Pro Choice or Not

[Cee]

Believe me when I say that women must continue to have a choice.

 

[moviegirl11]

Well,I guess then, we are back to that burning fertility clinic scenario... Do you save the 3 year old in the room or do you grab the petrie dish with 8 embryos in it/..If you grab the child and not the embryos then clearly you do view the embryos differently from the born child.

Thats as ridiculous a scenario as saying if there were two kids in a room, a baby and a toddler, which would you save. Or you have a pregnant woman and a non-pregnant woman in the burning room, who do you save? Its a pointless argument. You'd save as many people as you could and get out of there.

 

[JennyMominRI]

Thats as ridiculous a scenario as saying if there were two kids in a room, a baby and a toddler, which would you save. Its a pointless argument. You'd save as many people as you could and get out of there.

Ok,then by that definition you would grab the petrie dish which contains the embryos, as it has more *people*?

 

[moviegirl11]

Again, its a ridiculous scenario. I'd save both. There.

I'll throw one back at you. A man kills a woman who just found out she was pregnant. How many lives were lost?

I suppose it would all come down to whether or not the child was wanted, right?

To a couple hoping to get pregnant, that petri dish is not only worth thousands of dollars, but it also contains what could be at least one of their children. I'm not a fan of in vitro fertilization though, personally. To each their own on that though.

 

[JennyMominRI]

I'll throw one back at you. A man kills a woman who just found out she was pregnant. How many lives were lost?

I suppose it would all come down to whether or not the child was wanted, right?

.

NO,It would come down to viability... If he kills a woman who just found out she was pregnant then there is 1 murder..If she's 6 months pregnant and past the point of viability then I have no problem and in fact agree with 2 charges of murder..

 

[moviegirl11]

see I guess thats where we disagree. If I were pregnant and miscarried or lost my child within the first trimester, I think I'd still feel the loss of something human. And if I knew someone who was pregnant and died during the pregnancy, I would consider it two deaths. An unborn fetus or even an embryo might be dependant on its mother for survival but I dont consider it less alive because of that. I dont consider it 'part of the mother's body'. It grows within her body and requires her to survive but I still think its counts as its own life. Just my opinion. We can agree to disagree on this, I think.

 

[JennyMominRI]

see I guess thats where we disagree. If I were pregnant and miscarried or lost my child within the first trimester, I think I'd still feel the loss of something human. .

I would too..I've never had a miscarriage but I'm pretty certain that's how I would feel...I would mourn the loss of that potential child. I don't think however, it would be the same sort of pain I would feel if my daughter or one of my sons died.

 

[LuvDuke]

I would too..I've never had a miscarriage but I'm pretty certain that's how I would feel...I would mourn the loss of that potential child. I don't think however, it would be the same sort of pain I would feel if my daughter or one of my sons died.

I had 2 miscarriages in 1989. You mourn the loss of a potential child, as you said, and you mourn even more the loss of a dream. But, no way did I mourn the loss of a child.

 

[moviegirl11]

Oh, I can definitely agree with you guys there. I would think losing a child would be different than losing an unborn child, emotionally. The grieving would be different too. I just think in both cases, a life was lost. The personal attachment to the life lost would always vary. A parent who lost a child they barely saw or knew due to a divorce or some other circumstances would grieve differently than if they lost a child they raised themselves. Thats just human nature.

How emotionally attached we are to someone varies as does our grief when we lose that person. But again, this is why I asked if whether or not the child was wanted determines the value of its life. Its natural to vary the value you place on the things in your life, including people. Therefore, many are ok turning a blind eye to the abortion issue because whether they realize it or not, they allow people to set the value of their own offspring. Someone who is giving up their child to abortion has likely placed a very low value on the life growing within her. Meanwhile two rooms down another woman is crying as she looks at the white blur on the monitor in front of her because that blur is her child and she's in love with it already. Both unborn children could be at the exact phase of development. The only difference is that one is wanted and one isnt.

Just some thoughts on the whole issue, there. This is what makes it a complex debate. Belief and emotion are too closely tied to the issue for it to be as cut and dry or for someone to be proven right or wrong by one simple analogy or hypothetical situation. You know?

