It just means a woman has the right to choose pro-life or pro-choice.

Am I wrong that is what pro-choice is?

A woman's right to choose one or the other?

I think I have been naiive about what the meaning of pro-choice is. Or that it has somehow changed over the years...

HorseCrazy-Your definition coincides with mine. Being pro-choice means that you support a woman's right to choose for herself whether or not to become pregnant (meaning, you support the right to choose to use birth control) or if a woman is pregnant already, whether or not to carry the fetus to term.

Yes, but it starts before then...She can choose whether to indulge in safe sex or not... She can choose whether to take preventative measures, or make sure the man is doing so...
Leaving aside the more sinister and "violent" ramifications of this comment, in this instance, assuming this is under normal circumstances, nobody is obliging her to make love or have sex at that moment.....

yes, but focusing on the term. all i ever meant with "pro-choice", was a woman's right to choose.

it's jumping way ahead to assume that means anything but right to choose. many choose life

i was curious what others thought the term meant

Yes, I think it means the right to choose on a variety of levels - but primarily to me, it means the right to decide upon her own reproductive behaviour.

I find it ludicrous to look upon this aspect of a woman's Life and question her right to choose... The Constitution is entirely based on giving the citizens of America the right to choose... in every sphere of their lives...

So a woman, as a free citizen, has a right to defend herself, she has a right to bear arms and has a right to plead the fifth amendment....Your constitution says so....To make an exception here seems bizarre, blinkered and prejudicial...

<img src="/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

I don't believe being pro-choice is about being pro-abortion. I believe it's about supporting every woman's right to own and control her body.

I'll drink to that......

Spot on

It's supporting the "choice" of one person (the mother) and ignoring the choice of the other involved parties: the father and the unborn offspring. Some choice.

So do you think a woman should be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy then?

Nah, you're right. Just snuff out the kid. Forget giving the baby a chance at life with a pair of loving arms from a childless couple. Asking a woman to be inconvenienced for a few months to save a human life is definitely asking too much. We aren't nurturers and should throw away every child's life that we deem as unnecessary. We, as women, should do what is personally best for us, and forget everyone else.

I am opposed to arbitrary abortion. 46 million babies have been aborted since 1973 in what amounts to an American Holocaust. The horror of it is so staggering that people will not even address it for what it is. Sam Alito and John Roberts are on the Supreme Court. It will take time, but Roe v Wade will be overturned.

I am just so glad that women do have the choice.It will always be that way here and hopefully contaception will become more effective in the future so more unwnted pregnancies do not occur....God knows there are so many unwanted childern here allready.

I agree with both of you. I've been saying that for a long time.

Women have a tremendous amount of power over life and death of their unborn children. Fathers have no choice over the lives of their unborn children. And the unborn children? Ummmm......

Fathers dont have to carry an unwanted child around for nine months.

Death over inconvenience. That's sure not saying much for women who "choose" is it? We seriously are a sick society. When dictators do the same thing, we denounce them and shake our heads at the violence. Yet, some women are doing the same thing, all in the same of pure selfishness. "If I don't want to rear my child, then I'll just end his life, so no one else can have him either." Life doesn't get much more violent than that.

I am sure when a woman chooses to terminate her pregnancy she does not think of it in a matter of convenience.

It is a hard decision a woman agonises over and unless you have been through it yourself you really dont know what I am trying to say.

How could you possibly understand or judge? You do not have that right

She thinks what is best for her.



Then, we have no right to judge anyone who harms her children, born or unborn. When a woman (or man) beats her child to the point of death, we do judge, and society throws her in prison. Is that wrong?

We all make mistakes when rearing children. The problem with abortion is that it's final. Death can never, ever be "undone." A woman "chooses" death for her unborn child. Maybe that's why violence is so prevalent is society. Life doesn't have much meaning if we're just allowed to throw it away whenever it isn't "convenient" for us.

And yes, I have been through the decision. The abortion clinic do NOT tell you the truth. They make it sound as though it's no big deal to suck out your unborn baby's brains or to dismember the tiny, fragile growing body. Women who destroy all chances at life for their unborn children are either ignorant of what they'd really be doing or put no value on human life.

What is the rationale for killing an unborn child as opposed to putting up the child for adoption? It "inconveniences" a woman's life for a few months. What's really sad that it many women who do it later realize just what they've done and experience deep psychological problems. All I can say is thank God I came to my senses before I murdered an innocent life. Children, whether born or unborn, have become throwaways just like an empty container from a fast-food restaurant.

What I'd really like to know: how can a woman choose to end her unborn baby's life instead of giving him a chance at life through adoption? What possible reason could there be? Nothing but pure selfishness comes to mind.

Okay we can go on forever like this as this is a very emotional subject but I think I will leave it here as I have allready stated my opinion on the subject.

LONG LIVE PROCHOICE! <img src="/images/graemlins/beamedup.gif" alt="" />

Adamant pro-life people, have you ever met a rape victim? can you say it to the woman's face, in her tortured eyes, that she should NOT have the right to abort that thing in her? It's not just 10 months of inconvenience. What a huge understatement!

A woman is not a breeding machine. After giving birth, she would still remember it, that she carried that reminder of the rape living inside her. You call that simple inconvenience?!

I think every woman should have the right to have an abortion if they wish to do so

First let me say I am pro choice BUT THAT THING INSIDE HER IS HER OWN CHILD, lets be serious here not hysterical. AND yes I could say it to a rape victim. Hate the person who raped you, absolutely but the child is an innocent bystander in all of this. Why should the child pay the price of its life because the woman has to live in denial that it ever happened to her?

AND before you say it, people say that being pregnant would only remind her every day of the rape. Thats laughable because I can tell you I didn't need to be pregnant to be reminded daily that I had been raped. Someone just had to grab me the wrong way, the site of a blond guy with blue eyes, or a certain tone of voice was all it took. That was 20 years ago, I still don't date blond guys. I find them repugnant. Maybe giving the child life would be a way to find something good out of something bad. I personally would keep and raise the child but think of the HUGE number of people out there wanting to adopt babies, there would be so many families to choose from to make sure the baby had a good home.

