And that's why I'll never understand why people kill little babies who were not born yet...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a fetus isn't born yet, it isn't a little baby, OP.

Yes it is.

I have to call myself pro-choice, because I believe that abortions should be available to women under some circumstances (and I am also right on board with all the posters on this thread who have talked about education and readily available birth control as essential, not only to help reduce the number of abortions but also just for the health of every person who is/will be sexually active!), but I cannot see this issue as black and white or ever pretend that I support the idea that abortions taking place in all possible circumstances is okay. I am the poster who said I cried when I read the stories of the women who had the terrible diagnoses and chose to abort. I support their choice and their right to that choice, but that doesn't mean I don't find their stories to be tragic. I get so sick and tired of other individuals who are pro-choice who hide behind this "well, it's not really a human being" or "it's not a person yet" argument. An abortion kills an unborn child. Yes, that term is inflammatory, and it should be. Pro-choice can't dismiss this reality as a way to justify their arguments any more than pro-lifers can dismiss the realities of all the children in the foster care system, etc. The argument about abortion is about the rights of the mother vs. the rights of the fetus, not about whether or not the embryo or fetus is a human being. If you are pro-choice, then you believe that, at least in some circumstances, the rights of the mother outweigh those of the fetus. If you are pro-life, you believe the rights of the fetus outweight those of the mother or, at the very least, that they have equal rights.

Sweetheart, pro-choicers use terms like "fetus" and "zygote" because they are medically accurate. It's an attempt to avoid inflammatory rhetoric like "unborn baby" designed to tug on emotions. Why on earth would you purposely use an inflammatory term in an already inflammatory debate? Do you really want this issue to be decided by who can cover their ears and yell "LALALALALA" the loudest?

And you are completely bass-ackwards in your definitions of pro-choice and pro-life. A pro-choicer believes that each woman should decide for herself whether her rights are outweighed by the fetus -- that is why you have pro-choicers who would never have an abortion themselves but would preserve that right for other women. A pro-lifer believes that this choice should be made by the government in favor of the fetus.

Not the PP but do you mind answering the question? when does the fetus become a child? In the case of this news report... when did that aborted fetus became a baby if ever?

Sure -- no problem. A fetus becomes a baby at birth. And no, not because I think something magically happens at birth, but because I'm basing my terminology on accepted medical definitions, and that's what they use, so I'm going with it.

In the news report, the fetus became a baby after it exited the woman. At that point, it was entitled to reasonable medical care, which it did not receive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a fetus isn't born yet, it isn't a little baby, OP.

Yes it is.

I have to call myself pro-choice, because I believe that abortions should be available to women under some circumstances (and I am also right on board with all the posters on this thread who have talked about education and readily available birth control as essential, not only to help reduce the number of abortions but also just for the health of every person who is/will be sexually active!), but I cannot see this issue as black and white or ever pretend that I support the idea that abortions taking place in all possible circumstances is okay. I am the poster who said I cried when I read the stories of the women who had the terrible diagnoses and chose to abort. I support their choice and their right to that choice, but that doesn't mean I don't find their stories to be tragic. I get so sick and tired of other individuals who are pro-choice who hide behind this "well, it's not really a human being" or "it's not a person yet" argument. An abortion kills an unborn child. Yes, that term is inflammatory, and it should be. Pro-choice can't dismiss this reality as a way to justify their arguments any more than pro-lifers can dismiss the realities of all the children in the foster care system, etc. The argument about abortion is about the rights of the mother vs. the rights of the fetus, not about whether or not the embryo or fetus is a human being. If you are pro-choice, then you believe that, at least in some circumstances, the rights of the mother outweigh those of the fetus. If you are pro-life, you believe the rights of the fetus outweight those of the mother or, at the very least, that they have equal rights.