 

[KirstenB]

I had 2 miscarriages in 1989. You mourn the loss of a potential child, as you said, and you mourn even more the loss of a dream. But, no way did I mourn the loss of a child.

I agree with you. I had a miscarriage when I was 35, it would have been a second child for us. Many years ago, I asked my mom why our neighbor seemed so sad all of a sudden. Mom said she'd miscarried, then explained to me that it meant the baby had died before it could grow very big. She said some people have a really hard time with it, and they can be sad for a while, so try to be extra nice to them. She then explained that she'd miscarried twice, early in each pregnancy, but it didn't make her as sad. She said the babies were too sick to live, so God took them. Growing up with this attitude, it became my attitude with my own miscarriage.

Having said that, wow is this a personal, and situational topic. When I miscarried, I already had one child, and at 35, I could still try for another child (and did have one at 39). ON the other hand, if I had no children, was 44, and miscarried, that would be really devastating. There are just so many variables, everyone's reaction is going to be different.

 

[LuvDuke]

I agree with you. I had a miscarriage when I was 35, it would have been a second child for us. Many years ago, I asked my mom why our neighbor seemed so sad all of a sudden. Mom said she'd miscarried, then explained to me that it meant the baby had died before it could grow very big. She said some people have a really hard time with it, and they can be sad for a while, so try to be extra nice to them. She then explained that she'd miscarried twice, early in each pregnancy, but it didn't make her as sad. She said the babies were too sick to live, so God took them. Growing up with this attitude, it became my attitude with my own miscarriage.

Having said that, wow is this a personal, and situational topic. When I miscarried, I already had one child, and at 35, I could still try for another child (and did have one at 39). ON the other hand, if I had no children, was 44, and miscarried, that would be really devastating. There are just so many variables, everyone's reaction is going to be different.

Well, I was 35 and we had no children. It was the first time in my life the I ever really felt I could not have everything I wanted no matter what I did. That was a shocker.

But, there is a happy ending. A little over 4 years later, we had our DD who just turned 13 and is the absolute joy of our lives.

 

[declansdad]

I've been thinking about this and I have to concede that life does begin at conception or soon after. I don't however see it on par with already born human life...Plants are *life* mice are *life* as they are alive. They certainly are not on par with the conciousness and reasoning abilities of a human being.. I will also concede that from day one a blastocyst is human..But so is a skin cell, a strand of hair etc...They all have human DNA. They are human, but they are not A human... For me the question is when does the fetus become a human being, a conscious, thinking feeling human being and for me that is not at conception. We take lives all the time. We eat living things. We squish bugs.. Clearly we recognize that their are different levels of lives.. For me an Embryo is not a life on par with a full grown woman or a newborn baby

I think this sums it up pretty well for me.

 

[punkin]

NO,It would come down to viability... If he kills a woman who just found out she was pregnant then there is 1 murder..If she's 6 months pregnant and past the point of viability then I have no problem and in fact agree with 2 charges of murder..

IMO, just one murder. Also, it would never occur to me to grab a petrie dish when there is a real child to be saved. As far as saving a newborn and a three year old...I would try to save both or die trying.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Oh, I can definitely agree with you guys there. I would think losing a child would be different than losing an unborn child, emotionally. The grieving would be different too. I just think in both cases, a life was lost. The personal attachment to the life lost would always vary. A parent who lost a child they barely saw or knew due to a divorce or some other circumstances would grieve differently than if they lost a child they raised themselves. Thats just human nature.

How emotionally attached we are to someone varies as does our grief when we lose that person. But again, this is why I asked if whether or not the child was wanted determines the value of its life. Its natural to vary the value you place on the things in your life, including people. Therefore, many are ok turning a blind eye to the abortion issue because whether they realize it or not, they allow people to set the value of their own offspring. Someone who is giving up their child to abortion has likely placed a very low value on the life growing within her. Meanwhile two rooms down another woman is crying as she looks at the white blur on the monitor in front of her because that blur is her child and she's in love with it already. Both unborn children could be at the exact phase of development. The only difference is that one is wanted and one isnt.

