There’s an old expression that comes to mind, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink. The difference between a horse and a human is that the horse never refuses to drink because it chooses not to believe in the thirst-quenching ability of water in spite of the facts and logic presented.

Wow, sorry for the typos. It's late.

First of all, I never claimed to be "pro-choice yet anti-abortion." I am pro-CHOICE, womens RIGHT to decide over HER body. If a friend came to me for counsel and I would encourage her to choose life but I would stand by her no matter what choice she ended up making. Why is that so hard to understand?
.
Obviously we are getting nowhere going back and forth like this. You are not going to convince me that women shouldn't have the right to make decisions about their bodies and their lives; whatever the circumstances may be.
.
And I got that info on late term abortions after googling "wisconsin abortion laws" and it was a pdf that did infact keep freezing my computer. LOL

And you keep using the least common scenarios to generally speak about a woman's right to choose. It is very very rarely teenagers, it is very very rarely for the life of the mother, it is very very rarely because of serious health problems of the baby, it is very very rarely due to rape. The vast majority of abortions are for adult women who just had an oops pregnancy, almost half for a second time, and the timing just isn't right, or they don't think they have enough money. I want to put as many stumbling blocks as possible in front of these women. A baby's life versus the mother's convenience? It hardly seems a fair choice to me.

How can you say you are pro-choice but anti-abortion? It doesn't make any sense to me. It's not as if there is some other outcome when a woman lays on the table. The baby is going to die (although they made it a law to try to keep the baby alive if the abortion is botched--they actually had to make it a law, because coldhearted doctors were throwing live babies in the trash to die!!!) I've heard the argument made against pro-2nd amendment folks that they are pro-death ... but even then, just owning a gun doesn't kill someone, just carrying a gun doesn't kill someone, and even if someone does die, it's not always a murder. It could be self-defense. So in that case, there are many outcomes besides a murder. In abortion, there is just one ... the baby dies. It's a pretty direct correlation. You have to take responsibility that if you vote for pro-choice, you are enabling women to kill their babies.

Where did you get that information about Wisconsin from? From Wisconsin Right to Life: "Abortion is legal in all 50 states for any reason for the full nine months of pregnancy. Only one abortion procedure – partial-birth abortion – is prohibited in the United States. After “viability” of the unborn child, an individual state can, if it chooses to do so, enact laws to protect the unborn child but abortion must be allowed if the life or “health” of the mother is at stake. The Supreme Court defined 'health' as 'the medical judgment that may be exercised in light of all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age –relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.' Consequently, the broad definition of 'health has made abortion legal up to the moment of birth." I tried to find statistics for Wisconsin, and my computer keeps freezing when trying to open pdf's (arrgghh!!), but I found one chart for 1999 that shows 171 abortions for Wisconsin with the gestation of over 21 weeks.

And so we again are brought back to the contention that the poor girl who just happens to be pregnant, as if such a thing just happens, must be spared the consequences of her previously bad choices at the expense of the life within as if there is no need to consider that life, and those of us who object to that rationale must be willing to bear the consequences for her.
Who am I, you wonder, to try to disrupt those plans for abortion? I am someone who sees clearly that it is wrong to kill an innocent life for the purpose of not disrupting the aspirations of another just as I would try to disrupt the plans of another to kill you, and for the same reasons.
We all have to justify what we do to someone, even if its just to one’s self, especially in a case like this where a woman has the right to abort, but so many are well aware that it was not right to do so.
I am perplexed that, as a self professed pro-lifer, you seem willing to disregard the innocent life in the womb. That would make you a unique pro lifer indeed.

As far as late term abortions go, that's where it gets a litte foggy for me. Pro-choice is a hard stance to take in this situation. I think women have a great deal of time to make the decision to keep or abort the baby, before the baby can sustain life outside of the womb. After that point though, the choice is clear shoudl be made to follow through with the pregnancy. As it is in Wisconsin right now anyway, women don't even have that choice. It is illegal to abort a fetus that could be viable outside the womb.

But who are you to try to disrupt someone's plans for abortion? Are YOU going to take care of the newborn, should she choose the adoption route instead? Are YOU going to be there for the girl who tries to finish highschool when she's 9 months pregnant? Are YOU going support that woman?
.
.
There are many reasons why women have abortions. And if it is justified in their mind, then I am satisfied that they have made the right decision for THEIR lives, their bodies, their family. No woman has any reason to justify their decision to anyone.
.
.

I have to admit that my prolife stance is a new one. I was raised in a prolife family and community. Believe it or not, I have a toddler and am currently 5 months pregnant- I understand that there is life in me. After reading through the statistics you posted early I can see that my figures about "causual abortions" were off and no, I didn't overlook anything. I've said it before and I'll say it again- I would never have one, I would never offer the idea to a friend who found herself carelessly impregnated. But what I would do in my personal life has nothing to do with how I view the situation politically. Reguardless of the circumstances, I cannot justify letting the government dictate womens choice.
.
.
You can sit there and call me a pro-abortionist all you want. I don't run around saying "Get abortions! Yay for abortions...boo to babies!" Please. I am for education and supporting women, whether I agree with them or not.
.
.
And about the foster care system. Obviously I know that not ALL situations are terrible but I have seen, yes SEEN, so many children go their whole childhood with not one consistant, loving person in their life. Of course I don't think they are better off dead but my point is do we just continue to fill the foster homes (good and bad) with abandoned child just because their mother, who has now hit the road running, was irresponsible? I know that this is a whole other subject to be debated- and I wish it weren't so.