Sweetheart, pro-choicers use terms like "fetus" and "zygote" because they are medically accurate. It's an attempt to avoid inflammatory rhetoric like "unborn baby" designed to tug on emotions. Why on earth would you purposely use an inflammatory term in an already inflammatory debate? Do you really want this issue to be decided by who can cover their ears and yell "LALALALALA" the loudest?

And you are completely bass-ackwards in your definitions of pro-choice and pro-life. A pro-choicer believes that each woman should decide for herself whether her rights are outweighed by the fetus -- that is why you have pro-choicers who would never have an abortion themselves but would preserve that right for other women. A pro-lifer believes that this choice should be made by the government in favor of the fetus.

Not the PP but do you mind answering the question? when does the fetus become a child? In the case of this news report... when did that aborted fetus became a baby if ever?

Sure -- no problem. A fetus becomes a baby at birth. And no, not because I think something magically happens at birth, but because I'm basing my terminology on accepted medical definitions, and that's what they use, so I'm going with it.

In the news report, the fetus became a baby after it exited the woman. At that point, it was entitled to reasonable medical care, which it did not receive. [/quote

so whats the difference between killing the baby in the womb and killing it outside of the womb?
it didn't need medical care inside while it was alive but it needed outside after the attempt to kill it failed? that's kinda confusing...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Not the PP but do you mind answering the question? when does the fetus become a child? In the case of this news report... when did that aborted fetus became a baby if ever?

Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Fetus: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth

The definitely of the word suggests when it is no longer a fetus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Not the PP but do you mind answering the question? when does the fetus become a child? In the case of this news report... when did that aborted fetus became a baby if ever?

Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Fetus: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth

The definitely of the word suggests when it is no longer a fetus.

Do you mind answering the follow up question now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:so whats the difference between killing the baby in the womb and killing it outside of the womb?
it didn't need medical care inside while it was alive but it needed outside after the attempt to kill it failed? that's kinda confusing...

The difference is that a fetus is inside a woman. Its survival is dependant upon the woman's body both for development and for birth. That's why the woman's rights are at issue here.

A baby is outside a woman. Its survival is not dependant on another specific human being, so that woman's rights are no longer at issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a fetus isn't born yet, it isn't a little baby, OP.

Yes it is.

I have to call myself pro-choice, because I believe that abortions should be available to women under some circumstances (and I am also right on board with all the posters on this thread who have talked about education and readily available birth control as essential, not only to help reduce the number of abortions but also just for the health of every person who is/will be sexually active!), but I cannot see this issue as black and white or ever pretend that I support the idea that abortions taking place in all possible circumstances is okay. I am the poster who said I cried when I read the stories of the women who had the terrible diagnoses and chose to abort. I support their choice and their right to that choice, but that doesn't mean I don't find their stories to be tragic. I get so sick and tired of other individuals who are pro-choice who hide behind this "well, it's not really a human being" or "it's not a person yet" argument. An abortion kills an unborn child. Yes, that term is inflammatory, and it should be. Pro-choice can't dismiss this reality as a way to justify their arguments any more than pro-lifers can dismiss the realities of all the children in the foster care system, etc. The argument about abortion is about the rights of the mother vs. the rights of the fetus, not about whether or not the embryo or fetus is a human being. If you are pro-choice, then you believe that, at least in some circumstances, the rights of the mother outweigh those of the fetus. If you are pro-life, you believe the rights of the fetus outweight those of the mother or, at the very least, that they have equal rights.

Sweetheart, pro-choicers use terms like "fetus" and "zygote" because they are medically accurate. It's an attempt to avoid inflammatory rhetoric like "unborn baby" designed to tug on emotions. Why on earth would you purposely use an inflammatory term in an already inflammatory debate? Do you really want this issue to be decided by who can cover their ears and yell "LALALALALA" the loudest?

And you are completely bass-ackwards in your definitions of pro-choice and pro-life. A pro-choicer believes that each woman should decide for herself whether her rights are outweighed by the fetus -- that is why you have pro-choicers who would never have an abortion themselves but would preserve that right for other women. A pro-lifer believes that this choice should be made by the government in favor of the fetus.

