we create defense for killing an unborn person? And my friend, who was raped, by the way, she had the baby - because she knew it was not the baby's fault.

In a nutshell, if what you want to hear is this, then here it is - yes, keep it legal. End of story? That just ain't good enough.









to you mama.


----------



## Calm

I know exactly what you mean Kellie...oh hang on, I'm not meant to be here. I unsubscribed...why do I beat myself up like this?


----------



## Calm

Oh, I just saw your second post....thank you, from my heart...thank you. Now, RUN as fast as you can from this thread :LOL.


----------



## paccookie

Why is it so shocking? Do you want some congressman (most likely male and caucasian) deciding what you can do with your body? Where does it end? If congress can say that a woman can't have an abortion, can they also say that a woman must submit to a c-section or sterilization? Banning abortion opens the door for a lot of very unpleasant things. Not only for women, but for men and children as well. I don't think it's that we WANT abortions, we just don't want to hand over the decision-making to someone else.


----------



## kblue

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm*
Oh, I just saw your second post....thank you, from my heart...thank you. Now, RUN as fast as you can from this thread :LOL.

:LOL

I can't even begin to imagine what it must be like to be in your shoes! I will not judge you for your past decision. I highly respect you for your honesty. I pray that you will continue to heal.









I was almost covinced to abort my first dd.







I was SICK and DEPRESSED. She was very much wanted, but my mind was not right at the time. I was SO close. I know what you mean when you say there is not enough defense for the unborn child. That child is not given a choice.









Luckily, I held to my beliefs and made it through, but how I wish there had been more options for me...counseling for women suffering from pre-partum depression and hyperemesis would've been a start. I have dedicated much of my life to making sure other women going through what I did receive proper care and not just the TERRIBLE advice of one therapist who says "it's just a group of cells, do you really want to be this sick and depressed from a group of cells?"


----------



## Calm

Ahhhh you a breath of fresh air, Kellie. I don't know where you stand on the legalities, but just the fact that your thoughts are like mine is refreshing.

And regarding the shocking aspect, it isn't shocking to want to keep it legal. It is shocking the way people talk about the fetus - something our own children were once. If you scan through this thread, even just a few pages, you will come across at least one of the following -
"the fetus is a parasite"
"the mother is a host"
"the baby is nothing but a bunch of cells, an embryo" etc
"it is nothing but potential"
And drum roll for my personal favorite, on an AP board no less -
"the mother comes first and the baby comes second"
I'd love to see _that_ one repeated on other threads and see how far ya get without flame proof gear. Especially in the pregnancy forum here or the nighttime parenting one. Heh heh.

All along I have tried to just get people to speak with decency about the unborn, and yet I got such a fight put up for it. THAT is shocking. Legalities to me aren't the guts of it. Is anyone really hearing us? Are our heartfelt stories going right over people's heads? There are people who don't need to diminish the value of the fetus and yet want to keep abortion legal, you know. It is possible.


----------



## Sustainer

The woman is hosting the fetus. It's a simple medical fact. I don't understand the emotional reaction. It's pertinent because there are rights involved.

Our own children were once sperm and eggs, too. I don't understand the emotional attachment to any cell containing human dna. Are we going to cry over every sperm and egg that doesn't realize its potential?

Yes, these materials have the *potential* to become a baby. That word shouldn't be emotionally charged, either. I just don't get it.

An early pregnancy IS a clump of cells. I'm sorry, but that's what it IS! It's not an insult, it's just a simple fact. Why is it so hard to accept?


----------



## Calm

Having a science background, I understand the use of the words. Adults are a bunch of cells too, only more of them. But generally, we don't call our children that or our friends because it is just nicer to say person, or fetus/pregnancy for the unborn. I am not offended by it, but it does make my skin crawl a little, but nothing to worry about.

It is a delicate subject to some, not to me however, but to some. I like to refrain from my scientific terminology where possible unless of course I am trying to de-humanize someone - then all bets are off. But the last time I did that was directed at an ex-boyfriend when I was about 22. My own powers of empathy stop me from saying to a pregnant woman "Oh wow, how are you going with hosting your parasite? And don't worry about that bottle of wine, your potential baby comes second to your choices."

So why does that courtesy not extend to all women, and all fetuses? Why, during conversations such as these, do fetuses suddenly become the enemy and watered down to such phrasing? I am courteous, because it is easy to be and doesn't take much empathy to be so.


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm*
Having a science background, I understand the use of the words. Adults are a bunch of cells too, only more of them. But generally, we don't call our children that or our friends because it is just nicer to say person, or fetus/pregnancy for the unborn. I am not offended by it, but it does make my skin crawl a little, but nothing to worry about.

I don't mean that an early pregnancy is a group of cells in the same sense that you or I are a group of cells. I mean that it isn't a person yet. It really is just a tiny cluster of cells, that hasn't become a person yet. An egg doesn't become a person the second it is fertilized. It takes time for it to become a person. It is not instant. There is a stage at which it is just a microscopic divided cell, and we should be able to acknowledge that.

Quote:

It is a delicate subject to some, not to me however, but to some. I like to refrain from my scientific terminology where possible unless of course I am trying to de-humanize someone - then all bets are off. But the last time I did that was directed at an ex-boyfriend when I was about 22.
Something has to be human before it can be de-humanized. You can't de-humanize a fertilized egg. It is not a human. YOU are trying to HUMANIZE it!

Quote:

My own powers of empathy stop me from saying to a pregnant woman "Oh wow, how are you going with hosting your parasite? And don't worry about that bottle of wine, your potential baby comes second to your choices."
Obviously none of us would ask a pregnant women how she's going hosting her parasite. In the context of a wanted pregnancy, there is no need to emphasize that aspect of the relationship. It also would make no sense to tell a woman not to care about the well-being of a fetus that she intends to keep.

