Tuesday, August 26, 2008


I am calling you out and you know who you are (any other pro-choicers feel free to chime in).  

The newest anti-life buzzword seems to be viability. If the child is not viable without its mommy, then it is ok to kill him. I think you* have finally realized that it is a baby, regardless of gestational age (hard to argue with the science) so instead of focusing on that you are now focusing on this viability stuff. My question is this, when do you change your logic? I mean, if it is ok to kill a baby because it is not viable then shouldn't we withhold modern medicine from just about everyone? If I need a blood transfusion or else I will die, should the blood transfusion be withheld because I am no longer viable? If I get shot and am on the brink of death should medical personnel not do everything within their power to save me? I need their help to survive. I will die without it. Do I get to live or, since I am inviable without help, should I just be killed?
Clearly the logic has to shift at a certain time. When is that time? And, since it does have to eventually shift, doesn't that indicate flawed logic?
*you meaning one, as in pro-choicers as a whole

50 people are laughing with me:

Anonymous said...

none of my views will be popular here but I will carefully consider my comments manana when it's not midnight plus 20. i couldn't let you call me out and respond with nothin' before bedtime ;)

btw, what are your views on the death penalty? war?


scmom (Barbara) said...

A three year old child is not viable -- he would not survive without his mother. For that matter, many 12-year-old children are not viable -- is it o.k. to do away with them too? How about a mentally handicapped 30 year old?

And for the above commenter, when the death penalty and the war take 3,700 lives PER DAY, then ask your question.

Regina said...

i am against the death penalty. i am also against unjustified war. difference is, the death penalty and war tend to happen to people who have done something to cause it. random people aren't just sentenced to death and we don't randomly go to war with other countries (that doesn't mean innocent people aren't sometimes sentenced to death or that every war is justified).
with abortion, an innocent child has done nothing wrong and yet is being snuffed out. no (good) reason. no justification.

you know i love you!! ;)

Amy said...

Regina you rock. That is all that needs to be said.

Auntie Nee said...

I am really proud that you are my sis. I love ya.
This is something that happens in everyday life. Unfortunately it happens to the unborn and the elderly way too often!!!

Regina said...

and as an fyi for anyone wanting to comment...be NICE or else i will delete it. i am truly trying to understand why someone would be pro-choice, though i once was myself. i used the standard 'i dont think i could do it but who am i to say what someone else should do' until i truly thought about it as an adult. now, as an adult (especially an adult with kids) i am trying to understand how another adult-who has thought about it-can still accept abortion.
lis and i are friends who get along famously, and will continue to be friends, so this isnt a mean spirited thing...and her reply back wont be mean spirited either. i actually hope some other pro-choicers (there are a few i know of who read the blog) chime in so we aren't just ganging up on lis.

so far everyone is playing nicely, let's keep it that way.

Anonymous said...

I have lots of arguments on this, none of which will be popular here...but since the point you have chosen is viability, here goes. Simply put, a microscopic collection of cells is no more 'viable' than a nut and bolt come together to form the...Space Needle. A fetus cannot live without the mother, therefore it is a part of her body and falls under the jurisdiction of the mother. A fetus holds the promise of life, not life itself. The very definition of viable is (a) physically fitted to live or (b) (of a fetus) having reached a stage of development as to be capable of living, under normal conditions, outside the uterus.

I also firmly believe that it is not possible to give the fetus rights without stripping women of their rights to make medical decisions regarding their bodies - giving a fetus legal rights is to demote women to second class citizens. Among other reasons I am pro-choice, I very much believe that at the core this a women's rights issue. Should men who get a woman pregnant 'unwantedly' be lawfully required to get vasectomies? If we force government controls on women's bodies, it seems only fair that we do so to men. How far would that get in our 84% male Congress?

Also, we have the right to check a little box on our driver’s licenses to determine what we want done with our organs after death. So, we retain the rights over our organs after we are dead – and pregnant women are denied that same right?? Until reproductive rights are unquestioned we will continue to have gender equity issues in this country.

As to your transfusion analogy, (a) no one is being forced to donate their blood to you and (b) there are a myriad of sources from which you can receive your donor (willing participants) blood. A fetus? Only the mother can provide that – if she’s not willing, we force her? Isn’t that akin to tyranny? That’s the country we want to live in?

SCmom - a three year old child, a twelve year old child, the old, infirm or mentally handicapped –ABSOLUTELY viable. There is no question about that. If the mother is unable or does not want to care for children of any age someone else can step in and provide their care.

A huge issue I have and the reason I asked the war/death penalty question is that many people who are pro-life are pro-death penalty and are supporters of a strong military / war. (Yes, I realize that the vast majority of people are not ‘pro war’ and that sometimes war is necessary) But those arguments lend themselves more to an anti-choice bent, not pro-life. You have to be pro-ALL-life, in my opinion – not just pro-life when it comes to abortion. You don't get to pick and choose which life.