I'm not your sweetheart.

Now that we have that out of the way...I also use fetus, zygote, embryo...all medically accurate terms for different phases of *human* development. So your point was???

Some pro-choice advocates get their panties all in a huge whirl if you use the term "unborn baby" as though you are caving to the pro-lifers. It is so sad that this is where we find ourselves. We are so afraid of losing the right to abortion that we have to dehumanize the baby. But it is a baby, and, therefore, the choice to abort it should always be a weighty one. To say otherwise is just wrong.

And actually, I don't think I'm ass-backwards; I think we stated basically the same things. When I say the woman's rights trump those of her zygote/embryo/fetus/unborn baby, to me that is the same thing as saying she gets the choice. On the other hand, a pro-life advocate would say the baby's rights are equal to (or some might even say supersede) those of the mother, so it is not her choice. In either case, the role of the government is to protect somebody's rights...either the mother's right to choose or the baby's rights. We each fall on one side of that debate or the other re: whose rights the government ought to be protecting.

So again, your point was??? Just that I can't say unborn baby or I'm a bad pro-choicer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a fetus isn't born yet, it isn't a little baby, OP.

Yes it is.

I have to call myself pro-choice, because I believe that abortions should be available to women under some circumstances (and I am also right on board with all the posters on this thread who have talked about education and readily available birth control as essential, not only to help reduce the number of abortions but also just for the health of every person who is/will be sexually active!), but I cannot see this issue as black and white or ever pretend that I support the idea that abortions taking place in all possible circumstances is okay. I am the poster who said I cried when I read the stories of the women who had the terrible diagnoses and chose to abort. I support their choice and their right to that choice, but that doesn't mean I don't find their stories to be tragic. I get so sick and tired of other individuals who are pro-choice who hide behind this "well, it's not really a human being" or "it's not a person yet" argument. An abortion kills an unborn child. Yes, that term is inflammatory, and it should be. Pro-choice can't dismiss this reality as a way to justify their arguments any more than pro-lifers can dismiss the realities of all the children in the foster care system, etc. The argument about abortion is about the rights of the mother vs. the rights of the fetus, not about whether or not the embryo or fetus is a human being. If you are pro-choice, then you believe that, at least in some circumstances, the rights of the mother outweigh those of the fetus. If you are pro-life, you believe the rights of the fetus outweight those of the mother or, at the very least, that they have equal rights.

Sweetheart, pro-choicers use terms like "fetus" and "zygote" because they are medically accurate. It's an attempt to avoid inflammatory rhetoric like "unborn baby" designed to tug on emotions. Why on earth would you purposely use an inflammatory term in an already inflammatory debate? Do you really want this issue to be decided by who can cover their ears and yell "LALALALALA" the loudest?

And you are completely bass-ackwards in your definitions of pro-choice and pro-life. A pro-choicer believes that each woman should decide for herself whether her rights are outweighed by the fetus -- that is why you have pro-choicers who would never have an abortion themselves but would preserve that right for other women. A pro-lifer believes that this choice should be made by the government in favor of the fetus.

I'm not your sweetheart.

Now that we have that out of the way...I also use fetus, zygote, embryo...all medically accurate terms for different phases of *human* development. So your point was???

Some pro-choice advocates get their panties all in a huge whirl if you use the term "unborn baby" as though you are caving to the pro-lifers. It is so sad that this is where we find ourselves. We are so afraid of losing the right to abortion that we have to dehumanize the baby. But it is a baby, and, therefore, the choice to abort it should always be a weighty one. To say otherwise is just wrong.

And actually, I don't think I'm ass-backwards; I think we stated basically the same things. When I say the woman's rights trump those of her zygote/embryo/fetus/unborn baby, to me that is the same thing as saying she gets the choice. On the other hand, a pro-life advocate would say the baby's rights are equal to (or some might even say supersede) those of the mother, so it is not her choice. In either case, the role of the government is to protect somebody's rights...either the mother's right to choose or the baby's rights. We each fall on one side of that debate or the other re: whose rights the government ought to be protecting.