Quote:

So why does that courtesy not extend to all women, and all fetuses? Why, during conversations such as these, do fetuses suddenly become the enemy and watered down to such phrasing? I am courteous, because it is easy to be and doesn't take much empathy to be so.
Of course fetuses are not the "enemy"! You are reading malice where none is intended. In the context of the right to terminate a pregnancy, it is necessary to acknowledge that the woman is, in fact, acting as a host, and that she has the right to consent to that role or to refuse it.


----------



## malibusunny

Without reading, I will answer the thread title-- I am pro choice, and I plan on being an AP.

For me, AP has more to do with respecting the personhood of your child than anything else. It is about not forcing my child to conform to my schedule, my convienence, etc. To me, being pro-choice is a logical extention of respecting my child because it is about respecting the choices and decisions of other people.

Sunny (who actually tends to associate pro life with Xianity and Xianity with less flexible parenting)


----------



## kblue

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm*
Ahhhh you a breath of fresh air, Kellie. I don't know where you stand on the legalities, but just the fact that your thoughts are like mine is refreshing.

And regarding the shocking aspect, it isn't shocking to want to keep it legal. It is shocking the way people talk about the fetus - something our own children were once. If you scan through this thread, even just a few pages, you will come across at least one of the following -
"the fetus is a parasite"
"the mother is a host"
"the baby is nothing but a bunch of cells, an embryo" etc
"it is nothing but potential"
And drum roll for my personal favorite, on an AP board no less -
"the mother comes first and the baby comes second"
I'd love to see _that_ one repeated on other threads and see how far ya get without flame proof gear. Especially in the pregnancy forum here or the nighttime parenting one. Heh heh.

All along I have tried to just get people to speak with decency about the unborn, and yet I got such a fight put up for it. THAT is shocking. Legalities to me aren't the guts of it. Is anyone really hearing us? Are our heartfelt stories going right over people's heads? There are people who don't need to diminish the value of the fetus and yet want to keep abortion legal, you know. It is possible.


EXACTLY!!!! I don't not find it shocking that so many here are pro-choice (there is a very liberal, progressive community). What I find shocking is what Calm quoted above. It's not the legalities I find shocking, it's the lack of respect that a LIVING, GROWING, HUMAN BABY is given inutero.

Quote:

Why, during conversations such as these, do fetuses suddenly become the enemy and watered down to such phrasing?
I would like to know the answer to this, too. This is what I find shocking.


----------



## kblue

Quote:


Originally Posted by *malibusunny*
To me, being pro-choice is a logical extention of respecting my child because it is about respecting the choices and decisions of other people.

What about respecting the baby who is NOT given a choice?

Respecting our children starts while the baby is in our womb. We must let the baby know that we respect it enough to give it a chance at life.


----------



## RubyV

What's wrong with calling a fetus a fetus? An
Embryo an Embryo? I did. My daughter was a zygote, a fetus, etc. I dont see the problem with the language.

I really can't understand being ok with forcing women to stay pregnant wtih one breath, and screaming about the right to homebirth, etc in another. They are both sides of the same coin.


----------



## phathui5

Quote:

(who actually tends to associate pro life with Xianity and Xianity with less flexible parenting)
Laughing because I'm Christian, AP and a super flexible parent.


----------



## CookieMonsterMommy

The reason that so many of us are prochoice and how that ties in with AP is waaaay in the beginning of this thread (lol, back when we stayed on topic-well, somewhat at least







).

To sum it up, we believe that every child has the right to be born wanted with at LEAST the basic needs met.

Unfortunately that is not possible today, and while I would LOVE to see the # of unwanted pregnancies (as well as the # of children and families being abused, becoming victims of sexual assault, living in poverty, without healthcare, etc) the need for abortion will NEVER be completely erradicated.

We also believe that a woman/mother should be left alone to decide what is right for her and her family whether that be abortion, homeschooling, non vaxing, whatever.

I say it now, with NO shame or doubt that if I became pregnant right now, I would abort. Why? It would be selfish of me not to, simply put. This is a decision that I have made already.

Kelly

PS-To clarify, a human adult (or child for that matter) is a group of HIGHLY SPECIALIZED, FUNCTIONING CELLS and ORGAN SYSTEMS (including the VERY significant neurological system), who are capable of thinking and feeling, etc. MUCH different, IMO, than the 6 week embryo that I sadly miscarried in June.


----------



## kblue

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CookieMonsterMommy*
PS-To clarify, a human adult (or child for that matter) is a group of HIGHLY SPECIALIZED, FUNCTIONING CELLS and ORGAN SYSTEMS (including the VERY significant neurological system), who are capable of thinking and feeling, etc. MUCH different, IMO, than the 6 week embryo that I sadly miscarried in June.

I am sorry for your loss. Miscarriage is the body's NATURAL way of discarding a fetus that most likely would not have survived. Miscarriage is in God's hands. Miscarriage and abortion are COMPLETELY differrent, IMO.

Anyone who does not believe a 6 week old fetus is a baby, please do a google search for "abortion pictures". I will warn you - it is VERY graphic and VERY disturbing, but it is VERY much a human life.


----------



## Benji'sMom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sustainer*
The woman is hosting the fetus. It's a simple medical fact. I don't understand the emotional reaction. It's pertinent because there are rights involved.

Our own children were once sperm and eggs, too. I don't understand the emotional attachment to any cell containing human dna. Are we going to cry over every sperm and egg that doesn't realize its potential?

Yes, these materials have the *potential* to become a baby. That word shouldn't be emotionally charged, either. I just don't get it.

An early pregnancy IS a clump of cells. I'm sorry, but that's what it IS! It's not an insult, it's just a simple fact. Why is it so hard to accept?

There are lots of symbiotic or parasitic relationships out there. The sybiote or parasite is still a separate being, not part of your own body. Why is that so hard to accept?


----------



## poisonedapple

Quote:

AP isn't about putting baby first to the extant that mom ceases to exist as a human entity in her own right.
But it is about putting mom first to the extent that the baby ceases to exist.









Quote:

an embryo or fetus is not a baby. that's why they're called embryo/fetus.
Then I guess no one should mourn, be sad, or feel a loss when they have an early miscarriage. Why care?