Other big problems I have are religion and a lack of support for those who are faced with making this choice…

This is getting awfully long, I know, so I’ll end it now, but we can get into those issues, too iffin’ ya wanna.

I truly comment in the spirit of honest debate - ;) no direct attack here


Regina said...

oh absolutely, totally done in the spirit of debate. you know i love me a good debate.
alrighty...i chose viability because it is the common term now thrown about (even by yourself), choose whichever reason you would like for your argument, i'm game. true, a baby cannot live at an early gestational age without the mother but that does not make it part of her body. it is housed in her body but not part of it. a tapeworm needs a host but if it is in your intestine it isn't actually part of your body. now, if the fetus isn't in fact a baby then what is it? are we playing russian roulette and just hoping a puppy or alien doesn't pop out? the very definition of being pregnant is that it is a baby inside of you. if it's not a baby then you aren't pregnant. simply put, a baby is life in its beginning forms. saying it isn't because it looks like a bean is the same as saying a child isn't human because it doesn't look like an adult.
In terms of women's rights...a woman does have the right to do what she wants with HER body. If she wants to have her spleen, kidney, entire uterus removed, so be it. However, it isn't herself she is having sucked out. It is a different being. If you had to kill yourself to have an abortion, I think far fewer people would have them. Why is it that a fetus has legal rights if it is killed by a 3rd party but has no legal rights if it is killed by its mother? I don't understand your vasectomy analogy. To me it doesn't correlate so please explain that further. We aren't saying women who don't want to get pregnant need to have their ovaries removed and we do hold fathers responsible, wanted or not, with child support. If you are saying this is a government issue (not a moral one) then what about our founding fathers (government) who said we ALL have the inalienable right to life (liberty and the pursuit of happiness)?
As for organ donation, women can be organ donors. However, a baby isn't an organ. So saying abortion should be wrong is not saying you can't be an organ donor. (i don't think i fully understand your point here)
In terms of the transfusion, I wasn't speaking to HOW you get the blood. I was referring to the fact that blood is needed. You are in need of someone else's help so you are now inviable. you can't survive on your own. you aren't physically fitted to live without modern medicine.
Now, a woman does have plenty of options (see, i am pro-choice) in this situation so no, a pro-life country is not a tyrannical one. First (and most simple) is to say that if the man and woman do not want a child then they shouldn't have sex or should take measures to prevent conception. Saying that that is impossible is reducing ourselves to animals who have no control over our desires. it might not be easy but it is possible. once conception occurs, however, the woman and man are no longer able to choose to kill the baby. we all have to live with the consequences of our actions. once the baby is born options are opened again. adoption is an option if you aren't willing to raise the child. you aren't forced to be a mom.
you are right about the death penalty but i hope you realize it goes both ways. it is just as hypocritical to call someone a hypocrite who is pro-life/pro-death penalty as it is to be pro-choice/anti-death penalty. so you say you have to be pro-ALL-life then i say you have to be pro-ALL-death. EXACTLY as you said 'you don't get to pick and choose which life'.
I know you aren't an overly religious person so i have tried to keep religion out. as for lack of support i agree...there is lack of support for women facing this. instead our society immediately pushes them to Planned Parenthood's door. plus our society (and media) refuses to acknowledge how abortion harms women...how deaths can/do occur from it, the link to breast cancer, the psychological damage it can do.

The Wades said...

ding...your turn lisa. i'm enjoying reading this debate. love you both!

Anonymous said...

just a quickie -

If society forces women to reproduce against their will, then we as a society have an obligation to care for, feed, provide clothing, and educate these innocent children to make them normal productive members of society. No matter what the parents did, the kids are innocent of any "sins" of the parents.

Are the opponents of abortion willing to put their money where their mouth is? Are you willing to pass the massive tax increases and social programs to deal with raising these children who would have been aborted? I don't see any commitment from opponents of abortion to defend these children after they are born.


Anonymous said...

also, scmom -

i'm confused, if the numbers of abortions performed were less than the numbers of lives lost at war it would then be okay to pose the question as to which life is more important?

and... i have a sick, whiny three year old that i just might give away this afternoon...i feel certain he'd still make it :)

...oh, i kid, i kid. i'm not really shipping him off...but he is very resourceful... :)


scmom (Barbara) said...

With 3700 hundreds babies a day being killed, we are at a time in this country when we must use triage mentality to save lives (the process of sorting victims, as of a battle or disaster, to determine medical priority in order to increase the number of survivors). It really comes down to that. What issue is taking the most lives?

It's not Capital Punishment or even "the war." It is abortion. I'm not saying that those issues are not important. They are -- human suffering must be acknowledged, and to the best of our ability, resolved. But we are at triage level -- who is suffering the most; where are the most losses?

When the killing of babies at the hands of their mothers is illegal, then the focus can become war and Capital Punishment.