Unfortunately, the word "harassing" is often used when some truth is given that might disrupt someone's plans for an abortion. You keep talking in generalities. Let's get specific ... do you think it should be legal for a second or third trimester baby who can live outside the womb to be aborted? If not, then please stop talking in generalities, and do what you can to stop that from happening, PLEASE! At that point, the child need no longer be a victim of the mother's choice ... deliver the baby and give it a chance with someone else.

Jacmarien, ??? I don't want them to feel guilty? I want them to have the freedom to make this decision without extremists harassing them.

On the other hand, I do kind of see where you are coming from as far as educating these women about how far along they are, how far developed the fetus is, etc. As long as they are still given the freedom to go through with it if they choose.

billnewbie - you are awesome!! I fear ever being on the opposite side of an argument with you (it's bound to happen one day though, gulp!). You are totally and completely right with the "of course I would never have an abortion myself" argument. How stupid would I sound if I said, "I am totally and completely against abortion, but I have at least one a year." Actually, it does kind of remind me of my mom, puffing on a cigarette in front of me when I was a kid and saying, "don't ever smoke these things, they'll kill ya." But I digress ... I USED to be kinda neutral on this before I started having kids of my own. Then I went through a period where I could scarcely even hear the word abortion without it bringing me to tears. As an expectant mom, I checked every week to see what new developments were happening with my baby. The heart beats so early ... it is a baby, plain and simple. It is the truth, not because I perceive it that way, but because it is the truth. With the ultrasound technology we have now, even abortionists are figuring it out (unfortunately, not all of them). There, at the very least, needs to be some restrictions on this vile practice. In our country especially, where sexual matters are so liberal, and birth control is so available, these "inconvenience" abortions are just unacceptable. I pray that we get to the day when all we have to worry about are abortions done by people who are raped, incested, have serious health problems/baby has serious health problems.

bbwil:
You are wise not to argue with “my” statistics as they come from a source even a fanatical pro-abortionist (not you, of course) cannot impeach. Although you did say that the kind of abortions you find to be casual are rare and those statistics show otherwise. Did you overlook that by accident or by design?
When you say “we can't filter through the why's and how's of each case” I take your meaning to be that we cannot set ourselves up as judges over the circumstances these women face, a common pro-abortion argument. Yet when you say, “Do you really think that poor child is better off taking their chances in the foster care system? I don't”, you set yourself up as a judge of the quality of the future life of the unborn. I find your two positions a striking contrast, a contradiction if you will, that you cannot find the wisdom to interfere with the choice a woman may make to kill her unborn child yet you can draw upon your wisdom to so easily dismiss the value of a human life (the unborn) based on the possibility that some of that life may be spent in a situation that you deem may be less desirable than you think is appropriate.
I can assure you, that in spite of the publicity a few bad foster homes get, they are not all the depraved dens of iniquity you seem to believe they are, and the foster system makes a poor choice of rationale for supporting abortion. For proof, you could ask a few “graduates” of the system whether they think it would have been better if they had not been born.
Again I have to wonder about the sensibilities of the persons who preface their support of “choice” with the disclaimer “I am not pro-abortion nor would I encourage a friend to have one” and especially “I would never have one myself”. Who is such a person trying to convince?

I would assume the example I brought up is extremely rare, MAYBE even more rare than the one you brought up (I guess the debates would be boring if we mentioned the commonplace stuff). My point in bringing up the anxiety and depression is not at all to make anyone feel bad about something that they can no longer change. But I think it would be very relevant and even helpful to bring it up to someone contemplating abortion. And I think the ultrasound would force women to SEE the truth. There is a BABY in there. I don't think for a second they'd go through with it if they saw it. They know it's not just a blob of tissue otherwise they wouldn't care. It's not about guilt or condemnation, it's about PREVENTION. See the truth of what you're thinking about doing before you do it. I would never want anybody to live their life in guilt and shame, but the sad fact is that a lot of women do AFTER an abortion. Why do YOU want them to feel guilty?

LOL, You say pro-choicers only bring up the "most extreme" stories but I think your story there at the end is a little extreme and rare, no?

Also, making women feel guilty about their decision is helpful how? You say that women who have abortions deal with the guilt and depression for the rest of their lives- so what's the point to your idea of making them watch every second? Is that supposed to be helpful? Or do you just want to make women miserable for making a decsion that you don't agree with? Why don't we all just take responsibility for our OWN bodies and teach our OWN daugthers safe sex practices and stop getting all worked up about what very personal choices other people are making.

I say, start putting big screen televisions in the "doctor's" office where the abortions take place so that these women who "choose" to murder their baby can see every second of it for themselves. That shouldn't bother anyone, since it's just a blob of tissue, right? How about choosing to not have sex or choosing to use birth control if you do. I always hear the pro-abortion people bring up the worst case scenario of a pregnant teen who was raped or incested, then to do that girl a big "favor" lets give her the memory of killing her own child to fix the problem. It seems to me to be a very common problem to have depression and anxiety over an abortion for the rest of your life. Also, there are also cases where parents force their teens to get abortions. What about that? I read a story of a young girl that was incested by her father and impregnated by him three separate times. The father (and mother) forced her to abort the babies to cover up the incest and the woman is now haunted by those abortions many, many years later. Abortion, what a favor to young girls.