:


----------



## malibusunny

i know you were being sarcastic, but it's perfectly reasonable to mourn the loss of a potential life... when women are trying to get pregnant they often mourn when they get their periods, too. you don't have to believe that abortion should be illegal to mourn a miscarriage.

personally, i think that pregnancy is a huge emotional and physical undertaking and that it adversely affects women in our society even when the pregnancy is a wanted one. when we get to a point, socially, where women are truly equal and pregnancy is supported, abortion will be less of a "women's rights" issue than it is now.


----------



## BusyMommy

To answer the OP









I think they're entirely compatible. Part of AP is the parent who does the parenting and in order for the family to be healthy, all components need to be attended.

Besides, such a vague topic...prochoice emcompasses everything from rape scenarios to serial birth control.


----------



## CookieMonsterMommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *spicensnail007*
Then I guess no one should mourn, be sad, or feel a loss when they have an early miscarriage. Why care?







:

I see the point that you are trying to make, but when I mourned my early pregnancy loss (still do), I am mourning that I will never meet my baby, that I am not swollen and pregnant right now, that I'll not be having a baby shower with all my family and friends celebrating. Basically I am mourning what could have been (what I wanted to be) but never was.

I've said it time and time again that it is the romantic/spiritual loss that many of us feel when we lose our "babies". No one here is saying that this loss should not be mourned at all.


----------



## rainsmom

If as mothers, we are unable or even unwilling to make the sacrifices required to be a parent/bring a child into the world, I dont see why that is considered negative or be judged as so.

Its like when the oxygen masks come down in the plane.....you have to take care of yourself first, before you can take care of the child.

Quote:

when we get to a point, socially, where women are truly equal and pregnancy is supported, abortion will be less of a "women's rights" issue than it is now.


----------



## Rainbowbird

I don't consider myself pro-choice or prolife. The terminology sucks. I have never been in the position to have an abortion. I would like to think I would never have one, or ever be put in the postion to have to choose. I am very much AP, but how can I say what is right for another woman? I certainly think that abortion as birth control is irresponsible, but it's still not my choice and not my body. What about a woman who is raped? Or for example, if you find out your fetus has anencephaly (probably spelled that wrong, means lacking a brain) and will die inutero or at birth? Should a woman be forced to carry that baby to term, anyway?

I hate the notion of abortion, but i don't see it as being up to me to tell someone what to do with their body. This is the same logic I use when I try not to be judgemental about women who use formula, having unfortunately had to use it myself and found out the hard way "judge not, lest ye be judged!"

I like to think that part of AP is being non-judgmental and accepting about others. I know that is not always the case, unfortunately, but I think preventing abortion from being legal puts you in a league where you are judging others and refusing to accept that someone else's situation is uniquely their own. You are eliminating reproductive freedom. You are taking control of another woman's body. It is only a small step away from saying women shouldn't have access to birth control, because then their eggs' potential will never be realized.

Abortion is legal, so I don't understand why it always comes up. There are other things that are legal that are killing adults and children who already are born every day. Cigarette smoke, using hazardous pesticides and chemicals, littering and polluting our planet, yet these aren't nearly the hot button issues that abortion is. Shoot, child abuse and homicide probably don't elicit such intense reactions! What is up with that!!! ? Some people seem to get more upset about abortion than they do the killing of a toddler by his mother's tenth boyfriend. Go figure. (And, no, I'm not knocking live-in relationships. It's just that it often seems it is the boyfriend who is reported in the news as the abuser!!!)


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Benji'sMom*
The sybiote or parasite is still a separate being, not part of your own body.

If something is inside my body, it is, by definition, not separate from me. Something may only stay inside my body with my consent. If the technology exists to do so, I have the right to remove it. This is MY body.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *spicensnail007*
Then I guess no one should mourn, be sad, or feel a loss when they have an early miscarriage. Why care?

I personally did not mourn my early miscarriages, but why should others not mourn or be sad or feel a loss, just because it's an embryo/fetus? Why should people not care about the fact that they're not going to have a baby?


----------



## Sustainer

I'm an atheist.


----------



## karendrema

Pro-choice to me is not about whether I personally would have an abortion, its about giving other the opportunity to make their own decisions. It goes along in my mind with freedom of religion and not using the 10 commandments and other religious symbols or references in our schools and governments. It goes along with allowing same-sex couples the right to marry no matter what I think, becuase its their choice - their life not mine.

I my opinion the role of laws in the government is to help us live together peacefully as a society, not to legislate morality. Murder is illegal not because it is immoral (I'm not saying it isn't, keep in mind) but because we couldn't live as a society if we couldn't feel safe from being killed by our neighbor.


----------



## Ilovemylittlegirl

if open minded means being ok with things that go against my moral convictions and beliefs then it's a place I don't want to be


----------



## lotusdebi

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ilovemylittlegirl*
if open minded means being ok with things that go against my moral convictions and beliefs then it's a place I don't want to be









It's a shame that you have decided to attack a fellow MDC member on the basis of her beliefs, or lack thereof. It does show the kind of person you are.

I'm also an atheist. Care to attack me as well?


----------



## Ilovemylittlegirl

I apologize, I didn't mean it as a personal attack against an individual person. I just meant to express that in order to be ok with abortion and all that it entails, you couldn't possibly be a Christian.


----------



## lotusdebi

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ilovemylittlegirl*
I apologize, I didn't mean it as a personal attack against an individual person. I just meant to express that in order to be ok with abortion and all that it entails, you couldn't possibly be a Christian.

Perhaps, one couldn't possibly be your version of a Christian. You, however, do not speak for all Christians in the world. As many here at MDC would attest.

And, please keep in mind, there are more options than simply Christian or Atheist.


----------



## Benji'sMom

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sustainer*
If something is inside my body, it is, by definition, not separate from me. Something may only stay inside my body with my consent. If the technology exists to do so, I have the right to remove it.


For now. But you know, the Chief Justice is looking mighty pale! It would only take 5 votes, then we wouldn't have to hear this nonsense anymore. No more "human right" to choose...