AND YES I have been raped but mercifully did not get pregnant but I don't think rape is a good reason to kill an unborn child. I also don't think that using abortion as a means of birth control is a good thing either.

If you get pregnant and don't want the child, are we all really so selfish that we can't give up 9 months of our life to give that child birth and give it up for adoption? How is it that childs fault that a stranger raped you, or that you forgot to take your birth control or that you got drunk and slept with someone you didn't know at a concert. The simple answer is that its not the fault of the child and frankly if your not willing to take responsibility for your actions then you shouldn't be sleeping around, of course this part of the statment is not aimed at rape victims.

I think when a woman gets pregnant from rape, its understandable that she might not be able to deal with raising the child however, aborting the child so she can continue to live in denial it ever happened isn't healthy either. Children are not THINGS OR PARASITES that the medical profession should just throw away like so much garbage.

I am adopted, my two neices are adopted and I have many friends who are adopted. Now today with how open adoptions are, its a good and viable option for an unwanted pregnancy. Just because YOU don't want that baby, doesn't mean that baby has to die.

Lisa, you are very strong, but not every rape victim can be as strong as you are. If aborting the child in her helps her move on, why not let her have the choice?

Abortion may not always be because of denial. To go ahead and give birth to a rape-resulted child and give him/her up for adoption may be noble, but it is not what every rape victim is capable of. I admire you immensely for your courage and strength, but I think a woman should have her own choice in it. I really think it is too much to ask, for a rape victim to give birth to the child in her.

I know I'll sound horrible, but I think in rape cases, the adult woman is more important than the unborn child. Yes, I think so.

by the way, if you think a woman should give the unwanted child a chance, and give birth to it, you are pro-life, not pro-choice.

That was funny...a man taking responsibility. Not even my son takes responsibility...I go to Family Planning and buy condoms for him. He's 18. But in all seriousness, he and others need to be more mature and ready to even have sex if they can't protect themselves.

My Foster daughter, whom we love as our own, just became pregnant. She came from a crack addict mother, her father deseased when she was a year old, no relatives to look after her at all while her mom was neglecting her and abusing her from the age of 5 till 15 when we rescued her from living in a car last year. Since then we've got legal custody with the state. We are meeting with social services, her attorney, the psychologist, us parents and her to see what steps she can take.

Our biggest obstacle is the cost for her to terminate. She wants nothing more than to do this for several reasons, some are personal to her, but some are:
She has no idea how to be a mother, not being raised with one of her own.

She is focused on finishing High School and going on to a 4 year college right after she graduates. And she did use protection, it doesn't always work. And I do trust her when she said she used it as she came to me 8 months ago and told me she'd had unprotected sex and what could she do. We got the Plan B pill and she was ok. She's not a dumb girl but she could not handle carrying a baby to give it up, or keep it, or anything like that. Termination is her best option and she does have the right to it.

The only thing we're finding out is that you have that right ONLY if you are wealthy enough to just write a check to have an abortion. Which doesn't interfer for little rich girls and boys to go onto colleges and great careers.

And this poor girl who was born into a life that was against her from the start, who just now has her life turned around living like a normal teen...this isn't fair.

Where are all the Pro Choice Groups now? I can't find any to help us.

Even the Pro life groups...? Where are they if she has to have this baby? Are they going to pay for daycare the next 6 years of her life so she can get her degree and finally have a wonderful life like she deserves.

I honestly think the Bushies did this on purpose, it helps create a bigger lower class, it helps stiffle those creative and brilliant minds, that would otherwise over create and out think most of the "trust fund babies" who would have to actually work for good grades and compete with other students with functioning brains, and who know how to earn things on their own and not handed to them.

It's how we got this idiot in office...do you really think he was at the top of his class or any class? Don't you want your President to be smarter than you? I do.

Does anyone have an idea of places my daugher can apply to help her terminate her pregnancy?

She's a Junior in High School...this is the first time in her life she's gone to the same school 2 years in a row. Next year she will graduate. Also the school coach recruited her to play girls varsity softball too...an honor as our school were state champs last year. She really wants to play. This kid has 2 years of being a kid.

Help anyone?
T

I am a 2 time rape survivor. Both times, completely different, it wasn't because I was stupid, just unlucky.

I would NEVER give birth or think of giving birth to a child conceived by rape. There would be nothing beautiful about it. What if that child came to ask me why I gave it up...do you think being the product of rape would help that child? Nope.

That is why our creator gave us the ability to have drs. and equipment and medicine to end pregnancies like this. And no, I am Prochoice, but also Prolife. It'd be nice if every pregnancy could be a time of joy and celebration but even in the best circumstances it's hard.

Have you tried Planned Parenthood? They might be able to help you...I would contact them.

I don't know how much a termination costs, but it's gotta be much cheaper than raising a baby to adulthood....

Cindy

I believe a woman has the right to choose to carry a child or not. The day that choice is taken out of a womans control, is the day women are no longer independent people with equal rights. Men will control us again as they once did.

Frankly, I think the US is backward enough in many things, if you deprive women the right to an abortion to the list would make me turn my back on this country and walk away in disgust. I am already disgusted that RU 486 has become the issue it has. I mean honestly, I have heard of pharmacists refusing to dispense the drug, of doctors refusing to write a script for the drug. These people who wish to push their own belief systems on others, need to re-evaluate their choice of profession. A few of them need to be sued for failing to render proper medical treatment and maybe they will change their tune.

Having said that, I am not pro-abortion. I do believe there are times when a woman should have the right too choose an abortion. I know that mentally there are women who can't support the idea of carrying a pregnancy to term, there are also times when their own health dictates that it NOT be done.

What I object to is the use of abortion as birth control. There are many young people out there too lazy to care enough to take a pill daily, lazy or too drugged up. This is so disgusting too me. This is an issue on my mind because my neice has had two abortions under these circumstances.

As for men who pipe up and talk about getting rid of Roe V Wade, be careful what you wish for. I think the closer they march to this, the more women need to stand up and tell these men, get your lovin elsewhere. I personally would not even consider sleeping with a man who felt this way.