Just some thoughts on the whole issue, there. This is what makes it a complex debate. Belief and emotion are too closely tied to the issue for it to be as cut and dry or for someone to be proven right or wrong by one simple analogy or hypothetical situation. You know?

Which is precisely why a complete ban on abortion will never work. It hasn't really ever worked anywhere at any point in history. Abortion hasn't always been legal, but anyone who tries to tell you that it hasn't always been around is pulling your leg. At least where it's legal, it's relatively safe for the woman.

 

[Ariel Mae]

[qoute]At least where it's legal, it's relatively safe for the woman.[/quote]

Unlike when it was banned, and 'back door/alleyway' abortions were being performed.

 

[moviegirl11]

Yeah I dont think making it illegal will stop it from happening. More needs to be done to lower the number of abortions in this country than just banning it. Educating young women AND men on the consequences of sex, for one thing. Stressing the importance of safe sex for women AND men. Easier access to birth control too.

I'm aware of the history of abortion and the fact that some women (not as many as people think but it did happen) went to extreme measures to obtain an illegal or "back alley" abortion when it was illegal.

The thing is, saying its going to happen anyway doesnt justify it or make me think its any less wrong. Thats like saying there's always going to be crime so why bother trying to stop it. From the perspective of someone who believes the unborn deserve the same protection as everyone else, I couldnt just shrug it off. Its a social issue that needs to be addressed from a number of angles. Fewer unwanted pregnancies would obviously be a big start.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Yeah I dont think making it illegal will stop it from happening. More needs to be done to lower the number of abortions in this country than just banning it. Educating young women AND men on the consequences of sex, for one thing. Stressing the importance of safe sex for women AND men. Easier access to birth control too.

I'm aware of the history of abortion and the fact that some women (not as many as people think but it did happen) went to extreme measures to obtain an illegal or "back alley" abortion when it was illegal.

The thing is, saying its going to happen anyway doesnt justify it or make me think its any less wrong. Thats like saying there's always going to be crime so why bother trying to stop it. From the perspective of someone who believes the unborn deserve the same protection as everyone else, I couldnt just shrug it off. Its a social issue that needs to be addressed from a number of angles. Fewer unwanted pregnancies would obviously be a big start.

I agree with you, and I think that's where the energy should be placed. The pro life movement needs to stop trying to overturn Roe and put ALL their energy into education, into getting legislation passed that will help mothers, and into changing attitudes about sex and responsibility. That's what wil really reduce the number of abortions, not overturning Roe.

 

[chobie]

IMO, just one murder. Also, it would never occur to me to grab a petrie dish when there is a real child to be saved. As far as saving a newborn and a three year old...I would try to save both or die trying.

No one would save the petrie dish. If someone thinks that in a life or death situation that they would put not only the lives of two babies, but their own life well on the line to save microcsopic embryos they are truly being intellectually dishonest. It would never cross anyone's mind in a life threatening emregency like that that they need to save microscopic zygotes. They would grab the baby and toddler and get out.

 

[LuvDuke]

Yeah I dont think making it illegal will stop it from happening. More needs to be done to lower the number of abortions in this country than just banning it. Educating young women AND men on the consequences of sex, for one thing. Stressing the importance of safe sex for women AND men. Easier access to birth control too.

I'm aware of the history of abortion and the fact that some women (not as many as people think but it did happen) went to extreme measures to obtain an illegal or "back alley" abortion when it was illegal.

The thing is, saying its going to happen anyway doesnt justify it or make me think its any less wrong. Thats like saying there's always going to be crime so why bother trying to stop it. From the perspective of someone who believes the unborn deserve the same protection as everyone else, I couldnt just shrug it off. Its a social issue that needs to be addressed from a number of angles. Fewer unwanted pregnancies would obviously be a big start.

My mother, who will be 88 later on this month, told us that if they missed one month, and they didn't want another baby, they went to the pharmacist who gave them "something" to take care of it. She said several of her sisters did that. Or they would go to their doctor who gave them "something". I would imagine it was some combination of hormones that took care of "it".

So abortion is nothing new.

 

[moviegirl11]

as far as I know, the catholic church does offer programs for women who need help and a reasonable alternative to abortion. Shelters and things like that. There's a big difference in some cases between being pro-life and being anti-abortion.