----------



## lotusdebi

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Benji'sMom*
For now. But you know, the Chief Justice is looking mighty pale! It would only take 5 votes, then we wouldn't have to hear this nonsense anymore. No more "human right" to choose...

But many, many more dead women.

And I may be among them.

Nice to know you care so much...







:


----------



## damian'smom

i am an ap mamma and i am PRO CHOICE... this is due to the fact that we can only account for our own experiiences. Women who need or recieve abortions should be able to make thier own choices and have the freedom to determain the outcome of thier future... Personally I am pro-life, that is to say I chose to have my son and even if it were not a planned pregnancy I would have never recieved an abortion. This for me has always been the case. As for what other women need to do or want to do, that is not for me to decide. I am not into playing god for others, nor am I into judging the fate of others lives.. a women's uterus is her own buisness... Now when the child is born this is an entirely different case... However I am a strong advocate for chioce and am a proud member of NARAL...


----------



## EFmom

Quote:

I just meant to express that in order to be ok with abortion and all that it entails, you couldn't possibly be a Christian.
Errant nonsense. I'm a pro-choice Christian and I know many more, ranging from my minister (of the same denomination as GWB professes, by the way) to a relative who is a rc nun. Maybe we aren't your particular flavor of Christian (thank God), but Christian we most certainly are.


----------



## kblue

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sustainer*

So they claim. Prove it.

I don't have to.







I have faith in God. By grace we are saved.


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kellieblue*
I have faith in God.

You can believe it yourself if you want, but don't expect everyone else to accept it without proof, you know?


----------



## kblue

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sustainer*
You can believe it yourself if you want, but don't expect everyone else to accept it without proof, you know?

I don't. But for me, this beautiful world we've been given, my beautiful children that God has provided me with, the miracles that happen everyday, my prayers that have been answered are proof enough for me. It takes a lot of faith to believe in something that many consider intangible, but what are we without faith?

I realize this is OT now, I apologize for that, but it is the reason why I am pro-life. I do not deny anyone else their opinion. I will continue to pray for the unborn babies who are not given the respect they deserve.


----------



## amym72

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TiredX2*









From a different view--- part of being AP for me is embracing the ideal of every child a WANTED child.

Does that mean they have to be WANTED just by the mother, if she doesn't want the baby there would be a line of loving parents that would want to adopt the baby.


----------



## wende

Quote:


Originally Posted by *amym72*
Does that mean they have to be WANTED just by the mother, if she doesn't want the baby there would be a line of loving parents that would want to adopt the baby.


Sure, as long as the baby is healthy and white. Many of the rest end up in foster care. Many of them end up in homes with their biological mother who just couldn't bear to give them up for adoption after carrying them for 9 months and then giving birth to them but then later feel that the CHILD has ruined HER life so the child ends up neglected and abused. OR how about a child herself who has been raped. Should she be forced to carry another person in her to term? To go to school every day been snickered at, whispered at, called a whore, having strangers on the street saying "tsk, tsk, another baby having a baby" and screaming at her about their tax dollars taking care of "her mistake"??? I hate that "well she could always give it up for adoption". Nothing is that black and white.

Every child SHOULD be a wanted child and to say "they would be wanted by an adoptive parent" is degrading to women who do choose to give their child up for adoption. That statement acts as if the biological mother did not want that child, when in fact, many do. That is precisely WHY they CHOSE to give birth. They chose to give the child a life that they couldn't give them personally. They wanted that child to be born and they wanted that child to be happy. That choice cannot be and should not be pushed on those who either don't want to or can't.


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Lisadeanne*
God did write the bible. He told his disciples what to write.

Again, so they claim. It is not a fact. You believe it as a matter of faith.

I don't know what else to say except if you don't like abortion, don't have one. If I have an abortion, that's my business. No one else has a right to my body. Any law banning abortion is a violation of my rights.


----------



## kblue

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sustainer*
Again, so they claim. It is not a fact. You believe it as a matter of faith.

I don't know what else to say except if you don't like abortion, don't have one. If I have an abortion, that's my business. No one else has a right to my body. Any law banning abortion is a violation of my rights.

Ugh, I will reply and then close this thread for good.

Any law ALLOWING abortion is a violation of the baby's rights.

I do not agree with abortion. I will not have one. If you do, it is your business. It is also God's business since you are taking a life He created.


----------



## Kinipela79

Wow - this is an intense conversation. But it's just the same thing being said over and over again and that really does nothing in the grand scheme of things. Someone has to budge. Does that mean saying "okay - you're right and I'm wrong"? NO! But I do think that this is a good example of when two sides are so adamant about what they think that nothing ever gets done. The solution to this? I don't know!! But there has to be a point were we can all actually agree on something? And I REALLY think that the wretched phrases of "keep your legs shut" from the one side and "if I don't want a parasite in my body I have the right to remove it" from the other. I understand what both phrases are saying but they just will NEVER get anyone to want to understand or listen to what's being said, ya know?

I also think it's ironic that you have animal rights activists/vegetarians/vegans who are so passionate about the rights of an animal but don't bat an eye at abortion. It just seems odd to me. As odd as someone who is prolife that doesn't bat an eye at the death penalty or war.

Gotta go!


----------



## CookieMonsterMommy

This is unreal. I was really so "proud" of this thread until ILoveMyLittleGirl came along. We were being respectful and many of us on both sides(or most, I should say) were making very valid points and giving good explanations. i truly hope that this thread does not get shut down because of that CRAP.

Kelli-I understand that this is YOUR reasoning, truly I do. And I also respect that you realize that this is not necessarily everyone elses reasoning.









Wende, Excellent points about the adoption not ALWAYS being an option (I think we've run into each other before and agreed about the current WHITE/HEALTHY INFANT only situation, with the rest being tossed aside).