It seems that men want it all their way. They want the sex and the ability to force women to have the child, while in the workplace this makes women with children earning less money because of the demands of motherhood but where are the men all too often? How many men out there are paying the child support they are supposed to? How many men out there are dedicating as much time as the Mother of their children are dedicating? Not alot of them I can tell you.

I did a research paper on the history of abortion. Thank God it is legal.

Wealthy women have always had the means to have safe abortions; it was always the lower socio-economic groups of women who had back-street abortions and who died horrible deaths from septic infections or who bled to death. That research opened my eyes to the desperate women whose lives were dictated by religion oriented society. Remember that same society once even forbade birth control for the masses. But, again, the wealthy were always able to get it.

Do you really think that overturning Roe vs Wade would stop women in desperate situations? No, it wouldn't, it would just force them to go back to "butchers."

As for God, don't assume you know God's mind or depth of compassion. Honestly, I am sick of people "quoting" God as if the celestial phone number is on the speed dial of their cell phone.

Good for you, I totally agree with you. I don't think the people who want Roe V Wade thrown aside really care about the women who are desperate, they just want to cram their beliefs on other people.

Pro-choice means that you support the choice between a woman giving birth to her child or having it aborted.

[/quote]

Good for you, I totally agree with you. I don't think the people who want Roe V Wade thrown aside really care about the women who are desperate, they just want to cram their beliefs on other people. [/quote]

The people who want ban abortions are doing so because they want to give a voice to the unborn children who are being killed for being an �inconvenience� This issue has nothing to do with beliefs, abortion is a real act of killing unborn children. Abortion just goes against common decency and the right to live your life. If you have convinced yourself that abortion does not terminates the life of an unborn child, than I can see why you think that abortion is just a simple little procedure to get rid of a small growth. Convincing yourself of this does not make it true.

it is easy to have an abortion when you can call an unborn child a �thing" Remember you were once a "thing" too. It is not the fault of the child that the mother was raped. don�t you think that you are being a bit prejudice of the unborn child, you have labeled it a "thing" because of the circumstances surrounding its conception. Are you saying that in order for a child to be a legitimate child it has to be conceived under certain circumstances.

Alexandra,

The constitution is NOT based on being given freedom of choice in every area. The constitution is there to protect the rights of people -- and the specific rights enumerated in the beginning are the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Notice that the first right listed is the right to life.

We also assume that the constitution would not give someone a choice to rape -- since that rape would deprive another person of her/his basic right.

In the same way, the constitution would not the defend the right of one person to take the life of another, without due process.

ProChoice means that one supports women's choices to gestate, gestate and adopt out, or abort.

Agreeing to sex is not agreeing to pregnancy. If you drive a car, you might have an accident. Doesn't stop you from driving, does it?

What does any of what you said have to do with safe and legal medical abortion?

It is not the fault of the child that the mother was raped. don�t you think that you are being a bit prejudice of the unborn child, you have labeled it a "thing" because of the circumstances surrounding its conception. Are you saying that in order for a child to be a legitimate child it has to be conceived under certain circumstances.

I know I'm jumping into this conversation pretty late, and I apologize in advance for my comments, because on such a "hot" topic as this, anything said will offend SOMEONE.

But this comment bothers me. Yea, I was once a zygote. My parents wanted me to grow out of that phase, so they let it happen. But a rape baby? That's a baby that isn't wanted. That's nine months (assuming immediate post-partum adoption) that the rape victim spends nourishing, nurturing, and suffering permanent bodily changes for someone else's crime. And that's the rest of her life knowing there's a person out there (or in her own home, if no adoption takes place) who was conceived with hate, violence, and a forced sperm donation against her.

What woman could live like that? What woman would want to? I'm sure there are a few brave souls out there who can and have, but the majority of women cannot fathom punishing themselves for the rest of their lives for someone else's crime against her. Not to mention giving birth to a living, breathing, product of such a crime. I sure as H311 couldn't do it if I were ever in such a situation. If no Plan B or abortion were available, I would not live the full nine months. I wouldn't want to.

Reply: I would abort the spawn of a rapist in a New York minute.

Quite interesting that this is so focused on abortion only. True, abortion rights are a big part of being pro-choice, but it's still only a part.

Debate the semantics as much as you like. If you want to boil down what being pro-choice is about then the easiest answer is:

Being pro-choice means that a person supports the right of women to have control over their own bodies, lives, careers, educational potential, and intimate relationships without fear of being controlled by others.

Forcing a woman to have (or not have) a child has an impact on everything mentioned above. Legislation to control abortions is just the beginning of a larger agenda. If the radicals in power would have all that they wanted, women would no longer have access birth control, would see radical cuts in funding for medical research for "women's health" problems (ironically enough, including research into infertility), and would probably see insurance companies cease coverage for most, if not all, women's health concerns.

Calling pregnancy an "inconvenience" marginalizes the issue - for both sides. Choosing to have an abortion is not an easy decision to make. Claiming that adoption is always an option is inaccurate as well - not only for women with health or drug problems, but also for perfectly healthy ones. Potential adoptive parents don't want the headache of worrying whether or not a mother (or father) will come around to reclaim the child, which is probably why foreign adoptions are rather popular. Pregnancy remains an excuse for inequities in the workplace, with women still making less than men for the same jobs, presumably because women can end up leaving the workforce at any time due to maternity leave.

I could say much more, and definitely will on the main site here...

Give me a break.

Pro-choice means that a woman has the right to choose to kill the human life growing in her womb. It's that simple.

I personally belief a society is judged by how it treats it's weakest member. You are never more defenseless than when your in your mother's womb. All this talk about the mother's rights for a more comfortable life.....be glad you were allowed to live that life at all, and not flushed like waste.

Truth is so clear when you don't let yourself be blinded by greed.

First, thank you for taking the time to reply here.

In the future, please post your opinions without presuming what the lives of others on this forum are about - like your reference to my mother's choices at a time when abortion was illegal.