So again, your point was??? Just that I can't say unborn baby or I'm a bad pro-choicer?

My point is that a fetus is not the same as a baby. It's just not, medically and factually speaking. And calling it a baby -- or, as you did in this thread, "little babies who were not born yet" -- serves no purpose but to inflame the argument. "How can you be so ANTI-BABY!" "Why don't you love the little little baby, you heartless wretches?!" And this is a tough enough issue without you painting people as baby haters.

You can say whatever you want. And I don't know if you're a "bad pro-choicer" (nor do I care). But I do know that you're not helping us get to a solution here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a fetus isn't born yet, it isn't a little baby, OP.

Yes it is.

I have to call myself pro-choice, because I believe that abortions should be available to women under some circumstances (and I am also right on board with all the posters on this thread who have talked about education and readily available birth control as essential, not only to help reduce the number of abortions but also just for the health of every person who is/will be sexually active!), but I cannot see this issue as black and white or ever pretend that I support the idea that abortions taking place in all possible circumstances is okay. I am the poster who said I cried when I read the stories of the women who had the terrible diagnoses and chose to abort. I support their choice and their right to that choice, but that doesn't mean I don't find their stories to be tragic. I get so sick and tired of other individuals who are pro-choice who hide behind this "well, it's not really a human being" or "it's not a person yet" argument. An abortion kills an unborn child. Yes, that term is inflammatory, and it should be. Pro-choice can't dismiss this reality as a way to justify their arguments any more than pro-lifers can dismiss the realities of all the children in the foster care system, etc. The argument about abortion is about the rights of the mother vs. the rights of the fetus, not about whether or not the embryo or fetus is a human being. If you are pro-choice, then you believe that, at least in some circumstances, the rights of the mother outweigh those of the fetus. If you are pro-life, you believe the rights of the fetus outweight those of the mother or, at the very least, that they have equal rights.

Sweetheart, pro-choicers use terms like "fetus" and "zygote" because they are medically accurate. It's an attempt to avoid inflammatory rhetoric like "unborn baby" designed to tug on emotions. Why on earth would you purposely use an inflammatory term in an already inflammatory debate? Do you really want this issue to be decided by who can cover their ears and yell "LALALALALA" the loudest?

And you are completely bass-ackwards in your definitions of pro-choice and pro-life. A pro-choicer believes that each woman should decide for herself whether her rights are outweighed by the fetus -- that is why you have pro-choicers who would never have an abortion themselves but would preserve that right for other women. A pro-lifer believes that this choice should be made by the government in favor of the fetus.

I'm not your sweetheart.

Now that we have that out of the way...I also use fetus, zygote, embryo...all medically accurate terms for different phases of *human* development. So your point was???

Some pro-choice advocates get their panties all in a huge whirl if you use the term "unborn baby" as though you are caving to the pro-lifers. It is so sad that this is where we find ourselves. We are so afraid of losing the right to abortion that we have to dehumanize the baby. But it is a baby, and, therefore, the choice to abort it should always be a weighty one. To say otherwise is just wrong.

And actually, I don't think I'm ass-backwards; I think we stated basically the same things. When I say the woman's rights trump those of her zygote/embryo/fetus/unborn baby, to me that is the same thing as saying she gets the choice. On the other hand, a pro-life advocate would say the baby's rights are equal to (or some might even say supersede) those of the mother, so it is not her choice. In either case, the role of the government is to protect somebody's rights...either the mother's right to choose or the baby's rights. We each fall on one side of that debate or the other re: whose rights the government ought to be protecting.

So again, your point was??? Just that I can't say unborn baby or I'm a bad pro-choicer?