Not to mention-what if the woman is unwilling or unable to gestate and birth that baby? What if remaining pregnant would cause her to have to drop out of college and quit/be fired from work, which would cause her to have to start paying off her student loans, which would cause her and her already born child(ren) to become homeless and/or on welfare? (and btw-once the student loan grace periods are over, that's it. Even if she returned to school FT afterwards, she'd still owe $200 or whatever per month). This is a little more than an "I don't want to miss a semester". In fact, go to the Student Mamas thread and you'll see that some mamas are actually paying their bills with their student loans and financial aid. If they drop out, they lose that income.

Not to mention-As sorry as I feel for every single good woman who cannot have children, I do not feel it is my responsibility nor my duty to have babies for them. I hope and pray that another mama will make that CHOICE with love in her heart to place her baby up for adoption and make the infertile woman a Mommy, but sorry-that's not my job. Sorry if that sounds cold, but really.

Kelly


----------



## BusyMommy

: Interesting. I wonder if feelings are running any higher on this issue b/c it's "the day after."

btw: Sustainer...you crack me up.







Keep at it!


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kellieblue*
Any law ALLOWING abortion is a violation of the baby's rights.

As stated before, nothing/nobody has a right to live inside the body of another.

No law is required to legalize abortion. It is legal by default unless a law is passed illegalizing it.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kellieblue*
It is also God's business since you are taking a life He created.

Again, I'm an atheist.


----------



## wende

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BusyMommy*







: Interesting. I wonder if feelings are running any higher on this issue b/c it's "the day after."

btw: Sustainer...you crack me up.







Keep at it!

I've not seen this thread before today, but yes, my feelings are running higher on the issue because it's the day after. I'm scared for my rights and the rights of my daughters. I'm scared for the rights of all women in this country.

Sustainer, I think I like you


----------



## kblue

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sustainer*
As stated before, nothing/nobody has a right to live inside the body of another.

I know I said I would close this...but what about your children??









I honestly don't understand how a mother can say this.









I know you are an atheist - I will pray for you (even though I'm sure you'll say you don't want my prayers).

Quote:

No law is required to legalize abortion. It is legal by default unless a law is passed illegalizing it.
Which I hope will happen soon.


----------



## wende

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kellieblue*
I know I said I would close this...but what about your children??









I honestly don't understand how a mother can say this.









I know you are an atheist - I will pray for you (even though I'm sure you'll say you don't want my prayers).

My children did not have the right to live inside of me. They were there because I chose them to be there. They are here because I chose them to be here. I do not love my chidren any less because I once chose an abortion. Being a mother does not negate the fact that my body belongs to ME.

Please don't do ME any favors by praying for my soul. It's just fine thanks. Though maybe Sustainer likes the prayers


----------



## poisonedapple

nak It doesnt really matter if you believe in God, you were still created, He still is. If I stop believing YOU exsist, as I have not met you & your "posts" could easily have been written by another, it does not make you any less real. There are many things in lives now and things of the past that have proven God's exsistence, your heart is not open to see.

I am not Pro-Choice, I don't care if you call it a fetus or a baby, I know what it is and what it will be. I will do what I can (vote, pray, etc) on this matter, but in the end I will not judge you for getting one, judge you for supporting it, or judge you for being blind to God's love. That is not my job, He will take care of it all, including judgement of me. I am here to love, and to love you, but I will always hate sin but not those who embrace it.


----------



## kblue

Quote:


Originally Posted by *spicensnail007*
nak It doesnt really matter if you believe in God, you were still created, He still is. If I stop believing YOU exsist, as I have not met you & your "posts" could easily have been written by another, it does not make you any less real. There are many things in lives now and things of the past that have proven God's exsistence, your heart is not open to see.

I am not Pro-Choice, I don't care if you call it a fetus or a baby, I know what it is and what it will be. I will do what I can (vote, pray, etc) on this matter, but in the end I will not judge you for getting one, judge you for supporting it, or judge you for being blind to God's love. That is not my job, He will take care of it all, including judgement of me. I am here to love, and to love you, but I will always hate sin but not those who embrace it.

Amen.







The power of prayer is amazing! God is listening.


----------



## CookieMonsterMommy

Just a gentle reminder:

The thread is called "AP and ProChoice" not "Religious/Christian/Atheist/Zen Bhuddist/Jewish/Whatever and ProChoice"

I'm not trying to silence any one or tell you what you can and can't discuss (MDC rules do that pretty clearly), but.....
Any way that we could try to keep this on topic? Thanks so much.


----------



## BusyMommy

A little







T but a friend's son's 2nd grade teacher told them yesterday, in class, that BUsh needed to win b/c Kerry wanted women to have abortions. And, an abortion is when Mommy decides to kill her baby. So, this kid goes home thinking if Bush doesn't win, Moms will be running around randomly killing their babies--she didn't mention any time frames.

So... I lose any and all respect for her opinions as a voter and as an adult.


----------



## amym72

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rainbow*

I also want to say that nobody I know is out there having routine abortions for the hell of it. They are painful, take a long time, mess with your hormones and body, and take recovery. WHO would CHOOSE that over taking a pill every day or using condoms? Also, many people getting abortions are young people who have no access to birth control because going to their parents for BC is not even optional.


I do know several people who have had abortions as a form of birth control, one of my nieces friends has had 3-4 abortions just because her boyfriend is not "father material" (her words) but she does not want to break up with him to find someone else that is. My bil's sister got pg by a man that was a different race and she didn't want a bi-racial baby so aborted it, then less than six months later she got pg by a different man of another race and decided not to have an abortion. One of the women that worked at our local Planned Parenthood gave a speech and told of a woman that came in for an abortion almost every other month for two years for abortions, and they were educating her on how not to get pg. I know these are not normal circumstances, but there are people out there that abuse their anortion rights.


----------



## CookieMonsterMommy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BusyMommy*
A little







T but a friend's son's 2nd grade teacher told them yesterday, in class, that BUsh needed to win b/c Kerry wanted women to have abortions. And, an abortion is when Mommy decides to kill her baby. So, this kid goes home thinking if Bush doesn't win, Moms will be running around randomly killing their babies--she didn't mention any time frames.