I'm not going to argue any of your statistics, but I still stand firm in believiing that women should have the right to choose. Like I said before, we can't filter through the why's and how's of each case. And, again, like I said before, I'm not PRO-abortion nor would I ever encourage a friend to do it. I'm simply for womens rights to make decisions for themselves and about their bodies. Many will be foolish and selfish, but it's THEIR bodies.

And you say that these unwanted, probably future-neglected children can be dropped off at a safe house when the parent decides they don't want them any more...tell me, what kind of life is that???? Do you really think that poor child is better off taking their chances in the foster care system? I don't.

I also would take issue with your definition of “casual abortion”, but even by your limited parameters, the CDC reports that of those areas that reported statistics of women who had how many abortions it was stated the 54 percent of abortions in those areas were performed on women for whom is was their first abortion meaning that 46 percent have had previous abortions and 19 percent were reported to have had 2 or more previous abortions meaning that almost 1 in 5 abortions were performed on women for which it was at least their third abortion. The CDC received voluntary reports from 49 reporting areas and only 40 compiled statistics about how many previous abortion women had. Can 46 percent of abortions performed on women who had multiple abortions be considered rare?
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml...

Not that I accept your contention of what those who oppose abortions think, but pro-abortionists have a similar contradiction in their arguments. They say that we should trust pregnant women to choose what’s right for them and yet they have made so many poor choices to get to the point where they feel the need to consider abortion. They very often choose the wrong sex partner, either someone who they thought, wrongly, would stand by them and help raise their child but will not or else someone whom they did not know well enough to be able to depend on. Or they decide to take the risk of pregnancy aware in advance that they do not want a child for any number of reasons and knowing that they will abort it should that come to pass. With a history of these kinds of bad choices, we are now to assume that these women will make good choices? Anyone can see that those who choose abortion under these circumstances do so to avoid the more serious and challenging consequences of their previous series of poor choices. Making a choice based on self-interest at the expense of an innocent life is not something that can reasonably defined as a “good” choice.
I also wish to point out that no woman is forced to raise her child. She can give it up at birth. She can take it home and when she decides that the burden is too great, she can safely abandon it at a variety of “Safe Harbors”.

No, by "causual" abortions I mean women who don't use any birth control and will have an abortion each and every time they find themselves pregnant, women who have had multiple abortions and really think nothing of it.

Those who oppose abortion think women ARE responsible and mature enough to deal with all the risks of pregnancy and raise a impressionable and dependent child (whether or not that child is healthy or if there are financial means), and yet AT THE SAME TIME, that same woman is NOT considered responsible and mature enough to make her own reproductive choices. No wonder there is confusion in the political realm where such intimate issues do not belong.

By “casual” abortions, I assume that means those who have abortions because they don’t want to continue their pregnancy for reasons of convenience such as,” I can’t afford it”,” it would interfere with my career or school”,” I don’t want to be a single parent”, and the like. According to statistics compiled by the Guttmacher Institute (AKA Planned Parenthood, a group that is decidedly pro-abortion) about 1/2 to 3/4 of those who had abortions cite such reasons.
Also, according to the same source, teenagers (19 and under) had only 17 percent of abortions. 33 percent of abortions were had by those 20-24 and the rest, about half, were had by women 25 and over. That’s about 83 percent of abortions had by women older than 19, women who should be more experienced, more mature and less prone to accidents and who apparently consider abortion as just another birth control method.
46 percent of women who had abortions did not use birth control and of that group only 1 percent had been forced to have sex (rape). It seems reasonable to believe that only 1 percent of women who used birth control and had abortions were forced to have sex as well. Again, all these statistics are from the same source cited above.
What is clear is that few abortions are performed on women who were impregnated due to forced sex (1 percent or 12,100) or who abort out of concern for their own health (3 percent or 36,300) out of 1,210,000 abortions performed in 2005.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induce...
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib14.html...

Dr Talk, I'm assuming you a either a male or a female who has never experienced pregnancy. Going through 40 weeks of pregnancy and then a long and hard delivery is a big deal, something you have to want to do. I wouldn't ever DREAM of making a 15 year old rape victim go through that against her will.

Don't get me wrong, I am no advocating for "casual" abortionists (even though I'm pretty certain those kind of women are very rare). I'm fighting for the girls/women who DIDN'T have a part in getting pregnant or even the teen who really just isn't ready- but unfortunately we can't screen out who what and why they are pregant at abortion clinics. Yes, it'd be a perfect world if abortions didn't need to happen and every woman who found her self unexpectedly pregnant was eager adn willing to go through the whole process and go the adoption route- but that is so much easier said than done.

Lawyers give advice, they don’t define the law. Judges define the law. Illegal search and seizure laws are well defined and that information is readily available on both the internet and at local libraries.
Both the IRS and SSA have websites and huge inventories of documents available for review. I believe my statements are correct according to the information I have seen.

bbwil,
You said "Please tell me if the pregnant woman shouldn't be able to choose what to do with her body, then why does the government get to choose?"

You should address the issue instead of creating a straw man.

First, I never said a woman couldn't choose what to do with HER body. Abortion kills the baby which is not the mother's body. It might inside the mother's body, but it is clearly a separate human being.

Second, I never said the government should force her to keep the baby. The mother can choose to keep the baby or choose to give it up for adoption. And if you really want to get into what the government has the right to do, check out the 10th amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"
Since abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution, this cannot be mandated by the Federal government and that makes Roe v. Wade unconstitutional. Each State should decide whether or not to make abortion legal or illegal. But since harming another human being is illegal, abortion should be illegal.

billnewbie: Check with a lawyer, the IRS and Social Security ...