Oh, and unless rape is the reason someone is pregnant, society is not forcing anyone to reproduce. Just say no.

Regina said...

you are getting off topic. the discussion is whether or not abortion is ok. unless you are saying abortion is ok for the simple fact that we as a society then don't have raise these kids.
though it is a secondary topic i will go ahead and answer. you are looking at this as a political question. it seems to me you think 'i am democrat. i am liberal. i must be for abortion. i must be for welfare and other social programs. regina is a republican therefore she must be for the death penalty, pro-life, and against social programs.'
i am not coming to this topic politically, i disagree with abortion morally. it is evil and no good comes of it. simply put, it is wrong.
like barbara said, society isn't forcing women to reproduce against their will. no one is making you get pregnant. it isn't china in reverse. i am just saying if you choose to get pregnant (and seriously, this day in age with the gazillions of contraceptions available, if you get pregnant it really is a choice-wanted or not) then you can't choose to murder the baby. Like you said in your very own words 'the kids are innocent of any 'sins' of the parents'...if you do actually believe that then why do you think it is ok to have the kids pay the ultimate price, their life?
now, if abortion was once again made illegal do you think tons of kids will be born? i don't. i think people will just start to think about things before they do them. prior to the pill being widely distributed there were far fewer instances of out of wedlock births. the 'great savior' actually led to more 'unwanted' kids because it let people think they could do whatever without consequence. with abortion being legal that just increased it more. politicians themselves (liberal ones, clinton for example) say that abortion should be legal but we should try to reduce its use. why? if there is nothing wrong with abortion, if it is the new 'great savior' then why do we need to try to reduce how often it is used.
as for social programs...i am all for programs to help people truly in need. i dont disagree with welfare, i disagree with people who use it as a crutch. it is intended to help people get through a rough patch...to try and get a leg up. instead people use it as their actual income. they decide to stay on welfare indefinitely instead of using it as intended. like i said, i dont think there would be some massive wave of children being born that would then need the village to raise them. focus on family, teach abstinence instead of throwing condoms at them in middle school, teach people there are consequences to their actions, show them a different way.

Regina said...

oh yeah, and while your 3 yo might survive if you give him away, he wouldn't survive on his own, left to his own devices. sure he is resourceful in your kitchen, but he wouldn't make it more than a week in the wild.
seems to me pro-choicers are the ones differentiating which life is worth allowing. you are the ones saying life that is on earth is more important than life that is in womb (not to mention all the darn animals liberals are always wanting to save...whales are far more important than humans :-)

Anonymous said...

no, he wouldn't make it in the wild, but someone else could step in to provide his care. (I think he'd really like Seattle... :)

A fetus can only be cared for by the pregnant woman whose rights are being violated if she is not allowed control over her reproduction. Which is my primary issue, I think - as I think more about it today.

i'll be back after baths

Regina said...

she is allowed rights over her reproduction. she can choose to not get pregnant. once pregnant though, once she is with child, she can't choose to kill that child just as she can't choose to kill it once it is born.

who exactly is bestowing these rights upon us?

The Wades said...

ding ding ding

Michelle said...

Briefly, I would like to point out that 50 years ago, when abortion was illegal, we did not have massive welfare issues and children starving in the streets.

100 years ago, when NOBODY used contraception because even Protestants thought it was immoral, we also didn't seem to have an impoverished society. Of course, we also didn't have massively expensive "necessities" like cars, internet, cell phones, air conditioning, etc.

But that is, as Regina pointed out, off-topic. The issue is, does a fetus have the right to life? If we use viability as a determining factor, if we say that a fetus unable to live outside the womb does not have the right to life, then we must be very very careful.

First of all, does this mean that a fetus that can survive outside the womb have the right to life? Right now, fetuses as young as 22 weeks have survived outside the womb. Granted, they spend months in the NICU, and it costs tens of thousands of dollars to help them live, but nonetheless, they do live and go on to be normal and healthy. So, would someone who uses viability as the determining factor be willing to outlaw abortions after 22 weeks?

{I suspect the answer to that is no, because I suspect that the real issue is not viability, but rather a woman being "forced" to have a baby when she doesn't want to have a baby. I can argue that point, but right now I am restricting the debate to viability.}

Now, if we agree that a viable baby has the right to live, just as my infant daughter who is unable to forage for food and is at the mercy of others for sustenance (my 3 year old though seems perfectly capable of finding something to eat) has a right to live, then what do we do when technology improves? If scientists invented womblike machines to help fetuses that were only 18 weeks old survive better, would we have to adjust the laws? What if these womb-like machines could be used on a fetus as young as 12 weeks old? What about when scientists are able to take a sperm and egg and grow them into a baby without the child ever being inside a woman's body?

If an infant who requires constant care has the right to that constant care, how could we deny that constant care to an unborn child if the technology is available?