I don't believe that life begins at conception, or implantation for that matter. I believe that each woman has the right to determine this on her own, not that her rights trump the rights of the fetus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a fetus isn't born yet, it isn't a little baby, OP.

Yes it is.

I have to call myself pro-choice, because I believe that abortions should be available to women under some circumstances (and I am also right on board with all the posters on this thread who have talked about education and readily available birth control as essential, not only to help reduce the number of abortions but also just for the health of every person who is/will be sexually active!), but I cannot see this issue as black and white or ever pretend that I support the idea that abortions taking place in all possible circumstances is okay. I am the poster who said I cried when I read the stories of the women who had the terrible diagnoses and chose to abort. I support their choice and their right to that choice, but that doesn't mean I don't find their stories to be tragic. I get so sick and tired of other individuals who are pro-choice who hide behind this "well, it's not really a human being" or "it's not a person yet" argument. An abortion kills an unborn child. Yes, that term is inflammatory, and it should be. Pro-choice can't dismiss this reality as a way to justify their arguments any more than pro-lifers can dismiss the realities of all the children in the foster care system, etc. The argument about abortion is about the rights of the mother vs. the rights of the fetus, not about whether or not the embryo or fetus is a human being. If you are pro-choice, then you believe that, at least in some circumstances, the rights of the mother outweigh those of the fetus. If you are pro-life, you believe the rights of the fetus outweight those of the mother or, at the very least, that they have equal rights.

Sweetheart, pro-choicers use terms like "fetus" and "zygote" because they are medically accurate. It's an attempt to avoid inflammatory rhetoric like "unborn baby" designed to tug on emotions. Why on earth would you purposely use an inflammatory term in an already inflammatory debate? Do you really want this issue to be decided by who can cover their ears and yell "LALALALALA" the loudest?

And you are completely bass-ackwards in your definitions of pro-choice and pro-life. A pro-choicer believes that each woman should decide for herself whether her rights are outweighed by the fetus -- that is why you have pro-choicers who would never have an abortion themselves but would preserve that right for other women. A pro-lifer believes that this choice should be made by the government in favor of the fetus.

I'm not your sweetheart.

Now that we have that out of the way...I also use fetus, zygote, embryo...all medically accurate terms for different phases of *human* development. So your point was???

Some pro-choice advocates get their panties all in a huge whirl if you use the term "unborn baby" as though you are caving to the pro-lifers. It is so sad that this is where we find ourselves. We are so afraid of losing the right to abortion that we have to dehumanize the baby. But it is a baby, and, therefore, the choice to abort it should always be a weighty one. To say otherwise is just wrong.

And actually, I don't think I'm ass-backwards; I think we stated basically the same things. When I say the woman's rights trump those of her zygote/embryo/fetus/unborn baby, to me that is the same thing as saying she gets the choice. On the other hand, a pro-life advocate would say the baby's rights are equal to (or some might even say supersede) those of the mother, so it is not her choice. In either case, the role of the government is to protect somebody's rights...either the mother's right to choose or the baby's rights. We each fall on one side of that debate or the other re: whose rights the government ought to be protecting.

So again, your point was??? Just that I can't say unborn baby or I'm a bad pro-choicer?

I don't believe that life begins at conception, or implantation for that matter. I believe that each woman has the right to determine this on her own, not that her rights trump the rights of the fetus.

So before birth, a fetus is not a life? Not alive? Human beings develop in a progression from single cell, embryo, fetus, infant, toddler...and so on until they die. If you believe that a person does not have the "right to life" until it can exist physically indepedently of its mother, so be it, but it is still a human being. That's all I'm saying. This clump of cells rationalization is just a way to try and sugar coat something that shouldn't be sugar coated.