As for being blinded by greed, that simply isn't the case. One reason for choosing not to carry a pregnancy to term is financial, and usually that involves a situation where the woman is fully aware that she will not be able to support a family on her own. A life of poverty, or a life of understanding that she wasn't wanted in the first place is not a good life for a child. Someone who cares about the sanctity of life should also be concerned with quality of life. There is no such thing as perfect birth control, and abstinence simply doesn't work forever. If you truly want to see an end to abortion, because it will happen whether it's legal or not, then maybe you should consider campaigning for better birth control methods, and comprehensive sex education.

To me, being pro-choice means that women are not controlled by others, and that every child born is wanted and loved, because if they aren't, they are more likely to be abused. Then again, I'm against the mistreatment and exploitation of any person.

Are you saying that if it was legal, you wouldn't exist? Or are you making the point that your mom didn't have the choice to rid you of her womb. Is that a bad thing? Either way, don't you see how wrong it is? Nobody, not even a woman with an unwanted baby should have the right to kill another human being, other than self-defense.

As far as my comment about "greed". I thought about my choice of using that word and decided a woman choosing to kill her baby is not always greed. However it is still killing. There are so many choices a pregnant woman can make if she finds herself unwanting of a child. There are so many choices that she has (not always comfortable or convenient) without eliminating the baby's right to live and have future choices. There are reasons why families in the USA have resorted to paying huge fees to get a baby from China. Tons of these USA aborted babies could have been adopted instead of discarded as "woman's choice", and living in loving homes.

I do, by the way, support the use of birth control and sex education. All should be armed with the knowledge of how to avoid getting pregnant. Prevention is, of course, the first and foremost solution to unwanted babies. But once there is a real human being, living....she or he has has the right to live. Period.

If you are against the mistreatment of any person, than how can you justify killing a little human being that has no means to defend him or herself?

I'm just applying critical thinking to this matter. I don't mean to attack you or offend your sense of an individuals right to choose. I'm just appealing to that passion you must have, for the rights of the little ones who don't have a voice....yet.

An early elective abortion is, as far as it being a human, not much different than an early spontaneous abortion (the medical term for miscarriage.)

A large number of elective abortions occurred, even when it was illegal - and a sadly large number of women and young girls died or were rendered sterile as a result. Unfortunately, both then and now, we are not doing a good job of PREVENTING unwanted pregnancies. There are many methods of birth control, as well as many reasons to delay sexual activity, but there is too little information for kids out there, and too much societal pressure to have sex.

Then there are the cases of sexual assault that result in a pregnancy. Are those girls and women required to have a child, regardless of their wishes, that was forced on them?

But really, pro-choice is CHOICE. In an ideal world, only those who wanted a child would conceive one. In the real world, some women who conceive unexpectedly will CHOOSE to give birth to that child, while others will CHOOSE to abort.

Technically, an IUD doesn't prevent conception, but prevents the fertilized egg from implanting. So, would that also be "killing a baby?"

Normally, I would be calling you on this as being far too personal, and severe an attack. If it was directed at a general user here, and not me, I would.

When I decided to apply to be here, I also decided that I would be open with readers here. My mother did not choose to abort because it never crossed her mind. She intended to get pregnant. A month before I was born, she fell down the steps in our house. That is assumed to be the cause of the problems she had giving birth to me. The cord broke before I was born, I bled out and filled up with amniotic fluid, would have died if I had been male, and spent the first two weeks of my life in the hospital.

As a teenager, I ended up pregnant. Because of my problems at birth and other risk factors I inherited, I cannot take the synthetic hormone based birth control, so I am left with choices that are far less effective. When I decided to have an abortion, my mother - the woman who remains opposed to it - was the one who took me to the doctor for the procedure. She has her beliefs, but is opposed to the concept of forcing her beliefs on others, regardless of what the Roman Catholic Church she belongs to tells her to do.

I learned from her. You are entitled to your beliefs. No matter how much what you think and say may make me or anyone else want to scream in fury, you have the right to believe what you choose.

Here, you have the right to say what you believe, with one limit. When your statements become attacks on the beliefs of others, you have crossed the line. If what you find yourself posting here is obviously meant to make someone else feel guilty about a decision they have made (or are trying to make), then you are choosing to force your beliefs on another.

We understand that you are opposed to abortion, and opposed to the beliefs of many people here. You do, however, share common ground with us on one issue - comprehensive sexual education. Please, let us know what you think would be the best way to combat the current abstinence-only education being promoted by the government today. Your input would be very useful, since I suspect it is very difficult for users here to understand where pro-life activists are coming from. Meaningful conversation tends to stop before we can get to this subject.

Curtis'mom wrote: "But once there is a real human being, living....she or he has has the right to live. Period."

Aha! A real, living human being. Define the exact moment when a fetus becomes a real, living human being.

My opinion: if it isn't breathing, then it is not living.

I believe that this is a very naive statement. There are many women and young girls in the US who get pregnant unexpectedly, who know for a fact that the baby they would give birth to would have little to no chance of being adopted. I don't mean to jump on a soap box, hijack the thread and turn this into a racial issue, but we can't ignore the facts. And the facts say that the majority of couples looking to adopt in this country are white and the reason they go to China, Russia, Ukraine to adopt is because they don't want to adopt black or hispanic children, of which there are plenty in US foster care.

Actually, that's not true. Babies of all races are in high demand. It's the older children, of all races, who are harder to adopt. For reasons that would be a whole different discussion. Do you really think that people are who are ignorant enough to be prejudice favor Chinese babies over any other races other than their own?
Please....

Ok. Hitting the proverbial brakes here on the "when is it a baby" issue. Since there isn't an "official" answer, how about we stick with the IRS standard. A baby is a baby when the U.S. government grants you tax benefits for it. Before anyone tries turning this into a debate as well, there is no law of the land on this that has withstood the test of the highest courts, and there is no standard "age" even amongst the victims of violent crimes laws that cause higher penalties for killing a pregnant woman. So, for the purposes here, we'll stick with a "put your money where your mouth is" standard. (Which, btw, is my standard answer on this issue when asked because it tends to silence the other side.)