My point in all this is we can not use science to determine when that "clump of cells" becomes worthy of all the rights due to all mankind. If you want to argue "convenience" or when one person's rights infringe upon another's person's rights, we can do that, but I don't consider viability a legitimate excuse to kill a baby.

But I am, after all, pro-war. I mean, without war, my husband wouldn't have a job. Plus, think of all those unborn babies we could have sent off to die for noble causes? (Yes, this is sarcasm. NOBODY is pro-war, and certainly NOT anybody who has to risk their lives or those of their loved ones.)

Peace to all, including the most defenseless members of our society (no, I don't mean the babies, I mean the ones who try to debate me - snicker).

Anonymous said...

Ok - I have a lot of catching up to do... in list form because I have not the energy to narrate them for ya'll...

1. Dropping off in the wild - sure, he wouldn't survive, but then neither would most adults.
Mute point. I was kidding anyway -I love him fiercely and his whining has decreased tremendously today. :)
I find it a ridiculous comparison - 3 or 12 year olds to FETUSES. If the fetus is viable, then by all means, allow the mother to simply hand it over to a medical professional, adoptive parent, loving family who wants it at the time she wished to terminate her involvement and see if it would live.

2. The very definition of viable is (a) physically fitted to live or (b) (of a fetus) having reached a stage of development as to be capable of living, under normal conditions, outside the uterus.

Webster's - not some word I choose to throw around.

And as to whether life begins at conception, it obviously does not. Egg and sperm cells are alive BEFORE conception. All cells are alive, no question. But when they come together, they are not a baby so much as a potential baby. When life can be sustained outside the womb - viable.

3. Sure people could and I believe should take measures to prevent pregnancy if that's not what they want. But things happen, condoms fail, the pill fails. Seriously, if people were trying to prevent and something went wrong, they sign up for a lifelong commitment?? Society has the right to dictate that to individuals???
As a mother - this is not a job to be taken lightly. It's hard enough for me and I would NEVER choose to do any other thing with my days than be with my babies. But it *is* a difficult job and if you don't want it or aren't equipped to handle it for reasons that are personal to you - why should that be forced upon you?

4. scmom - still not understanding the numbers game. If "the war" were to escalate and we were faced with that many casualties per day, your abortion stance takes a back seat because more soldiers die than fetuses?

This is not triage - the people who are having abortions are faced with a difficult choice - they are choosing for whatever PERSONAL reasons that they do not want/cannot handle a child. I do not believe this is something people enter into lightly -
Your numbers are not a count of loved, loving, cherished, accomplished, productive adults or children. This is a tally of unwanted pregnancies -

5. And when I speak of welfare it is not from a strictly political standpoint. I believe that to whom much has been given, much is required (regina, that's luke...see, I do know the bible :)
We are talking about a group of children whom no one wants - if we have forced them here do we not then have the responsibility to take care of them, after all they're not viable until they're what, 12?

6. Abstinence education is failing miserably in this country. We need to properly educate young people, provide them with options and access to birth control; solutions that will actually make an impact. And then provide all the supports I spoke of earlier if they do get pregnant and choose to have a baby -

7. These children are UNWANTED - how will they feel growing up knowing that? How are they to become healthy, productive members of society with no one loving them and showing them how? Are you really looking out for the best interest of the child?

I know this will bring up adoption - don't. We don't adopt the kids WHO ARE ALREADY HERE.

8. There is no link between breast cancer and abortion.

"The American Cancer Society concludes that presently the evidence does not support a causal abortion-breast cancer association"

"the NCI...concluded from selected evidence that it was well-established that abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk."

9. Michelle - the welfare system, in its current form was largely formed in the 60s, so comparing today's poorly-funded, haphazardly-constructed welfare system to a program in it's infancy hardly makes sense, in the context of abortion or otherwise.

And 100 years ago, yes, *EVEN* the protestants used birth control - LOTS of people did, and centuries before. Heck, women in China drank mercury to avoid becoming pregnant, the Egyptians used 'condoms' of fabric... fruits, oils, potions even crocodile dung have been used to prevent pregnancy throughout history. Not always effective, but utilized.

I'm not sure what impoverished society and 'necessities' have to do with this but more so than immoral birth control and abortion rights, one could point to factors like an increase in urbanization, population growth, a media influence...

until next time...


Shelly said...

if life doesn't start at conception then *why the hell wear a condom*! 'Nuff said :o)

and I *disagree* with the statement "under the mothers jurisdiction" - God is the Creator, therefore the baby with a soul is under God's Jurisdiction! Okay, now... 'nuff said ;-)

Shelly said...

...forces women to reproduce??? Of which *society* do you speak?

Shelly said...

Regina - I think you owe me some coffee for making me stay up til 1am!

Regina said...

1-2. so you are saying only a viable baby is one worthy of life? as michelle asked does that mean abortion after 20 weeks should be outlawed since some babies have lived outside the womb after that age?