What a better world it would be if we could all get together and just agree that abortion is not the preferred way to go, even if we believe that a woman has a right to choose to have one, and expend our energy on ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place, ways to support those women who might choose to keep a pregnancy if they actually had a support system and the means to raise one and things like that. Support the efforts of Planned Parenthood, Gabriel's Project, etc. Shocking to mention the two in the same sentence, I know, but the truth is that different women need/want different kinds of support. Instead of calling each other names and demonizing one another, realizing that deep down, we all value life. I can't imagine that most pro-life people hate all women and want them to suffer, even if there are a few extremists, any more than I believe that anyone who is pro-choice doesn't care about life or babies. We want healthy, happy women and we want children in the world who are supported and loved. Who on either side would argue that they don't want that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a fetus isn't born yet, it isn't a little baby, OP.

Yes it is.

I have to call myself pro-choice, because I believe that abortions should be available to women under some circumstances (and I am also right on board with all the posters on this thread who have talked about education and readily available birth control as essential, not only to help reduce the number of abortions but also just for the health of every person who is/will be sexually active!), but I cannot see this issue as black and white or ever pretend that I support the idea that abortions taking place in all possible circumstances is okay. I am the poster who said I cried when I read the stories of the women who had the terrible diagnoses and chose to abort. I support their choice and their right to that choice, but that doesn't mean I don't find their stories to be tragic. I get so sick and tired of other individuals who are pro-choice who hide behind this "well, it's not really a human being" or "it's not a person yet" argument. An abortion kills an unborn child. Yes, that term is inflammatory, and it should be. Pro-choice can't dismiss this reality as a way to justify their arguments any more than pro-lifers can dismiss the realities of all the children in the foster care system, etc. The argument about abortion is about the rights of the mother vs. the rights of the fetus, not about whether or not the embryo or fetus is a human being. If you are pro-choice, then you believe that, at least in some circumstances, the rights of the mother outweigh those of the fetus. If you are pro-life, you believe the rights of the fetus outweight those of the mother or, at the very least, that they have equal rights.

Sweetheart, pro-choicers use terms like "fetus" and "zygote" because they are medically accurate. It's an attempt to avoid inflammatory rhetoric like "unborn baby" designed to tug on emotions. Why on earth would you purposely use an inflammatory term in an already inflammatory debate? Do you really want this issue to be decided by who can cover their ears and yell "LALALALALA" the loudest?

And you are completely bass-ackwards in your definitions of pro-choice and pro-life. A pro-choicer believes that each woman should decide for herself whether her rights are outweighed by the fetus -- that is why you have pro-choicers who would never have an abortion themselves but would preserve that right for other women. A pro-lifer believes that this choice should be made by the government in favor of the fetus.

I'm not your sweetheart.

Now that we have that out of the way...I also use fetus, zygote, embryo...all medically accurate terms for different phases of *human* development. So your point was???

Some pro-choice advocates get their panties all in a huge whirl if you use the term "unborn baby" as though you are caving to the pro-lifers. It is so sad that this is where we find ourselves. We are so afraid of losing the right to abortion that we have to dehumanize the baby. But it is a baby, and, therefore, the choice to abort it should always be a weighty one. To say otherwise is just wrong.

And actually, I don't think I'm ass-backwards; I think we stated basically the same things. When I say the woman's rights trump those of her zygote/embryo/fetus/unborn baby, to me that is the same thing as saying she gets the choice. On the other hand, a pro-life advocate would say the baby's rights are equal to (or some might even say supersede) those of the mother, so it is not her choice. In either case, the role of the government is to protect somebody's rights...either the mother's right to choose or the baby's rights. We each fall on one side of that debate or the other re: whose rights the government ought to be protecting.

So again, your point was??? Just that I can't say unborn baby or I'm a bad pro-choicer?

I don't believe that life begins at conception, or implantation for that matter. I believe that each woman has the right to determine this on her own, not that her rights trump the rights of the fetus.