Your legal arguments seem unrealistic to me. Does the government make us prove on a monthly basis that we have not murdered our post natal children? As you are probably aware, the burden of proof rests with the government. We need not prove our innocence at any time, they must prove our guilt and they cannot require any kind of medical test without reasonable suspicion and a court order.
Does the IRS require us even to register our post natal children? Not unless they have a taxable income or they are claimed as a deduction and then the only registration requirement is that they be issued a Social Security card for the purpose of verifying identity. The Social Security Administration has no interest even in the post natal child unless that child is eligible for benefits as a dependant or a survivor.
I would also remind you that a sperm cell contains only half the DNA code and therefore is not fully human, just as is an unfertilized ovum.
It seems to me that irrational arguments seem to abound on the pro abortion side with its insistence that it is acceptable to discriminate against the unborn and in favor of its mother simply because the child is hidden within the womb and that even though the cause of pregnancy is well known and therefore easily avoided by choice, that yet another choice must also be available.

Thus if every embryo and fetus is a full-rights human being and every woman might be pregnant every month, all women would be given mandatory monthly pregnancy tests. How else could you then prove a "murder" (LEGAL term-not medical nor religious). The IRS would also be interested for tax purposes. Possible parents would be interested for tax deduction purposes. Social Security would be interested for purposes of future employment and the embryos would be added to census roles prior to birth. Men? Remember the Monty Python song, "Every Sperm is Sacred". If EVERY LIVING cell is a legally complete human being by DNA heritage, you will have a legal morass that no lawyer nor court wants to ever even think about going down not to mention the financial and time costs to society at large. Sorry but pro-life arguments are absolutely discriminatory and unsound at every level of rational thought.

Proartist:
I have to take issue with some of your reasoning. You wrote “Do we legally tell men others can control their biological contributions to reproduction? Of course not.” I can recall an effort made to control men’s contributions to reproduction with a program that may have been entitled “No means No” by which it emphasized the absolute right of women to refuse sexual advances. A man is legally restrained from inseminating at will and that is his only contribution to reproduction.
It is true that I contend that a child in the womb is human and deserving of the same legal considerations as you or I. The only way one could dispute this is to contend that the life in the womb is not yet human. But its DNA is human. Its stage of development is the same as yours or mine, at any given post-conceptual age and we rightfully claim our humanity. How does one judge another’s humanity but by common characteristics? These pre-respiratory humans share the same characteristics we had when we were at that stage of development. How can we deny their humanity because they have not yet drawn a breath? By what magic does respiration create humanity where it previously did not exist?

proartist, actually men don't have reproductive rights. I'm pregnant right now, and if I wanted to, against my husband's wishes, begging, pleading, I could go out right now and kill the 5 1/2 month old baby boy in my body. Even though he's mature enough that he would survive if born now, and even if my husband would be willing to raise him on his own. I'd just have to be creative enough to come up with some reason that it would interfere with my "health." I can't think of anything more horrific than that!

billnewbie: Yes, many "admit that point about women being the givers of life when they preface their support for abortion by saying “I would never have an abortion myself, but…”. Consequently, with that little yet powerful "but", they also acknowledge that it is NOT their prerogative, nor should it be a legal/political issue, to control the health care and reproductive decisions of any other human being. Aren't men also "givers of life"? Do we legally tell men others can control their biological contributions to reproduction? Of course not. By your reasoning, every stage and biological factor in reproduction that is "alive" should have the same legal rights of you and I. You can't fight "big government" and, at the same time, allow the government dominion over your physical being. It may be an old phrase but it is absolutely true: Don't want abortion? Don't have one. That IS your right. The realm of politics and forcing your particular preferences (whatever your reasons) upon anyone else's functionally-independent, living and breathing body is profoundly immoral and always will be.

It does seem that the key word is choice, as in choosing to ignore points of contention that don’t fit the agenda.
The most grievous of these disregarded propositions is that the life in the womb is a human life, not just an unviable tissue mass or an embryo or a fetus, which are words invented to describe the developmental stages of a baby and the meaning of which are often distorted to mean that the child is not yet to be considered human. Just as the term “viability” was used as a legal standard for the threshold of full humanity. But what is the difference between the viability of an embryo and the viability of a 1 year old baby? The difference is not that the 1 year old can live on it’s own out side the womb, but how long the 1 year old can live relative to an embryo outside the womb. For as we all know, a 1 year old is still helpless, unable to feed, clothe or house itself, and if left alone too long, will surly die. These children do not seem to meet the definition of viability. Yet no one argues that a 1 year old is anything less than human. And yet some base their estimation of the humanity of the unborn on such semantics.
The argument that abortion must remain legal as under current law because there were “women who did literally die because they had no choices” when abortion was illegal ignore the fact that abortion to save the life of the mother was in fact within the law before Roe v. Wade. Furthermore, the mortality rate from complications of pregnancy is currently about 7.5 in 100,000 which means that for the sake of saving about 75 women a year about 1,000,000 unborn children die yearly. I do not mean to disregard the tragedy of the death of 75 women or their value, but neither can I disregard the tragedy of the execution of 1 million and their value to save 75. One may wonder why, if pregnancy is so risky as to justify so many dead children, that there are so many women willing to take on that risk, even women who have had abortions in the past, women who were apparently unwilling to take that risk then but are willing to take that risk at a later time? It becomes obvious that the demand for legal abortion has little to do with the risk to the lives of the women who have them.
Perhaps younger women are not as dedicated to preserving abortion on demand because they recognize the vacuity of the contention that the life within the womb is not really life at all and that abortion is antithetical to the proposition of women being the givers of life. Many who support abortion unintentionally admit that point about women being the givers of life when they preface their support for abortion by saying “I would never have an abortion myself, but…”.