3. how is it that society is wrong to dictate murder of a child unacceptable but it is ok for society to try to dictate when life begins and under what circumstances life is worth saving?

4. perhaps more of the issue is that as has been said several times no one is ever pro war, but many understand that it is a sometimes necessary evil. however, many people focus on the casualties of war...there are tallies given nearly daily via news media about how many people died in iraq or afghanistan today; then turn a blind eye to all the babies that were killed by their own mothers today.
oh and LOTS of people enter into it lightly. LOTS of people use it as a means of birth control. if their is no value placed on the babies life because society has told her it isn't a baby, it isn't a big deal then of course LOTS of people take it lightly. and it isnt a tally of unwanted pregnancies, it is a tally of dead human beings.

5. sorry, i didnt mean to imply you were ignorant of scriptures. i just honestly thought you werent an overtly religious person, not saying that badly just stating what i thought was fact. and just because mom and dad (sometimes just mom, dad has no right here even though the child is his) don't want it, lots of other people might.

am going to have to finish this in a bit...just got some news

Michelle said...

OK, viability is obviously NOT the real determiner of when life begins, and, as I thought, the real excuse for killing babies is because a woman shouldn't be burdened with this unwanted child.

Of my 6 children, at least 3 of them were "unwanted." I was not at all interested in being pregnant 3 times (which means 3 times I set out to get that way, which is a really scary thought. After all, raising kids is hard, and actually to get pregnant intentionally is a silly, foolish thing, especially when I have enough experience to know better). Despite my intitial unhappiness and despair, I "embraced the suck" as my husband and his Army pals like to say, and am actually overjoyed at being the parent to these beautiful children.

A woman may or may not be happy about her pregnancy, but tell me that she honestly has a choice in this country. Tell me that a 21 year old college senior, unmarried, who finds herself pregnant could easily choose to have the baby. She turns to the guy who knocked her up. He says to get rid of it. She tells her girl friends. They offer to go with her. She tells her mom, and her mom sees her daughter chained to a kid and working at night, and the mom sees that she herself might have to help out. She tells her daughter to have an abortion. She tells her dad, and he thinks of all that wasted money, and now his daughter is going to be a waitress instead of using her degree because she'll have a kid to take care of, so he tells her the best thing is to get rid of it. How can she really choose to keep the baby when everybody thinks the best thing is to kill the baby? And would all of those things come to pass? We cannot predict the future. Amazingly, things have always worked out for humans.

(And no we can't compare welfare of today to welfare of 50 years ago, but we did not have abject poverty 50 years ago, and we did not have welfare. Go figure how that worked. And NO, VERY FEW PEOPLE used birth control through the centuries. Just because it existed, does not mean that it was acceptable. 100 years ago, Protestants considered birth control to be immoral. I'm not making this up. Go read about it.}

Now, on to human rights. My right to free speech ends when I begin to incite others to do bad things. Or when I, through my speech, harm others. I may not slander others. That's illegal. I may not yell fire in a crowded building. Someone might get hurt. In other words, I must be responsible.

If I behave recklessly, I must be penalized. If I drink and drive, I might have my "right" to drive taken away. If I drink and drive and hit another car and kill somebody, I might go to jail. My right to live my life and do what I want ends when it becomes dangerous to someone else or when society deems, through legislation, that certain actions are not permissible. I cannot drink beer if I am 16, even if nobody gets hurt. I cannot smoke in a bar in NYC, because society has ruled that it isn't allowed. I cannot run naked through the streets of Washington DC because those prudish lawmakers don't want to see it all hanging out.

We as a society, through legislation, have permitted limits to be established for the good of everyone. Sometimes we agree and sometimes we don't. So, we change the laws. But nobody anywhere has ever had the right to do whatever they want regardless of the consequences. And certainly nobody has ever had the right to take the life of another person without due process.

{Huh? Due process. Going through the courts to make sure that it is fair and just. Capital punishment, which I oppose, is at least administered through due process. We don't randomly round people up and give them lethal injections for no good reason. People break laws, we try them, convict them and sentence them. They appeal. Only after years of legal wrangling are they killed. That's due process.}

So, in the case of an "unwanted" pregnancy, you have a man and a woman behaving recklessly. I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who drink and drive and I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who have sex if they don't want kids (compassion, yes, sympathy, no). Just as you might drink and drive and not crack up your car, you might have sex and prevent pregnancy. But just as if you get caught driving drunk, you should expect to suffer the consequences, if you have sex, you should be prepared to suffer the consequences.

Because your right to live your life the way you want to ENDS when another person's rights are at risk. In this case, that baby has the right to live and your unhappiness over the natural consequences of your risky behavior doesn't change it.

You can pretend it's not human, but you are lying to yourself. Just as the Germans convinced themselves that the Jews weren't really human. And the founders of our country allowed slaves to be considered as five-eighths human, because, after all, it wasn't convenient to treat free slave labor as fully human and worthy of all the rights due to man.