Hehehe! Well, Curtis' Mom, I'll agree with you here, in part. I did say earlier that parents are choosing children from overseas because they are less likely to have custody issues in the future from the birth parents. If you want to see more children within the country be adopted, you need to take a look at the current adoption laws. Maybe they need to be changed a bit, so that parents can't come back and say "I changed my mind" and win in court.

Race doesn't seem to be an issue, if the Ethiopian child on my youngest son's soccer team is any indication. He was just adopted, so that raises a question on the demand for older children. We had another adopted child on the team last season, and he was adopted by his social worker who was fully aware of his mother's drug abuse problems. Of course, these cases are by no means an indication of what is the "norm".

I am really sorry that you feel offended. And my intention is not to make you feel guilty. I'd never want to do that. Guilt doesn't solve anything.

My opinion is not to make anyone feel bad, it's to shine light on what I believe to be a sacred truth: Nobody should have the right to take the life of another, no matter of their opinion. Your life is sacred, but your opinion isn't. A baby's life is sacred too.

BTW...you didn't "end up pregnant". Sperm doesn't just find it's way into a woman's body. I'm sorry that you are unable to take advantage of the current means of birth control. That puts you in the uncomfortable position to abstain until you want a baby. But having unprotected sex, knowing you might conceive, doesn't take away the right to life of another....sorry.

Yes! Adoption laws should be changed! I fully agree! ~peace

What about for women who's health would be seriously compromised if they got pregnant? Should they enter a nunnery for life? There is NO way that I'll abstain from sex, either for marriage (since I don't believe in marriage to begin with) religious reasons (I'm not religious) or to prevent the possibility of becoming pregnant. I take reasonable precautions, and if I could be sterilized I'd do it in an instant. However, not only funds prevent this, but doctors just love to tell women "Oh you can't get rid of your chance to have children, you HAVE to have at least a couple before we'll do that." So if I became pregnant right now, I would have an abortion. It's something I'd really rather not have to do, but there is no way in hell I'd be able to even think about bearing a fetus to term.

Medically, I say if there's no brain waves, then it's not human, it's a husk that has the potential to BE human. Without a brain, it's just flesh in human form. One of my aunts got in a car accident but survived, however she had no brain waves. Why would she be declared in the non-living, yet fetuses that also have no brain waves are counted as living?

I also meant to say that adoption in America is so broken right now. I just talked to someone in another forum where the grandparents could NOT take custody of their grandkid, even though his mother tested positive for cocaine use. Every child should be wanted, and be with the people who want them. The truth is though, that there are far more children than people who want them.

I have to totally agree with you on that point: You should be able to have your tubes tied! I'd gladly have my taxes help fund that procedure for people who share your situation and sentiments!

That in very reasonable, I truly wish more people who were concerned about abortion would allow the logical thing to happen and let women who don't want kids to have procedures to make sure it doesn't happen, that would solve at least a chunk of the abortion problem right there.

Unfortunately, quite a few of the pro-lifers I've met were religious fanatics, who think that women are made to pump out the babies and anyone who doesn't want to do that has something wrong with them. :P Those are the kind of people that would force a women to have a baby against their will, either by pressuring them (which sadly works far too often, even against the woman's better judgement) guilting them or denying them medial attention.

I'm curious, do you count the pill as an abortificant?

If the pill is an abortificant, so is abstinence. No abortion occurs if their is not a human life present.

I'm not a fanatic, and to be honest, I'm not even that religious. But I do believe once a human life exists, it has a right to live, and nobody has a right to take it away. Like I said before, one person's right to chose shouldn't supercede another's right to live, no matter how small and defenseless they are.

You should have the right to get your tubes tied. I believe you do though. How much more expensive is it than an abortion? It can't be that hard to find a doctor to do it.

I'm not a scientist, but I believe there is a difference in a person who is brain dead and has no potential for a future life and one who is a life in process of growing.

People are not alive when brain dead. Machines just keep their organs going. A growing baby, no matter what phase in it's growth, is still a live human being.

Am I allowed to say that? Or is this the wrong forum?

That's interesting that you don't count the pill as one...So when do you count it to be a "baby" and not a cluster of cells? I was wondering, because would you count it as an abortion if the woman found out she was pregnant in the first month and had an abortion then? I'm seriously not picking on you, I truthfully want to know because a friend of mine claims that it's the moment the sperm hits the cell that it's "alive". My argument to that is that the egg itself was "alive" before the sperm hit it, still doesn't make it a human.

Having your tubes tied is quite expensive as well as invasive (although new procedures are being worked on all the time, for which I'm grateful) while I think an abortion is a lot cheaper. I don't think the cost is a reason to "rely" on abortion over other methods however, that would be just...Moronic.

Hmm, what would you say to a woman who did get her tubes tied because she knew she didn't want kids ever, so she did the right thing, got sterilized, and got pregnant so the had an abortion? (It happened to my mom, actually. I have a younger sister because of that, so it's not out of the realm of possibility)

OK, this is back to the original question "What does pro-choice mean to you?"

The terms all got mixed up and tossed around by people arguing their own points years ago.

Pro-life
Pro-choice
Anti-abortion

I've as yet to see anyone claim to be "anti-life" or "anti-choice".

Pro-choice is literally the advocacy of all the choices available to women who are pregnant: having a baby, adoption, abortion, and the right to borth control before hand (or not as is forced on women in some countries)

Now for the record: I am not for abortion, I do believe that the possibility for life is enough to justify giving a chance. My last child was born prematurely, and spent a lot of time in the NICU. Had he been born many years ago, he would not have survived, because medicine was not capable of keeping him alive. He would not have been "viable" - which is the argument for when life begins.

On the other side of the coin - it is very easy to judge other women who choose to make the decision for abortion.

There are more women in this country that go about day to day having multiple children on welfare, with no thought as to how to provide for these children - except thast one more child means more food stamps. Yet I've as yet to talk to a woman that has gone through the decision of having an abortion that did not agonize over that decision.