The key word is choice...you, and I, are currently somewhat free to determine our own reproduction by our own conscience, our own medical providers and our own life circumstances in spite of the fact that - even today - clinics that provide comprehensive and affordable reproductive health care are diminishing because of politics. When there are laws that, for the survival of someone who needs a kidney, heart, (you name the organ donated) another human may be forced to donate one of their organs, THEN and only then, can you legislate that the body of a living, viable woman MUST be forced to give her whole body for a yet, unviable embryo. If all abortion is outlawed because a fetus is equal to another living, breathing human being, every American woman in her reproductive years will, under existing IRS rules and regulations, need to be tested for the possibility of pregnancy every month for tax purposes. It has always amazed me that those who value and care the most about preserving the right to CHOICE aren't younger women. They're today's older women who remember when abortion was illegal. They remember the women who did literally die because they had no choices. Want to go there?!?!? Life is never black and white in spite of those who hope it could be. Human circumstance are as full of greys as there are unique people. I have made my choices. PLEASE keep your choice safe, legal and accessible. Not for you, not for your daughters, not for just your sisters, but for ALL women!

Historically, I have taken a pro-choice stance in this debate even though I don't think I could have ever chosen to have an abortion. However, I adamently believe that Roe v. Wade has directly caused the "disposable baby" syndrome we have witnessed in the last 15 years or so. We often see stories of a young mother delivering her baby in secret and simply disposing of it in the garbage or chucking it in the toilet or what have you. In these young minds, it is not a big leap of logic to go from getting rid of a fetus prior to birth by abortion to getting rid of the baby after birth by dumpster. The combination of a young, inexperienced psyche and post maternal hormones is destined to result in many tragic choices. The advent of society's acceptance of a woman's choice to abort her fetus has reduced the value of human life. Because nobody is brave enough or strong enough to legislate strict regulations governing abortions, we end up with such revolting ideas as "partial birth" abortions and getting rid of the "wrong" sex child. As with so many human endeavors, the pendulum has swung WAY too far in the wrong direction and needs to be dampened.

If a person kills another because of what that person may have to live through, some call that a mercy killing but the law calls it murder. None of us has an absolutely accurate method of predicting what the future may hold for any of us. Statistically, we all know we are probably going to die of some terrible disease or accident that will bring us and our families’ great pain and agony. Some of us already have the condition that will kill us. Yet we cling to life and want every day of our due. How can we deny the same to our unborn children on the strength of statistics that say that some of them will be miserable for some of the time that they live?
Some argue that a woman has a right to control her own body, and so she has. But how does that control extend to the exclusion of consideration for the life within the womb?
We all have rights under the law but we have responsibilities as well. One of those responsibilities is to restrain our free exercise of those rights when it interferes with the wellbeing of another such as restraining our freedom of speech to yell fire in a crowded theater so that no one will be trampled by the resulting stampede. Or yet again to set a dangerous trap within our homes to safeguard it from thieves as an unsuspecting visitor may well fall into it.
We all have the freedom to control our bodies but we still must consider the welfare of others when we exercise our freedom. Why should a pregnant woman be exempt from having such consideration for her unborn child?

Found more info, third trimester abortions can still be performed by saline injection. A cup of fluid is removed from the amniotic sac and replaced with saline. It often kills the baby inutero and induces labor. Sometimes the babies are born alive and they even survive. Read the bio for Gianna Jessen who survived an abortion like this at http://www.giannajessen.com/EPK/bio.html.... The mother's right to choose? She had to deliver the baby anyway. How does the baby's survival affect your health?

It's kind of confusing trying to figure out exactly what can be done, but after looking more on the Wisconsin Right to Life page, they say: The Supreme Court defined “health” as “the medical judgment that may be exercised in light of all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age –relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.” Consequently, the broad definition of “health” has made abortion legal up to the moment of birth. If you're for it, what's the difference between killing the baby an hour before it's born and an hour after? All the same arguments I've seen on here would apply. If you don't kill the baby an hour after it's born, the parents will just abuse it anyway. Although why then not put the baby up for adoption, or give it to the hopsital, which there is a law that allows parents to do that within the first 72 hours if they just don't want to deal with having a baby.

i think they are limited but not outlawed... i think in the most serious cases if a doctor says it must be done for what ever reason fine go head with it but, partial birth abortions are not ok at all but i am still for a womens RIGHT to choose it is her body and she has to live with ALL that comes along with that choice!!

I checked on Wisconsin Right to Life, and partial birth abortions, as a procedure, are illegal in all 50 states. But, with Roe v. Wade, abortions are still legal for any reason at any time. So, I have no idea what they do now, but apparently it is still legal to abort your baby at 8 3/4 months for any reason, they just can't do it by partially delivering the baby and killing it before it's all the way out.

Partial birth abortions are already legal, aren't they?

20 weeks would be considered a partial birth abortion which is a totally different subject. I'm not sure how I feel about making those legal, except in the dire emergency situtaions we are already talking about. But I'm willing to bet that well over half of abortions performed are done before the fetus ever resembles a human baby.

Just yesterday at work a co-worker showed me her ultrasound pictures. She is 20 weeks pregnant. What I and others saw in the pictures was a baby, not just a fetus.