So, what? 48 million babies being killed without due process. It is dificult to grasp. That's the same estimated death toll from WWII, a war to make you vomit if you stop to ponder all that evil and destruction. And if you dare to permit yourself to consider a baby as a human being worthy of the right to life, the whole abortion issue will make you want to throw up too. And that's why we pretend it's not a baby.

Regina said...

alright, i am back, arent you excited.
6. where is your proof? where is abstinence failing miserably? where is it even being taught? last i heard, condoms were being made available to kids IN MIDDLE SCHOOL. how old are you, 12 when you start middle school? so we say, don't have sex, roll our eyes and in the same breath say but if you do here you go. are we really teaching abstinence then? i think not, but again cite your proof on that one.

7. seriously, we should all just throw our hands up in defeat and say no one can ever rise from their allotted station in life. hell, why bother trying, if you are born into welfare dont try to get an education. dont try to rise above it, just give up...oh and vote democrat cuz we will take care of you (sorry had to add that little dig). ask someone who is adopted if they are capable of being loved by their adoptive parents, or if-because of a 'mistake' of their birth mom-they should crawl in a hole and die.
as for adoption, i can certainly bring it up. if you are playing a futures game here, trying to predict what might happen to a child born who was originally unplanned (which i was by the way) then i can say adoption is a viable option. now the adoption process in the US need to be overhauled. i know families who wanted to adopt but did so overseas because they couldnt afford private US adoptions.

8. you choose to cite one argument saying there is no causal link, i just googled it and found several links to studies showing that there is.

9. michelle answered for herself.

you still havent answered my ?...who exactly bestows these rights upon us? also, why does a baby in utero have no rights if the mom chooses to kill it but if someone else kills the baby (car accident ie) then it is given rights and that person can be tried for murder? you also brought up gender inequality if women werent allowed abortion. what about a mans right? why is it ok for a woman to say "nope, i dont want this baby. i wanted a good time and didnt want to have to be burdened with this...sorry daddy, you say you want me to keep it but it is my choice so i get to kill it" BUT if the man says "i dont want this baby, i just wanted a good time." if mom decides to keep it he still has to pay child support. we are saying a man has to be held responsible even if it is unwanted by him but a woman doesnt have to be because if it is unwanted by her she can just go have it sucked out. talk about inequality.
oh yeah, arent you just playing semantics by saying it isnt a baby, it is the promise of a baby (i did not have sexual relations with that woman). when you found out you were pregos did you say "hey {b} you might be a dad...there is a possibility it is a baby but i will have to get back to you in say oh 20 weeks or so" OR because you wanted to be pregnant was it automatically considered a baby?

Anonymous said...

shelly - Fortunately, religion is SUPPOSED to stay out of our laws. Morality of abortion is a religious question. People have different views - what gives any one religion the right to impose their religious opinions on everyone else? If I don't agree, the law doesn't apply to me?

Opening up a religious debate here is an entirely different affair.

The society i speak of is the one that would not allow women to have *complete* control of their reproductive rights - all of them. Birth-control, adoption, abortion -pregnancy can happen, does happen, but women should be able to PERSONALLY decide for themselves if they want to be mothers. If you take away that choice, then they have lost reproductive rights in this or in any society. were you trying to be funny?

Anonymous said...

As far as breast cancer links are concerned - it is not one site -it is the latest information from the foremost cancer research institutes. There were studies that hypothesized a link, but new research shows them to be unfounded

Anonymous said...

A fetus is not the same thing as human being. It is a potential human being. Just like a fertilized egg is a *potential* chicken, but it is still an egg and NOT a chicken YET.

So - viability IS the real determiner of when life begins, and, although convenient to label people as baby killers to promote a cause, it isn't really accurate or fair.

by all means if a fetus can be removed and cared for by someone else at whatever point the woman wants to cease involvement - then let's try that

only 1% of abortions in this country occur after the 20th week of pregnancy - no one is talking about killing babies, call them babies when they can live outside the womb

also - i find the Jewish / black slavery argument as ridiculous as I find the one about 12-year-olds and the mentally handicapped.

when i bring up other issues it is because it is very easy to have a self-righteous 'save the babies' outlook, but what people very often fail to do is to look at the big picture - which includes the care of unwanted kids, women's rights issues ...

Have you adopted any kids, funded Head Start or any other early childhood programs for disadvantaged youth? Out of the womb, the pro-life movement / conservatives offer very little compassion for people being faced with a choice or for the resulting children.


Regina said...

wooah,dont start calling names....self-righteous, you think you are right that it isnt a baby, i think i am right that it is therefore saying babies are being killed is accurate to me.
again, where's your info in terms of only 1% of abortions...95% of statistics are made up 50% of the time.
and hitler did refuse to see jews as people-dehumanizing leads to desensitizing.
sure, we can ALL do a better job of helping others out, however just because i havent personally adopted anyone doesnt mean i have no right to being pro-life.