So... I lose any and all respect for her opinions as a voter and as an adult.


Lose respect for her opinions? You bet your a$$ that I'd be at that school DEMANDING disciplinary action for that teacher. At the VERY least, I would not leave till i got a public apology and my child had a new teacher. And no, it's not because I disagree with her, it's because you DO NOT tell a child this.

(I'd think the same thing if she had said "Kerry needs to win, because if Bush wins, women won't be able to go to certain doctors and a lot of them could die doing operations on themselves")


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wende*
My children did not have the right to live inside of me. They were there because I chose them to be there. They are here because I chose them to be here. I do not love my chidren any less because I once chose an abortion. Being a mother does not negate the fact that my body belongs to ME.

What she said







(except that I haven't had an abortion)

I am used to people telling me they will pray for me. It doesn't affect me one way or the other.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *spicensnail007*
nak It doesnt really matter if you believe in God, you were still created, He still is. If I stop believing YOU exsist, as I have not met you & your "posts" could easily have been written by another, it does not make you any less real. There are many things in lives now and things of the past that have proven God's exsistence, your heart is not open to see.

I am used to these words, too. You guys are giving me a flashback to my days in the atheist chat room (which was always filled with trolling Christians). There is evidence that I exist. Obviously someone is typing these words. There is no evidence for a deity. Just because you don't believe in invisible dragons doesn't mean they don't exist. There is just as much proof for them (none) as there is of a deity. You just refuse to open your heart to the magic dragon! You are blind to its love! Pray to the flying pink unicorn! It is listening!

Sorry, Cookie.


----------



## wende

I take back what I said about you, Sustainer. Now I think I love you.


----------



## JessicaS

This thread has now gone into serious religious debating and that is not ok in Activism. It isn't ok to flame another's religion regardless of how much you disagree with it.

If you wish to debate the Bible please do so in the Religious Discussion area. This thread was going well before this. I really need the religious debating/taunting/ and judging to cease.

I am aware it does have something to do with abortion so it is still applicable to the thread but I am seriously warning those that wish to post on this thread that criticizing another's religion is not ok on Mothering nor is it ok in Activism.

Please be respectful in termonology and other's views. This is referring to both sides in this side discussion just in case there is any confusion.


----------



## amym72

Quote:


Originally Posted by *phathui5*
Aren't you supposed to get refitted for a diaphragm after giving birth? It's not like a condom where you just go pick it up at Giant. You get a prescription for the right sized one. So it's not that they're losing effectiveness, it's that you need the right size.

Yes, Plus if you gain or lose 10 lbs you have to be refitted. Any they don't work for everyone, I was going to get one after my 2nd pg and my bladder had dropped (this is common for women who have had multiple pregnancies) and was in the way of where the diaphragm was suppossed to go.


----------



## Ilovemylittlegirl

All the arguments for abortion being legal- incest/rape, deformity, racial implications, poverty, life begins a birth, etc- do not stand to reason. When life begins is largely irrelevant. Why is murder illegal? I'm sure even atheists agree that it should be. But why? Because ending a person's life short is robbing them all of life's experiences they would have experienced for the remainder of their lives. Killing a 40 year old man robs him of the remainder of his life. Killing a 10 year old robs him of the remainder of his life. Killing a fetus, even if you don't condede that it's human (ridiculous) robs him of his entire life that would be lived outside the womb. He will never see a sunset, never know love, never experience the joys and sorrows, triumphs and defeats of life. This has nothing to do with a specific religious belief or world view. Abortion is immoral just as killing outside the womb is immoral. Even atheists have an idea of justice and social contract and I believe abortion clearly falls into the same parameters as any other murder. If you are OK with abortion, and have no religious convictions, you'll have a hard time justifying why murder is and should be illegal. If it's OK to rob a growing baby of it's entire life, it shouldn't be any less acceptable to take the life of someone who has already lived a portion of their life. Let's be honest: Abortion is really about convenience. The majority of abortions conducted are done as a means of birth control. I consider abortion a global holocaust that eclipses the actrocities of the Nazis. I'll leave this thread now. Trying to convince someone that the zygote, fetus, etc growing in a mother's womb is actually LIFE is much like trying to convince the Nazi's that Jews were human and deserve to live. Adios.


----------



## amym72

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mquester*
Instead of fruitlessly debating with people who are pro-choice, those who don't believe in abortion should try to promote more effective birth control options for all women (and girls!) We need more choices and more support in our society for mothers who DO choose to keep their pregnancy.

Advocate longer maternity leaves and state-funded daycare if you really want to help stop non-medically necessary abortions !

Personally I believe women who do have non-medical abortions should do so during the first trimester - for both their sakes and the baby's. My friends who have had abortions all grieved for the child they lost - one still does - but it's a choice each of them felt they had to make due to life circumstances.

I personally would never have an abortion, but I've had friends who literally felt they had no other options. Some women have jobs they need to keep to survive where a 40 week pregnancy isn't an option - due to chemical exposures, physical limitations while pregnant, etc... Employers DO fire women for being pregnant despite the laws - it happened to me and 2 other women I'm friends with.

When people ask if I'm pro-choice or pro-life I respond that I'm pro-mother and that women in the US need more support for whatever choice they make...Fathers do to actually.

-MQ

Very well said







I think if we could put the money into education and birth control supply, find a birth control option that is 100% fool proof and give it out freely to the masses there would be no abortion debates because the only abortions that would be preformed would either be medically neccessary or rape/incest cases. It seems that even Pro-life/ anti-abortionist (whichever you prefer) feel that woman should be able to have the choice of abortion if it was medically neccessary or from rape/incest.


----------



## wende

Bullshit

I do not believe in religion and don't have to in order to feel that murder is wrong. I also do not need to fall into your beliefs that abortion is murder. If we take someone off life support are we murdering them? NO! While the fetus is in my womb I am it's life support system and I have every right to take them off of it. Cold? Callus? Maybe. The fact remains, it's my body first and foremost.