Anothing thing...do all of you pro-lifers know how many unwanted children grow up in the fostercare system, moving from home to home until they are 18 and no longer cared for? Then what? They have nothing, no one.

Yes, lots of families want to adopt and the waiting lists are long...but they don't have to be. In Janesville alone I'm sure there are thousands of young children who would do anything to have a loving mother and father, but because they aren't newborns, white, or they are crack babies, no one wants them.

So instead of forcing women to carry pregnancies that will end up as children in group homes for life, why don't we spend our efforts teaching safer sex education and/or raise foster care and adoption awareness for the millions of unwanted children that are ALREADY on this planet.

I'm not encouraging abortion, I would never do that. I just feel it is completely hypocritical for us to claim to be a free country yet we are banning women from having freedom with their bodies, and in return flooding the already broken foster care system.

Are conjoined twins two separate people? Imagine adult conjoined twins. Could one adult twin kill the other one, because it's really "their" body. It seems to me it's a shared body. But with a baby, it's a temporarily shared body, and if you just leave them alone for a while, they'll be born and gone and out of your hair, if that's what you really want.

Dr. Talk, your comment about the fetus and mother being two seperate human beings is totally absurd.

Please tell me if the pregnant woman shouldn't be able to choose what to do with her body, then why does the government get to choose? You're basically saying that she has no right to decide what to do with the fetus but the government has that right to tell her she HAS to keep it.

I differ a little bit from ktaustin. If the mother's life is at risk, serious risk ... and I cannot even imagine what that would include to be honest ... where she would die if she carried the baby, then I would see no other choice than to abort the pregnancy. But I would make sure I got a second, third, fourth opinion. But why would this be a necessity after viability, or after the stage that the baby could survive? Again, I don't know if I can handle getting into too much of the detail (because I'm pregnant), but if a baby is big enough, it has to come out one way or the other. Why not let it come out in tact and see what God will do. Statistics I've seen say that a baby born as early as 24 weeks has a 17% chance of survival, albeit with great risk of having serious health problems. 24 weeks is about where I am now, so five months pregnant. After that, the numbers for survival keep going up and up, and the risk for serious health problems goes down and down. In fact, any pregnancy that goes to 31 weeks, which is in the 7th month, can survive with no problem with virtually no risk of problems. Of course, every baby is different, and there's no such thing as risk free even when delivered full term. Or lets say the mother finds out she has cancer or some other disease that would require a treatment that would be fatal to the baby. In that case, you're not purposely trying to kill the baby, you're just trying to save your own life. That's different than an abortion which is you taking the baby's life into your own hands instead of leaving it to God. And I completely agree with DrTalk. Each of us is created by God and given rights by Him. I mean, some of this is the same language used by racists. Someone is not "really" a person so you can do whatever you want to them. Exactly what part of a baby is missing that keeps them from being a "real" person with rights? The only thing I see is that a baby is the must vulnerable person on the planet. A baby is totally, utterly, and completely dependent on his/her mother to survive ... until it is born. I can't think of anything more sad than your own mother--the one who above every other human on this planet is supposed to love you, protect you, and nurture you--is the very one who wants to destroy you. I guess there really isn't much hope for the little one whose mother thinks this way.

If you are ever told that your life is in danger if you don't abort your baby, research how inaccurate such predictions are. I know quite a few people who were told they would die if they delivered the baby, they delivered anyway, and there were no problems with either person. My wife's parents were told this; good thing they didn't listen. Or how about how the test for Down's Syndrom has something like a 70% false-positive rate... they don't usually tell you that when they're advising you to abort the baby because he/she will be retarded (not that it should justify it even if they were retarded, unless you want to follow in Hitler's footsteps). Personally if I were in the situation of having my life at risk (which I wouldn't because I am a man, but my wife feels exactly the same way), I would try to have the baby and leave the resuts up to God. I couldn't live with myself if I killed someone else as a precaution to *possibly* save my own life. Lakennedy, if you were in this situation someone else said to save yourself and thus your family... but I would say consider the impact on your family of killing your daughters brother or sister. I'm being serious when I say that the family would be better off if the mother died heroically saving her child than choose to murder, but I do admit that it is a very difficult situation (not everyone chooses to be heroic even when it's the right thing to do).

Going back to the very first post, I agree that calling it "anti-abortion", while technically true, is evidence of biased writing. I at least have the courtesy to refer to my opponents as pro-choice even though it is a contridiction (the child doesn't have a choice). We call ourselves pro-life for a reason; because it's about protecting human life.

Also, someone said 99% of abortions are just masses of undifferentiated cells. Not true; do your homework. Before women are even AWARE they are pregnant, the babies cells have already differentiated dramatically. In fact, even with the very first cell devision from 1 to 2 cells, each cell has already diffeentiated from eachother, and it keeps going from there. The vast majority of aborted babies have heads, eyes, arms, heart that was previously beating, etc.

Good call, DrTalk.