And I have thought long about the rape/abortion issue. I was raped in college, but lucky that I did not become pregnant, so never was faced with that decision. I would love to say that my conviction about abortion would have stood up to that trauma, but I can't say for sure I would have. That was the worst experience of my life - to this day I am still affected by it (20 years later). Add to that the fact of how ashamed I was about the rape itself (I didn't tell my parents until 5 years ago) - and it is very possible that i would have been desperate for a "quiet" abortion - or suicide.

When I refer to the pill, I refer to this kind:

"A reversible method of birth control that is over 99% effective in preventing pregnancy, when used correctly and consistently. Also known as oral contraceptives (OCs) or the Pill, birth control pills contain hormones that prevent the ovaries from releasing an egg. If an egg is released, however, birth control pills also make it difficult for sperm to fertilize the egg." -yaz-us.com

I share your friends belief. Once a human life.... he/she is a human life with the right to live and flourish. The shared chromosomes from the egg and sperm, is the birth of that life.

The cost of a tubal ligation (99% effective) is around $1,000- $2,000. In my view,a small price to pay, and a better alternative,than leaving the option open to kill an unborn child. And yes, I believe under no other than unavoidable life threatening circumstances should that little human life be aborted. (Self-defense) So many couples are dying to pay huge bucks to adopt a newborn baby. A huge sacrifice on the biological mother's part, yes, but that is how valuable a human life should be.

Curious....do you think all human life is sacred? Do you think all persons have the right to live? If so, when does human life begin? If not, who is exempt and protected from being seen as obsolete and killable?

"Curious....do you think all human life is sacred? Do you think all persons have the right to live? If so, when does human life begin? If not, who is exempt and protected from being seen as obsolete and killable?"

1) Human life is sacred...define "sacred".

2) All persons have a right to live....would you then agree that the death penalty should not be applied to...oh, say serial killers and mass murderers? What about radical religious terrorists who do things like hijack planes and fly them into buildings? Or those who plot and carry out such things? What about the person with a terminal illness who's living in agony and is begging to be released from life? Do you believe that a pet should suffer in agony or would you "put it to sleep"? Don't animals have souls?

3) I believe that human life begins when the soul enters the body and that that takes place when the first breath is drawn. Until then there is no life, only the potential for life.

4) Who is killable? a.) Those who think they have the right to do serious harm to others - mass murderers, serial killers, those sentenced to death by the legal system. b.) Terminally ill people who specifically ask to be helped to die or those in vegetative states or comas who's families request that life support be stopped. c.) Fetuses, provided the host requests termination. Fetuses are not living human beings. Exempt: a.) Terminally ill people who do not specifically request help in dying or those in comas/vegetative states who's families do not request that life support be stopped.

Reminds me of a debate I had to do in college regarding the death penalty. At the time I believed in a woman's right to choose to have an abortion and the death penalty. When I actually had to do research and hours of reading and studying on the subject, I changed my view, much to my teachers disappointment, I think. It was in trying to decide what qualifies as a human life and if all human life has a right to live. To the best of my understanding human life begins when sperm and egg meet. And I decided that no human being should have his/her right to life taken away by another. Which is why self-defense is the exception. You have the right to kill, if necessary, to protect your own life, not a way of living, but life.

The welfare system is horrible, just as our prison system. We encourage those on welfare to have more babies. And prison is more like a criminal academy. But two wrongs don't make a right. The topic should be on how our society can reform these broken systems. Not whether we should have the option to kill our unborn.

.

Staying on the sanctity of life issue, pro-choice also means that health care professionals who perform abortions should be safe from physical attacks, bombings, and death warrants. Their lives are worth protecting. Pro-choice further means that women should not fear honor killings, genital mutilation, forced sterilization, or sexual or other slavery. Granted, those atrocities happen overseas, but they still happen. Finally, pro-choice means that personal belief systems should never trump science when it comes to governmental decisions on women's (or anyone's) health care. Condoms are effective against preventing sexually transmitted diseases no matter how many people may say otherwise. Abortions are not linked to breast cancer. Abstinence is not a healthy state of being for adult humans - don't believe that one, try asking the Catholic Church about their troubles trying to enforce it. Lying about public health issues surrounding women's and men's sexuality is anti-choice - and it is deadly.

1) sacred -unassailable, inviolable b: highly valued and important
-Merriam -Webster

2)Tough situations that you bring up.... Self-defense, I agree, is an exception: you have a right to your life. So if somebody,anybody, even an unborn child is threatening your life, than if unavoidable, you have a right to kill in self-defense.

Serial Killers and Mass murderers once caught, should be imprisoned....solitary confinement, food, water, and possibly a passage of any book (of their choice) read to them once a day. They relinquished their right to freedom, not life. We are not in charge of their soul... we can only be responsible for protecting ourselves. Fixing the prison system is what is needed, not killing.

Radical Terrorists: They believe and have claimed that we should all die because we are infidels. They are happy to do the killing of anyone for their cause. They sneak, and come unannounced. I believe killing them falls under self-defense.3

No, I don't believe in "mercy killing"... wow...I respect the life of all people and would never think a society should adopt a policy to allow it. However, there are drugs to give those in pain, comfort. I know. I've been with both my dad and grandfather when they were dying from cancer.[Since the topic is on human life ....I'll leave out the animal issue, that would be a whole other issue, possibly another forum.]

3) Well, that's where we differ the most. On what basis do you find that "life begins when the soul enters the body and that that takes place when the first breath is drawn" other than your wanting to have the choice to rid of the life while in the womb?
So a baby is not a human life while in the mother, even full term? It has to breath oxygen in it's lungs before you consider it a valuable human life? So if a baby is due on a Friday and dies in the womb three days after his/her due date....it was never a human baby? Boy, convince all those moms who have lost their babies in the womb that they never really had a human life in them worth valuing.

If the brain is dead and has no chance of reviving: that is death...naturally. No machine should be keeping the organs alive.

Okay, I think I touched all addressed.....

I think I agree with everything you just said:

So I guess I'm pro-choice, and in the right forum after all!

However, abortion whether it causes breast cancer or not, is irrelevant, I think. It's the right of the little human life living inside the womb that seems to be our disconnect.