So before birth, a fetus is not a life? Not alive? Human beings develop in a progression from single cell, embryo, fetus, infant, toddler...and so on until they die. If you believe that a person does not have the "right to life" until it can exist physically indepedently of its mother, so be it, but it is still a human being. That's all I'm saying. This clump of cells rationalization is just a way to try and sugar coat something that shouldn't be sugar coated.

What a better world it would be if we could all get together and just agree that abortion is not the preferred way to go, even if we believe that a woman has a right to choose to have one, and expend our energy on ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place, ways to support those women who might choose to keep a pregnancy if they actually had a support system and the means to raise one and things like that. Support the efforts of Planned Parenthood, Gabriel's Project, etc. Shocking to mention the two in the same sentence, I know, but the truth is that different women need/want different kinds of support. Instead of calling each other names and demonizing one another, realizing that deep down, we all value life. I can't imagine that most pro-life people hate all women and want them to suffer, even if there are a few extremists, any more than I believe that anyone who is pro-choice doesn't care about life or babies. We want healthy, happy women and we want children in the world who are supported and loved. Who on either side would argue that they don't want that?

22:17 here, and I can get behind the first bolded sentence, but I'd like to add better sex education and ridiculously easy access to contraception, so we can prevent these pregnancies in the first place. And the thing is, I think the VAST VAST majority of people would get behind this plan. But all the noise and heat surrounding this issue makes it so hard for people to see that.

But if you're the OP, and I believe you are, can't you see how the title you chose for this thread, and other similar comments, completely contradict the second bolded sentence?

So, please stop talking about "rationalizations" and "sugar coating." It's not. I believe that there is a difference between a fetus and a human being -- a belief, by the way, that is supported by accepted medical science. I believe that both are "alive," but lots of things are "alive" without receiving all the rights of a human being, like oranges and organs and viruses and tumors. And I believe that, particularly in the early early stages of gestations, "a clump of cells" is a perfectly accurate way to describe the embryo. These are not ways for me to "sugar coat" anything. You may not agree with my rationale, but that doesn't mean it's not reasonable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a fetus isn't born yet, it isn't a little baby, OP.

Yes it is.

I have to call myself pro-choice, because I believe that abortions should be available to women under some circumstances (and I am also right on board with all the posters on this thread who have talked about education and readily available birth control as essential, not only to help reduce the number of abortions but also just for the health of every person who is/will be sexually active!), but I cannot see this issue as black and white or ever pretend that I support the idea that abortions taking place in all possible circumstances is okay. I am the poster who said I cried when I read the stories of the women who had the terrible diagnoses and chose to abort. I support their choice and their right to that choice, but that doesn't mean I don't find their stories to be tragic. I get so sick and tired of other individuals who are pro-choice who hide behind this "well, it's not really a human being" or "it's not a person yet" argument. An abortion kills an unborn child. Yes, that term is inflammatory, and it should be. Pro-choice can't dismiss this reality as a way to justify their arguments any more than pro-lifers can dismiss the realities of all the children in the foster care system, etc. The argument about abortion is about the rights of the mother vs. the rights of the fetus, not about whether or not the embryo or fetus is a human being. If you are pro-choice, then you believe that, at least in some circumstances, the rights of the mother outweigh those of the fetus. If you are pro-life, you believe the rights of the fetus outweight those of the mother or, at the very least, that they have equal rights.

Sweetheart, pro-choicers use terms like "fetus" and "zygote" because they are medically accurate. It's an attempt to avoid inflammatory rhetoric like "unborn baby" designed to tug on emotions. Why on earth would you purposely use an inflammatory term in an already inflammatory debate? Do you really want this issue to be decided by who can cover their ears and yell "LALALALALA" the loudest?

And you are completely bass-ackwards in your definitions of pro-choice and pro-life. A pro-choicer believes that each woman should decide for herself whether her rights are outweighed by the fetus -- that is why you have pro-choicers who would never have an abortion themselves but would preserve that right for other women. A pro-lifer believes that this choice should be made by the government in favor of the fetus.

I'm not your sweetheart.