Jacmarien
"I am waiting for McCain to denounce embryonic stem cell research, then he will be a complete package on this issue for me"
The Oboma folks would love it if McSame did that. One more issue to call him a flipfloper on. One more sticking to the party line. One more move away from the center, One more move away from being the maveric that used to get him the independent vote.
I am still slightly undecided, but the more McSame moves to the Right and the more Obama moves to the center the more I am moving away from McCane, or that he is moving from me.

lakennedy,
The right to life is defined in the Declaration of Independence.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

This is a very difficult topic for me. I am pregnant right now, and the thought of someone going in to the doctor and ... I'm not even sure what they do and I don't think I can handle thinking about it ... but it just makes me sick to my stomach. I am about 5 months along, and I feel this little baby moving inside me all the time. It is alive, and at this point, it could survive on its own if I were to deliver early. Every person deserves a chance. Just because the mother may be in a tough spot, doesn't mean that things couldn't completely change in a year, two years, three years. I myself am a completely different person than I was even a few years ago. And I do not understand why women are getting pregnant when they don't want to. There are so many options for birth control, and they will even give it away if you can't afford it. I don't know the numbers off the top of my head, but I know the majority of abortions don't have anything to do with risk to the life of the mother, or a serious birth defect. It's usually women carelessly getting pregnant and making the baby pay the price for it. I remember going to school with one girl who had two abortions within a 10-month span of time. Just a couple of "oops" pregnancies. If that's not a tragedy, I don't know what is. I realize that if somebody is bound and determined to end their pregnancy, I have absolutely no control over that, even if it's made illegal again (after all murder of already-born people is illegal and that happens all the time too). But I will never put my stamp of approval on it. I am waiting for McCain to denounce embryonic stem cell research, then he will be a complete package on this issue for me. To create a market for aborted babies is disgusting. Tell me there won't be even more people encouraging women to abort their babies so they can have more testing. People are going to do what they're going to do, so they do have their choice, but my choice is to try to talk you out of it. Please, do not be so quick to determine an unborn baby to be a cluster of cells. They cease to be a cluster of cells within just a matter of days. Don't devalue human life. It hurts us all.

I'm not saying that I personally am against the Right To Life, just wondering why everyone seems to feel that there is automatically a right.

Where are all the right-to-lifers after those babies are born when they are not white, are physically or mentally impaired, or are older children who may have gotten into some trouble? They don't seem to be at the adoption agencies lining up to provide love and a good home.

lakennedy,
Are you aware that everyone that has an abortion or is in favor of abortion has already been born? Someone gave you the right to life, why would you deny that right to another human being?

But, the baby wouldn't be able to even have the opportunity to be born without the woman.

I'm also wondering why everyone feels that there is an automatic "Right To Life"?

bbwil,
You said that you hate "The government telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies." The problem is that the baby is not part of the woman's body. Half of the babies born are MALE so it couldn't be HER body. It's obvious that they are two separate human beings.

I'm sorry if my earlier post misled a lot of you, I'm not in this situation, though rereading it, I can see why you would think that I was. I'm just throwing out hypotheticals to people who think this is always a cut and dry scenerio.

No one likes abortions. I don't know anyone who wakes up and says "Gee, I think I'll get knocked up so that I can have an abortion today." I think that it's easy for the right to lifers to automatically assume that pro-choicers are monsters, and it isn't the case.

PETCAT,thank your Mom for not thinking you were just a "mass of undifferentiated cells."

I hate abortion. But do you know what I hate even more? The government telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies. In a perfect world, abortions would only be available to women who conceived a child through rape or to women who have rare complications like mentioned below. But the law will never be that specific. There will always be that one woman who sleeps around and has "casual" abortions or the family who just wasn't ready for another baby yet. I hate those situations and will never understand them...but the bottom line is...IT'S NONE OF MY BUSINESS.
I am 100% pro-adoption but carrying a pregnancy to term & delivering a baby is a life changing experience and if someone truly does not want to do that (raped, a 14 year old girl, woman who just doesn't want a baby) and there is no way I can justify FORCING her to do it, just because I think she should. Adoption is a beautiful thing and I challenge anyone who is looking to adopt a child to go visit the many group homes in Janesville and meet some of the 8, 9, and 10 year old children who have no one. Why not consider them?

Yes there are plently of other children waiting for a loving home but what is one more!! Atleast give them the chance to live a life, why murder a poor innocent child who has no voice because their parents were to stupid to take responsibilty for their actions and not be smart enough to know their options other than killing an unborn child!! People need to be not so selfish and think of the baby before themselves when making the decision just to kill them because they are irresponsible. Their parents gave them the chance to be failures and do wrong atleast give them a chance to live a life and if they come from nothing then maybe that will be a gain and theyll really make a differene to someone else!

It's a difficult choice to die for the sake of another. If a person won't do it, they are in plenty of company as most of us would not as well. That's what makes the difference between a hero and the rest of us.
Similarly, if one is forced into a pregnancy, it takes a heroic person to make the sacrifice to bring forth that life, a sacrifice few would choose to make.
To those who face such choices, I would exhort them to make these sacrifices, but I cannot condemn them if they will not. As the old saying goes, “there, but for the grace of God, go I”. I have the same love of life and human frailties as everyone else. Those that choose to make those sacrifices deserve our admiration.
However, when were talking about abortion, some 99% are not done for such reasons as one must die or the product of rape. Were talking about the “final solution” in birth control. The wanton execution of an innocent life whose sole purpose for dying is that someone isn’t ready, or someone has better things to do, or my boyfriend won’t like it, or that it’s a girl and we really want a boy, or any list of reasons that value the convenience of one over the life of another. In no other circumstance would we as a society tolerate such inconsideration for an innocent life. The fact that we tolerate this is a testament to the ability of people to rationalize the abhorrent to the point of calling it good.

KLB40, if all those wonderful people that can't have children really want one, then they can adopt! There are plenty of children already wanting a loving home.