Anonymous said...

"where is abstinence failing miserably? where is it even being taught?"

Why, Abstinence-Only, a cornerstone of Bush's social agenda, of course. I handled the advertising for that program in NM.

The effectiveness of the program is about 50%. Half of all teenagers abstain from sex - with or without the education. Kids who take a 'virginity pledge' generally wait longer to have sex, but 88% of them eventually have premarital sex, too.

We spend, federally $176 million per year and millions more in state and local matching grants. Since 2005, nearly $900 million dollars has been spent and the results are the same for the kids who don't receive the education.

I call that failure.

Plus, think about how many aborted children you could have clothed and fed with all that money :)

We do need to provide kids with sex-education and I believe that at the core of these programs should be abstinence, but we cannot be so naive as to believe that just because we tell teenagers not to do something, they're going to always listen.


Regina said...

and what is the effectiveness of education showing kids how to put condoms on cucumbers and how to take the pill. how much money is planned parenthood (who gets federal grants) spending on that education.
and thinking about how many aborted children could be clothed and fed, zero. you said aborted children. those children are now dead.
and we cant be so naive as to expect them to listen when we are sending mixed messages. that like saying 'don't smoke. smoking is bad for you. ::eye roll:: but i know you might want to smoke so here is a pack of marlboro lights because they are 'safer' then reds...but DONT actually smoke them ::wink, wink::

Shelly said...

not being funny at all, maybe a bit sarcastic. i was *fer real* when asking what society. I don't see any forced reproduction going on in this land of ours. Quite the contrary - PP, planned parenthood. Killing a generation one baby at a time! notice: BABY - it's not going to be a '57Chevy!

Regina said...

so, if most abortions occur prior to 20 weeks (though you didnt answer the actual question, should abortions after 20 weeks be outlawed since the child might be viable?), most abortions do occur around 8-12 weeks. Well it has been recorded that a baby can begin sucking their thumb at 7 weeks and the heart starts beating as early as 4 weeks but likely at 5 weeks. Hm, a thumb and a heartbeat, if that ain't a baby, what the hell is it? I know i have lots of cells in my body and even if they wanted to form into a jumble and start rebelling, they arent going to form their own hearts!

Michelle said...

Let me get this straight:

You think it is okay to legislate that a viable fetus has the right to life and that a woman, unwilling to carry the baby to term, must relinquish her baby to the state? This would mean a c-section to remove the baby safely and allow the baby to be placed in a NICU unit to live. THAT is okay with you?

Like I said earlier, this would mean that as technology improves, so would the viability date - meaning that a woman who was 8 or 10 weeks along might have to have major abdominal surgery to have the viable fetus removed in order to save its life.

I just want to be clear. Because "viability" is not a concrete term, and we have to be willing to alter our definition as the technology improves if it is technology that determines viability.

And if viability is what makes a fetus "human", is it okay to call a doctor who performs late-term abortions a baby-killer? If the fetus is 22 weeks old, and viable, and therefore human, and therefore a baby, and he's killed, the person is a baby killer, right?

As for the separation of church and state: just because the Catholic Church and the federal government agree that stealing cars is wrong, does not mean that the state is legislating morality. Some things are both immoral for Catholics and plain wrong for everybody. Like murder.

Regina, you can close comments if this gets annoying.

Anonymous said...

i wasn't calling names, honest ... i said 'self-righteous' outlook

i'm just saying that a lot of people feel good about an issue - they are doing the right thing - saving babies - but fail to look at the bigger picture as to why or the ramifications of that choice.

here's a chart for abortion stats:


It also states that 79% of abortions take place before 10 weeks.

And i agree, you can be pro-life and not adopt. You have every right to every opinion. period. but as a society, government, movement, individual...whatever, we have an obligation to evaluate all factors - the big picture, if you will, and do the right thing for the children who *are* here

not everyone, so no name-calling here, but pro-life conservatives seem to offer very little compassion out of the womb


Michelle said...

pro-life conservatives seem to offer very little compassion out of the womb

It is sad that this is what you see. I assure you, it isn't true. I could offer examples, statistics, personal anecdotes, or you could just spend 15 minutes on your own trying to see if the pro-baby fighters put their money where their mouth is. If you look for truth instead of making broad generalizations, you will find it.

Anonymous said...

Women are, obviously, known human persons. They make up the majority of known human persons. Until personhood of a fetus is established, a women has rights it does not have.

The neocortex developes between 22-24 weeks. Basically that's the earliest gestational age at which the baby has at least a 50% chance (24 weeks) - "the point of viability."

that's when they are viable, imo


Regina said...

so, again, would you then say abortions should be outlawed after 24 wks?
also, why does the baby have no rights if the mom wants to abort him but if it is killed by another person (aside from a dr doing an abortion) then that fetus is given rights and the killer can be charged with murder. why is that ok?

Anonymous said...