Now that we have that out of the way...I also use fetus, zygote, embryo...all medically accurate terms for different phases of *human* development. So your point was???

Some pro-choice advocates get their panties all in a huge whirl if you use the term "unborn baby" as though you are caving to the pro-lifers. It is so sad that this is where we find ourselves. We are so afraid of losing the right to abortion that we have to dehumanize the baby. But it is a baby, and, therefore, the choice to abort it should always be a weighty one. To say otherwise is just wrong.

And actually, I don't think I'm ass-backwards; I think we stated basically the same things. When I say the woman's rights trump those of her zygote/embryo/fetus/unborn baby, to me that is the same thing as saying she gets the choice. On the other hand, a pro-life advocate would say the baby's rights are equal to (or some might even say supersede) those of the mother, so it is not her choice. In either case, the role of the government is to protect somebody's rights...either the mother's right to choose or the baby's rights. We each fall on one side of that debate or the other re: whose rights the government ought to be protecting.

So again, your point was??? Just that I can't say unborn baby or I'm a bad pro-choicer?

I don't believe that life begins at conception, or implantation for that matter. I believe that each woman has the right to determine this on her own, not that her rights trump the rights of the fetus.

So before birth, a fetus is not a life? Not alive? Human beings develop in a progression from single cell, embryo, fetus, infant, toddler...and so on until they die. If you believe that a person does not have the "right to life" until it can exist physically indepedently of its mother, so be it, but it is still a human being. That's all I'm saying. This clump of cells rationalization is just a way to try and sugar coat something that shouldn't be sugar coated.

What a better world it would be if we could all get together and just agree that abortion is not the preferred way to go, even if we believe that a woman has a right to choose to have one, and expend our energy on ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place, ways to support those women who might choose to keep a pregnancy if they actually had a support system and the means to raise one and things like that. Support the efforts of Planned Parenthood, Gabriel's Project, etc. Shocking to mention the two in the same sentence, I know, but the truth is that different women need/want different kinds of support. Instead of calling each other names and demonizing one another, realizing that deep down, we all value life. I can't imagine that most pro-life people hate all women and want them to suffer, even if there are a few extremists, any more than I believe that anyone who is pro-choice doesn't care about life or babies. We want healthy, happy women and we want children in the world who are supported and loved. Who on either side would argue that they don't want that?

22:17 here, and I can get behind the first bolded sentence, but I'd like to add better sex education and ridiculously easy access to contraception, so we can prevent these pregnancies in the first place. And the thing is, I think the VAST VAST majority of people would get behind this plan. But all the noise and heat surrounding this issue makes it so hard for people to see that.

But if you're the OP, and I believe you are, can't you see how the title you chose for this thread, and other similar comments, completely contradict the second bolded sentence?

So, please stop talking about "rationalizations" and "sugar coating." It's not. I believe that there is a difference between a fetus and a human being -- a belief, by the way, that is supported by accepted medical science. I believe that both are "alive," but lots of things are "alive" without receiving all the rights of a human being, like oranges and organs and viruses and tumors. And I believe that, particularly in the early early stages of gestations, "a clump of cells" is a perfectly accurate way to describe the embryo. These are not ways for me to "sugar coat" anything. You may not agree with my rationale, but that doesn't mean it's not reasonable.

No, I'm really not the OP, so you have to stop taking my posts in context with hers. This thread had gone on for a few pages before I even saw it. I meant everything I said in that last paragraph.

I'm totally with you on the sex ed and access to birth control. Absolutely essential.

But I disagree with you that medical science supports that a fetus is not a human being. I'd be interested to know what accepted medical science brought you to that conclusion (seriously asking question, do not read with snarky voice). A fetus is a different developmental stage, to be sure, but still human. Once you have a human zygote, it is not going to develop into a mouse or a plant or a virus or any other non-human living thing. It will develop into a new and unique person. We are all just clusters of cells, technically. And we're human beings.