Or, I know. Let's start calling abortion murder. Since murder has no statute of limitations how about I get called in to trial. Sent to jail for the murder of a child. Take me out of my home and away from my children. Good plan.


----------



## amym72

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lotusdebi*
If I had been forced to continue my first pregnancy, I would have killed myself. Adoption wasn't a solution. The pregnancy itself was a problem. I would not have survived the pregnancy due to my severe mental illness being in complete control of me. Yes, I was on meds. No, they didn't help. My illness is extremely difficult to treat. I was psychotic. The pregnancy was unplanned and unwanted. I was already very suicidal, and my boyfriend at the time had to watch me all the time to make sure I didn't hurt myself. I was also living in a cockroach-infested apartment I couldn't afford, across the hall from a crack dealer. I was working for a guy who was sexually harrassing me and I couldn't find another job. My boyfriend couldn't keep a job at all. We were surviving off of Ramen noodles.
A few months later, faced with being homeless and living on the streets again (I had been kicked out at age 16 and house-hopped or lived in the woods, slept on playgrounds, etc. for the next two years), I overdosed on my meds and ended up unconscious in the ER, hooked up to machines, with a tube up my nose and down my throat, pumping in charcoal to neutralize the meds.
Go ahead, suggest psychiatric hospitalization for the suicidal pregnant woman. Problems with that: most of the psych hospitals in the area are closing down. The few that are left don't have room for anyone else. After the suicide attempt that put me in the ER, I was released. No psych hospitalization. No required psych appts. Nothing. Do you really think I would have been put in a psych hospital for threatening suicide? Even if I was, they would have held me for 72 hours, then let me go if it was involuntary (which it would have been - I've been abused in psych hospitals before). During that 72 hours, I would have been forced on meds without given info about the meds (even the names of the meds - it has happened to me before). Those meds may have caused birth defects, just like the meds I was already on. Then, you'd have me continue the pregnancy and put the baby up for adoption? A baby with severe birth defects. A baby with a history of severe mental illness in the family (depression, bipolar, AND schizophrenia). A baby who was also exposed to illegal drugs and lots of alcohol while in the womb. A baby who would probably be further damaged by my attempts to miscarry. Would you have adopted this baby? Would you adopt all the babies like that?

You have not walked in my shoes. You do not know what it's like to be me. You do not know what it's like to be psychotic throughout a pregnancy. I went through it again when I was pregnant with my son. That was a wanted pregnancy, when I was in a stable relationship, and when I was more mentally stable than I had ever been before. I still lost my mind. I still set fire to the living room. I still had extremely strong urges to hurt myself and others. I ranted, I raved, I hallucinated, I had delusions. I barely made it through that pregnancy intact. I considered abortion a number of times even then, even when I wanted a child.

Is my suicide better than me having an abortion? You would take away my right to save my own life, so that you could bring an unwanted life into this world. And you would lose both of us.

Abortion MUST remain legal. You can't possibly imagine all of the circumstances that women face that makes them choose abortion. You can't decide that we can or should continue our pregnancies. You don't know - you CAN'T know - what we are experiencing. It needs to be our choice. Or you are choosing to kill women in order to save the -possibility- of children who are unwanted and unloved.

And, for the record, I did and do not regret having an abortion. It was the best decision for me at that time. I was relieved. I regret getting pregnant in the first place, but I don't see how I could have avoided that when I was so out of my mind all the time.

Sorry you had to go thru all that.


----------



## RubyV

Quote:


Originally Posted by *amym72*
Very well said







I think if we could put the money into education and birth control supply, find a birth control option that is 100% fool proof and give it out freely to the masses there would be no abortion debates because the only abortions that would be preformed would either be medically neccessary or rape/incest cases. It seems that even Pro-life/ anti-abortionist (whichever you prefer) feel that woman should be able to have the choice of abortion if it was medically neccessary or from rape/incest.

Seriously, inprove social services, provide universal health insurance, daycare, education and watch abortion rates drop.

Amazes me that the same people who scream about ending legal abortion are the same ones whe refuse to pay taxes for social services.


----------



## Ilovemylittlegirl

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wende*
Bullshit

I do not believe in religion and don't have to in order to feel that murder is wrong. I also do not need to fall into your beliefs that abortion is murder. If we take someone off life support are we murdering them? NO! While the fetus is in my womb I am it's life support system and I have every right to take them off of it. Cold? Callus? Maybe. The fact remains, it's my body first and foremost.

Or, I know. Let's start calling abortion murder. Since murder has no statute of limitations how about I get called in to trial. Sent to jail for the murder of a child. Take me out of my home and away from my children. Good plan.

One last post: Clearly you didn't carefully read my post as I did not refer to religion as a supporting fact for my argument. I can see that the concept I was presenting is over your head. How's this: if it's "your body" then why not leave it alone? Oh yes. It's because life is growing inside you and the body being butchered isn't your own. And I have no issue with you going to jail


----------



## BusyMommy

This is a serious Q...what was the name of the series from YEARS ago about an African American family and friends. I will always remember the episode where the kids had set up a giant head of cabbage on a pedestal w/a robe and people were worshipping it.







What is it?
ANyways, your flying pink unicorns reminded me.

Innocent Q...do prolifers believe in birth control? I would assume not b/c sex is to procreate. Interesting to ponder, though. I mean, it would prevent the issue. BUt, then again people shouldn't be having nooky in the first place.


----------



## RubyV

[

Quote:

I]One last post: Clearly you didn't carefully read my post as I did not refer to religion as a supporting fact for my argument. I can see that the concept I was presenting is over your head. How's this: if it's "your body" then why not leave it alone? Oh yes. It's because life is growing inside you and the body being butchered isn't your own. And I have no issue with you going to jail [/I]
HOw do you propose that the goverment force women to stay pregnant and recieve the appropriate care, etc?

What's happening is the name of the show. The head of lettucce was called Ralph.


----------



## kblue

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BusyMommy*
.

Innocent Q...do prolifers believe in birth control? I would assume not b/c sex is to procreate. Interesting to ponder, though. I mean, it would prevent the issue. BUt, then again people shouldn't be having nooky in the first place.