Because the attacker has no right to terminate the woman's pregnancy against her will - her CHOICE.
- and that's also relatively new legal territory. In most states the laws have focused on the harm done to a pregnant woman and the subsequent loss of her pregnancy, but not on the rights of the fetus.

PLD Consulting said...

/*Because the attacker has no right to terminate the woman's pregnancy against her will - her CHOICE*/

Very interesting. So taking this logic, If the mother decides at a later point that she did indeed want this baby and that she made a mistake, is the abortion which was done previously as a choice, now become killing a baby?

scmom (Barbara) said...

OT, but I must respond to: "pro-life conservatives seem to offer very little compassion out of the womb"

For the past 2000 years, the Catholic Church has fed, housed and clothed more people in need than any other group or institution in history. The Catholic Church, which is obviously pro-life, is and always has been a premier defender of ALL human rights.

Anonymous said...

SCMOM - who said anything about the Catholic Church?? The church, ANY church, has zero to do with this conversation. Agreed -churches and caring individuals have done very admirable things for many groups worldwide, feeding the poor among them - regardless of their views on abortion.

They've also had a history of doing some really horrible things in the name of religion...ever hear of the Inquisition?

MICHELLE - what exactly would you have me look up?

Everyone could offer up an anecdote of a really friendly racist or the bigot who donates tons of money to worthy causes. I personally even really like some pro-life supporters - like regina, for example :)

In general, support of educational programs prior to becoming pregnant and support of women after they have become pregnant - whether in making their decision to move or not move forward with her pregnancy or in the form of support for her after having chosen to keep a child when she may be woefully ill-equipped to do so is, to put it mildly - lacking.

And that is true whether you have an example, an anecdote or statistics about where your church's money goes to help others.

If it is indeed so sad for you that this is what i see, please share your information with me...i am always happy to learn.


Anonymous said...

Also - what about an ectopic pregnancy? The same ball of cells but it's not located in a uterus...not viable...

Regina said...

perhaps ectopic is inviable, but it is still a baby

Anonymous said...

but not medically or legally

...it had the potential to become a baby but because there was no uterus - the woman's uterus - it could not live


what about the large percentage of conceptions that fail early on unbeknownst to the mother? did these 'persons' really die??


Regina said...

absolutely they were people with souls but there is a huge difference from a baby not making it through no fault of anyone and a mother deciding to kill her child.
you thought someone else's point was mute on something before, i consider this to be

Michelle said...


you are making broad and unsubstantiated generalizations about pro-lifers. You say that they as a whole care more about a fetus than about a human. That is completely untrue. Scmom uses the Catholic Church, the single largest and consistantly pro-life voice, as an example of pro-lifers who care for all people from conception until natural death, and you reject that example because of the Inquisition which not only happened 500 years ago but of which the "facts" have been grossly misrepresented.

Basically, it doesn't matter how much money or time I personally give to help people, if I stole $100 when I was in high school or took drugs when I was in college, I am a low-down scoundrel or a hypocrite?

Senator McCain has adopted 3 of his 7 children. Senator Obama has adopted 0 children. Personally, I don't think how many kids you have, whether naturally or through adoption, is wholly relevant, but you brought up the issue as being an indicator of how much somebody cared about the poor and unfortunate.

I'll provide you with whatever evidence will convince you that pro-lifers care about all people. What would that take? Must these examples be free from sin? And as long as we're making broad generalizations, in my opinion, liberals are highly self-centered and rarely get their hands dirty with real charitable work. You'd sooner find a lib on a picket line than a soup kitchen line. But that's just how I see things. I'm sure you have plenty of anecdotal evidence to dispute my views.

Here is one more point: every cell in my body is marked with my personal DNA: my skin, my hair, my blood, my liver, my eyes, my uterus. When my egg is fertilized by my husband's sperm, that fertilized egg has its own unique DNA, not mine. It doesn't matter if it is in my fallopian tube or my uterus or a petri dish, it is not ME, it is something else. You may call it a clump of cells, but it is not MY clump of cells, because my cells have my DNA.

The Wades said...

Good one, Michelle. (You've had several real gems!) :)

I must say I'm enjoying this even though I think everyone's tone is getting a little testy.

You all are great debators. :)

Lisa, come to the conservative/pro life side. ;) We'd love to have you.

scmom (Barbara) said...

Since you are not a Catholic I will inform you, the Church IS the people. Who do you think is feeding, clothing, nursing and educating? THE PEOPLE. Catholic people.

Tj and Mark said...

Oh my goodness. Excellent comments everyone. I am impressed. I am pro life all the way, but I see the congruity of the pro choice stance as well. Ultimately, we all want life and should encourage each other in this endeavor. If more of us would stand side by side with the women we know, really offering emotional, financial, and physical support, more babies would live. I think that is something both sides can agree on and should do regardless of what are laws say or do. This country is made great by the people who are in it, not the legislators.