Oops, sorry I didn't see that response of yours!

The thing is, the mother IS the life support for that fetus, if you took it out it's not going to survive, at least not until much later in the pregnancy.

As for the brain dead thing, well, remember that woman in Florida that her parents wouldn't let them pull the plug because they claimed she was still alive, while her husband disagreed?

I'd still like to know at what point you consider it a "human" and not a cluster of cells, since some pro-lifers I know claim that the second the sperm and cell meet it's a baby and that the chance that the pill doesn't allow that zygote to attach to the uterine lining is abortion. (never mind that the body naturally does that quite often) Where do you draw the line? My line is for the brain thing, but obviously others disagree with me on that.

And sorry again for missing an entire page of comments. >_<

"Curious....do you think all human life is sacred? Do you think all persons have the right to live? If so, when does human life begin? If not, who is exempt and protected from being seen as obsolete and killable? "

In a word, no. Sacred denotes religion, that we are here for a PURPOSE, and we're not. We're animals, same as the rest of the creatures on this planet, we just happen to be able to communicate and alter our environment more than other animals, and cause far more destruction as a side-effect of that.
Also, I noticed mercy killings came up, I do fully support them as long as the person who's asking fully knows what they're asking for.

Even though abortion saddens me, I will always defend any woman's right to have control and choice over her own life. It scares me that if we give in to the pressures to take the choice of abortion away from women, we open up a Pandora's box of authoritative intervention in our lives.

The most important thing to me is that "choice" can also mean the right to choose to have a child. Imagine living in a country where you are not allowed to have a baby and you want a baby more than anything. Or you're allowed to have a baby, but only if it's a boy.

Choice also includes things like the right to choose between having a natural birth and going into hospital - that freedom to choose is being eroded very subtly right under our noses. There are some places where I understand it is illegal to be a midwife! Here in Australia homebirth midwives have had their public indemnity insurance pulled. In some other places natural birth is labelled "child abuse".

This is happening because governments and authorities believe that women don't want choice; that we want the experts to make the decisions for us and tell us what to do. So we have to push at every turn for the "right" to control our own destinies, because there are those who sit poised to whip it away from us at the slightest sign that we're "giving in".

Then I would have to disagree that all human life is sacred. Highly valued and important, yes - that I can agree with. But I can't agree with the unassailable and inviolable part.

Take self defense. My attacker does not have the right to be unassailable and inviolable. Also I do not believe those that kill others for their perverse pleasure have the right to consider their lives unassailable or inviolable. Who, besides the murderer, considers him or her or highly valued and important? Would you consider....oh, say Charles Manson to be sacred?



Nope, I disagree. Why should the tax payers be expected to support these people? And what better way is there to protect society from these people than giving them the death penalty?



Serial killers and mass murderers also sneak around and come unannounced. The only difference is the motive.



I am truly sorry for your loss of your father and grandfather to cancer. It is a horrible disease. I, too, know the effects of it due to losing my mother to cancer and being her sole caretaker during her last months. I do beg to disagree about the effectiveness of the pain control meds though as they do not work for everyone in all circumstances. During the last 3 days of her life my mother was in serious pain, the drugs did nothing to alleviate her suffering and she was begging to die. Know what it's like to hear your mother beg to die for 3 straight days? I hope you don't and hope you are never in a position to find out.
Would I have "pulled the plug" if I could have? Certainly, and with no regrets. By contrast, my mother-in-law had a very peaceful and planned passing at her request being as she had the great good fortune to be a Dutch citizen and therefore had the right to request and receive euthanasia. As for myself, I feel lucky to live in the one US State that is enlightened enough to have legalized euthanasia.



My religion teaches that the soul enters the body with the first breath and departs with the last breath.



It is only potential life until it breathes. Human beings and animals, for that matter, MUST breathe to live. Leave the issue of souls out of it. If it isn't breathing, then it is not alive.
Note: I am not saying that everything that can be done to get it breathing should not be done - all possible measures should be taken to get it breathing. (I use "it" here because, to my way of thinking, this applies all species requiring oxygen to survive.)

No, I would never tell a woman who lost a baby prior to or at birth that her baby should not be valued. It is a tragedy when a woman who wants and expects a child loses it. However it is equally tragic who a woman who does not want a child is forced to bear one.






[/quote]

I'm coming back around to your original post, DP. It is my understanding that the term "pro-choice" is in response to "pro-life." "Pro-life" is the unwavering belief of a sect of Americans that the life of the unborn human fetus is sacred, and therefore terminating the pregnancy is murder. What's interesting to me is that life is only viewed as sacred before birth. After a child is born they may be subject to any number of abuses in a home or facility where they are not wanted or loved. But as long as they get to be born, all is sanctioned.

"Pro-choice" is the answer to "pro-life" from the standpoint of the woman who feels she has the right to choose whether an abortion is appropriate for her situation or not. Either way, it is her choice and no one else's. Choosing one's own belief system is the root of a democratic nation.

Shay

I'm glad I posted on this forum. Thanks to all who replied and provided your "POV"s.

So this is what I have gathered from all of you:

Pro-choice (in regards to abortion)means that a woman has more rights than an unborn child, and his/her father. For some,this is justified by the belief that the child is not really a human being yet, or that he/she does not have a soul yet. For others killing another human being is merciful to the one being killed and to society. Killing is a justified option as a solution to society's self-made problems.

I can't say I understand or respect that point of view. In fact it scares me to think that there are so many people out there, effecting our laws, that value human life so little.

I do, however, respect you all as people with a right to their own point of view. As you have probably figured, I believe all of us, all human beings; old, dying, unborn,even evil-doers were created as sacred. It is,however, the choices we make that define who we are. And as a "pro-lifer" I don't believe that human beings should have the right to determine the value/worth of another human being's life. Thanks for the time it took to share your thoughts. And thank you for tolerating mine.

~live with love ...