No Matter how you look at abortion it is murder!!! No doubt about that! How can you just kill someone that doesnt have a voice and really doesnt have a choice either!!! If your raped or your situation is different there are other options!! Why kill a poor innocent child who should be given a chance!!! What if your unborn child who YOU decide to murder by having an abortion is the cure to cancer someday or does something unbelievable in the world!!! you'd never know because your so called CHOICE to kill the child! Think of all the wonderful people in the world who are unable to have children and would love to care for one but there are people who think they have a choice to kill. Granit it, some people are put into rough situations and cant handle it but there are other choices for you besides murder!!! Answer me this, Im faced with someone I really dont think I cant deal with and handle, Do I just kill them because I dont want them around and I had no other choice but to just do that, Come on and stop being so selfish and heartless and give the unborn a chance!!!

lakennedy..... i am so sorry my thoughts and prayers go out to you and your family!!! you need to make the choice that is best for YOU!!!
i sure am happy that in this country we still can make taht choice!!!best of luck to you!!!

lakennedy
Everyone always refers to this issue like you just did. "me or the baby" Would the baby even live if you were to die. What kind of "life would it be for your current daughter and husband without you.

Save yourself, thus saving your family.

I immediately regretted posting earlier, as I believe this topic to be of the upmost personal nature and one that cannot given the attention it deserves on a blog, but I just wanted to find out peoples views on this particular scenerio:

I'm a pro-life woman, and my husband and I have one other daughter who is 4. We've been trying for another pregnancy and found out--at long last--that I am pregnant!!! I'm two months along, and up until yesterday everything had been going fine. I found out yesterday at a doctors visit that I have a rare condition and if I do not abort my baby, I myself will die.

What Now?

Me or the Baby?

stacyt,

I am also "pro-choice." A woman can choose not to conceive. If she conceives against her will, she can choose to have the baby and raise it. She can also choose to give the baby up for adoption.

A woman can make a choice, but she can't choose the consequences of her choice. Abortion has a lot of destructive consequences like increasing a woman's chance of getting breast cancer. http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/
You can't choose to have an abortion and choose not to increase your risk of breast cancer.

thank you rockstars for your comments.... i agree 100%.

yes i have heard of adoption... my mother was an adopted child but many people could not follow thru with that i just would like to say i am not for people misusing abortion but it should be a persons CHOICE!!!!you may all change your minds if you were in that situation....so don't judge until you have been there yourself!!!!!oh by the way i do read and i know the info that is out there so don't preach to me...ok!!

Murder? I don't think so. I'm a twenty-something man and I agree with a woman's right to choose. Although, I may not always agree to the circumstances, I feel that it is important when a woman realizes that she may not be the best mother she can be, the type of environment the child would grow up in, etc. If my mother were a junkie, I would have rather her aborted her pregnancy than bring me into a life of drugs, violence, and typically no safety whatsoever. And it isn't "mercy killing", either. The mother may not be ready, may have been raped, assaulted but afraid to tell, mental problems, heck, even mentally retarded (and I don't mean that offensively). Like I said, I may not agree with the circumstances, but I'll always support a woman's right to choose especially when it comes to her own body.

On the political side, Can you say Flip Flop.

Adoption is a wonderful choice.
I believe more people should turn to adoption rather than fertility clinics.
Most pro life folks claim there stance is based on religious views. What do those views say to folks who have doctors play God with there bodies and conceive where God would not allow them.
The reason most folks give for going to fertility clinics is they want there own babies. People need to wake up and realize there are a lot of wonderful children who need parents. They may not be newborns but they need loving parent just the same.
I would love to see the comparative numbers showing how many Abortions there are each year compared to how many children are conceived via fertility clinics. Both to me are going against God’s or, depending on your views, nature’s wishes.

well said mrscott!! These pro choice people need to read more. There are books that tell us how the baby develops each week. The proof is right there. Abortion IS murder and nothing will EVER change my mind.

You're right, this is the USA and we are free to make our own choices, but the choices we make affect others. I could choose to drive drunk, but if I kill someone I've made a lot of people suffer. I could choose to help a blind man cross the street and not only did I make his day brighter, but potentially and unknowingly the speeding driver who may have hit him if I didn't help him cross. If I were an elected official, I probably wouldn't vote to completely overturn Roe v Wade, but I'd certainly limit any abortion to emergency circumstances only in cases of rape and incest and potential threat to the mothers life.

Have you ever heard of the other "A" word Stacey - Adoption????

i am not saying to not help others what i am saying...i am always willing to help someone who needs it but i am PRO CHOICE and always will be!! what is better th have someone who is very young or knows that they are really not ready to be a parent abuse,neglect,or abandon a child or to just end it all before it gets to that point....my chice would be to end the pregnancy!!!i really think it should not be used as a form of birth control but it should be there if someone decides it is the right choice for them then so be it!!!WE LIVE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND WE ARE FREE TO MAKE OUR OWN CHOICES..... and this to is our right. Women know their bodies and what is the righjt choice for each one of them to make.So keep our laws the way they are and give women the choice we deserve!!!!!

Sorry, "doesn't" leave much of a choice.

Being raped and subsequently getting pregnant does leave much of a choice either, now does it?

stacyt;
Life is all about worrying about others. I think of the many people my son has pulled out of a snowy ditch, the people in the grocery store who can't reach something, the person choking in a restaurant and the unborn who doesn't have a voice. Pro-choice doesn't give the unborn a choice.

i think these people have WAY to much time on their hands they need to get a life and stop worring about everyone else

The term "anti-abortion" is evidence of slanted journalism. An unbiased headline would have read "Wisconsin Right to Life Supports John McCain"