I'll answer this. Abstinence. Natural Family Planning.

I am not against birth control (I believe that is Catholic value - I am Baptist), but I do draw the line with some forms. I do not believe in IUD and am still on the fence about the morning after pill and even regular birth control pills. But, I need to do more research on those before I say I am totally against them.


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ilovemylittlegirl*
Why is murder illegal? I'm sure even atheists agree that it should be.

"Even" atheists? Again the negative implications. Of course murder should be illegal.

Quote:

Killing a fetus, even if you don't condede that it's human (ridiculous) robs him of his entire life that would be lived outside the womb.
The same could be said of an egg that would have been fertilized were it not for the use of contraception.

Quote:

Abortion is immoral just as killing outside the womb is immoral.
Something is immoral when it violates the rights of another. A fetus does not have the right to exist inside of another's body.

Quote:

Even atheists have an idea of justice and social contract
Of course we understand justice and social contract.







:

Quote:

I believe abortion clearly falls into the same parameters as any other murder.
Murders do not involve someone living inide of someone else's body.

Quote:

If you are OK with abortion, and have no religious convictions, you'll have a hard time justifying why murder is and should be illegal.
That is ridiculous. People who have been born have a right to their life. Their existence does not enfringe on someone else's rights.

Quote:

If it's OK to rob a growing baby of it's entire life, it shouldn't be any less acceptable to take the life of someone who has already lived a portion of their life.
It has nothing to do with how long someone has been alive. It has to do with whether or not the subject is living inside of another's body.

Quote:

Let's be honest: Abortion is really about convenience. The majority of abortions conducted are done as a means of birth control.
That is absolutely untrue.

Quote:

I consider abortion a global holocaust that eclipses the actrocities of the Nazis. I'll leave this thread now. Trying to convince someone that the zygote, fetus, etc growing in a mother's womb is actually LIFE is much like trying to convince the Nazi's that Jews were human and deserve to live. Adios.
Are you seriously comparing us to the Nazis who dehumanized and murdered millions of Jewish people? I don't even know where to begin with how insulting that is.


----------



## Ilovemylittlegirl

Quote:


Originally Posted by *RubyV*
[
HOw do you propose that the goverment force women to stay pregnant and recieve the appropriate care, etc?


How do propose that the government force it's citizens to refrain from murdering each other? LAW and consequences for breaking it. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "Legislation can't change mens hearts, but it can keep them from hanging me from a tree."

I find it ironic that you ridicule Bush and his administration for intolerence and bigotry in your signature. Aren't they entitled to serve and administrate as they feel personally convicted? You aren't very tolerant of THEIR views and beliefs are you?Hyprocritical. Live and let live


----------



## Calm

Someone brought up the right of choice for fathers. Good point. Now put the father in the postition of the one who wants to save the unborn but that choice is taken from him for no other reason than convenient birth control (abortion).

Ps, this discussion has become disgusting. Heads of lettuce as sarcastic reference to God? I am Buddhist, so I don't believe in God as such, but even I know where to draw the freakin' line. It was questioned before why someone would be offended by certain terminology. I question if this whole discussion is a piss-take. Do you really get joy from some of the things you are saying? - and those of you know to whom I refer. The way the piss-take at religion has spun into this conversation is exactly what I was referring to about the terminology regarding such a delicate topic. This whole thing is poking fun and I can't believe I didn't see that sooner. Nice. Real nice.


----------



## Calm

I feel like such a fool.


----------



## kblue

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sustainer*
Something is immoral when it violates the rights of another. A fetus does not have the right to exist inside of another's body.

nak as well...please excuse the typos

ugh, I just can't stay away. i'm am really trying to understand your reasoning here. where does the fetus have the right to exist if not inside another's body? so, you are saying it has no rights at all? this really, really disturbs me. i'm sorry, religious views aside, i cannot see how as a mother, you can make these claims.

for the woman who had psychotic espisodes while pg (sorry can't find the post to quote) - i'm sorry for your traumatic experiene.







i have been there. i was in the psych ward for 3 days during my first pregnancy. luckily, meds did work for me - i can't imagine what it would've been like if they hadn't. maybe i would've done the same as you - i don't know. but having been there, i still don't see it as a valid reason to keep abortion legal. although, i do not judge you, my heart aches for what you went through.


----------



## Arduinna

Sustainer I love you, but I don't know how you do it!


----------



## rainsmom

Quote:

I'll answer this. Abstinence. Natural Family Planning.

That will work just as well as "JUST SAY NO TO DRUGS"

Yea, right............









Thank god (or whomever) for BC pills.......No other forms of bc worked for me when I was younger. NFP was NOT a reliable form of bc.....at least in my case...and I know for alot of other women too.


----------



## kblue

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rainsmom*
That will work just as well as "JUST SAY NO TO DRUGS"

Yea, right............









Thank god (or whomever) for BC pills.......No other forms of bc worked for me when I was younger. NFP was NOT a reliable form of bc.....at least in my case...and I know for alot of other women too.

saying no to drugs does work if you follow through with what you say.









like I said, i still support b/c pills. i just draw the line at other forms of b/c.


----------



## Sustainer

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ilovemylittlegirl*
I find it ironic that you ridicule Bush and his administration for intolerence and bigotry in your signature. Aren't they entitled to serve and administrate as they feel personally convicted? You aren't very tolerant of THEIR views and beliefs are you?Hyprocritical. Live and let live









The Bush administration does not live and let live. They violate the rights of others. They are not entitled to violate the rights of others.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kellieblue*
where does the fetus have the right to exist if not inside another's body?

Since a fetus cannot live except inside the body of another, it does not have a right to existence. During the time that it is inside of someone's body, its existence is a prividege, granted by the host, not a right.


----------



## kblue

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sustainer*
Since a fetus cannot live except inside the body of another, it does not have a right to existence.









still don't get it. never will. i'll agree to disagree.


----------



## JessicaS

Aw geez...I am gonna close this.


----------