Wow what a subject. I am very Pro-Choice and honestly in my little opinion it really isn't anyones business if a woman decides to have an abortion. We all have to make personal decisions about our lives and again it is a personal decision. I want every woman I know to be able to have a choice, no matter what she decides and it isn't up to me to judge anyone for that decision. I know we all look at things very differently and please do not think I am being a smart butt, my question is this: If you believe life begins at conception then why is there no death certificate given or required when a woman mis-carries at a certain point ? Also if you believe for religious reasons that life begins at conception, then why is there not a funeral no matter when a miscarriage happens ? Again I am not trying to be a pain, but to me this is a serious question that I would like an answer to if possible. I was also surprised to find out that a woman of childbearing age can miscarry quite a few times without even knowing it before actually carrying a child to full term, what do you think should happen to those fetus's ? Should there be a death certificate and a funeral ? Please accept my apologies if I offend anyone and I am not trying to be morbid but hopefully this will give a little food for thought here.

Hi CrochetQueen,
Excellent point, here! As a person who is on the Pro-choice side of things, I feel it is not my entitlement to determine what other's should or should not do with the lives that belong to them. When stringent opinions are heartily displayed it would be lovely to see these opinions reach full spectrum commitment. Your question is one of the best I've seen asked.

I have one as well. In many cultures it is practiced that if you save a life, you have committed yourself to retain responsibility for that life. If a person strongly feels that their opinion should save an embryo's life, should they not also carry through with caring for the child throughout it's lifetime? Most aborted embryo's would have faced a loveless, heartbreaking life had they been born. If a person feels they have saved the baby from not being born, would it not be appropriate to adopt the child? Would it not be appropriate to see that the child they had saved lived a lovely life? On the flip side, if such a person saved the child's life and it faced a horrific life of neglect and abuse would the pride in saving it be so beaming? Or are hands and conscience washed clean on it's day of birth? What if hundreds of such babies were born due to the opinion of a single person? Like CrochetQueen I do not wish to offend, but to simply inquire about the wholeness of a person's strong opinion regarding the choices of women who's breath they've never breathed, shoes they've never walked in, and whose eyes they've never looked through.

Shay

I thought this was an excellent post, especially since I've seen this "wearing down of the rights of women" by "king George". I saw a show about fistulas. A fistula is basically a hole in your body caused by giving birth, where it rips a chunk out of you due to a difficult birth. In Africa, a doctor has made it her mission to help these young girls who, because of their extremely young age and poverty, wind up in labor for DAYS, only to deliver a corpse. The reason that it can be delivered after it's dead? The body shrinks just enough so the girl can finally push it out, but her body is already damaged. Because of this tearing, bladder and colon control are (to varying degrees) lost, and the girls are usually cast out of their village. So, this doctor has set up a clinic to repair the fistulas, tend the girls for the rest of their lives if they can't be repaired, and to give sex education. George Bush cut funding to it. Why? Because they SOMETIMES performed abortions, on these girls who couldn't safely give birth in the first place. Because of his religious ideals, he's dooming girls who are ALREADY HERE to agony, exile, and most likely death.

I'm glad, Curtis'Mom, that you at least make the distinction of allowing abortion in case of danger to the mother, but so many other pro-lifers don't want to give in even that amount, no matter how insane that is.

Thanks Greydrakkon. And you've added an important point too - I'm sure most people would wish that every young girl in the world had the right to decline being married off at 12, or even 9 in some cases simply because she's begun menstruating, to someone twice or three times her age and being impregnated right away. Those girls have no choice but to try and carry a child in a body that is still that of a child. As Greydrakkon mentioned, a child's body is not ready and capable of the physical stability and strength required to give birth and her body really does rupture.

In this case, it is not the "woman who has more rights than the unborn child" as Curtis'mom put it, but the man whose right to have sex overrides his "wife's" right to a healthy life. So, where do you draw the line? I know what the Pro-lifers will say to that, but my answer is "by ensuring that all women, everywhere, have more choices, not fewer".

Excellent point, and I've thought about this before.

Bear with me here, this is a bit piscean (ie, swimming in both directions at once):

For a woman who has been trying to get pregnant and sustain a pregnancy to full term, a foetus that is only a few weeks old is probably as much a living, precious child to her as a toddler is to another mother. If that child died in the womb, that mother would mourn as much as any other mother, and she likely would do something to honour the tiny amount of life that the child had. If you asked her if she wanted a death certificate and a funeral service, she probably would - for closure.

For a mother who has gone through pregnancy and given birth and loves her precious child - yes, it hard to imagine any other woman's foetus as being considered "not alive yet".

BUT. For a woman for whom giving birth would be a nightmare (there are so many reasons, but for the sake of this point let's just say "nightmare" means this pregnancy is just not going to be an option whatsoever for genuinely important reasons), the foetus inside her is probably not considered by her to be a viable life.

It's a matter of perception, and the perception belongs to the person who has to make the decision. I know this is why it is hard for parents, or for people who want children, to accept because it seems that this person's choice negates your feeling that your own precious child (or foetus) is precious and worthy of life. But that's not true - no one's threatening your child (where you've made the conscious decision to have a child).

Yes, that does mean that men who have impregnated a woman and want their child to live, have to negotiate this point if the woman is considering not having or keeping the baby.

Just some thoughts.

Hi Elle :),

Yes those are very good points and also some food for thought. I think that each person has a right to do what they feel comfortable with. I also want to point out that a woman that chooses to have an abortion does feel badly about it, I think it is traumatic and really sometimes the lesser of two evils so to speak but again this is the reason for Pro-Choice, we get a choice which is better than not having a choice at all. Even though I am well past child bearing age, I do have a Grand Daughter and I will certainly do whatever it takes to ensure SHE has the right to choose for herself, not someone who 99% of the time either is past child bearing age or can not even have a baby themselves. I know everyone has an opinion but unless you have been in the shoes etc. etc.

Of course, and I didn't want to make light of the feelings of sadness, etc, of a woman needing to have an abortion. I wanted to draw a comparison on more intuitive reasons why some women might have a need to believe that life starts at conception and others have a need to believe that it starts at birth only. And that in the case of individual perception, both women are right.

No problem I just wanted to sort of get that out there because so many times I think people tend to forget that.