"... I refuse to accept that women are not the masters of their own uteri. I will not stand for a patriarchal government that dictates to me with regard to birth control or emptying my own uterus if I feel I must. Anything else returns women to the status of slaves. A citizen has to have absolute rights to his or her own body."
I agree. I used to be unsure of my stance on this issue, as I always lean toward being pro-life because i do feel that abortion is terminating a life - but I am now sure that I am pro-choice - because how can we trample all over the rights of a woman in favor of the rights of a fetus? If we have to choose between protecting the rights of the two (and we do have to choose), then we have to protect the woman's rights.

What we need to do is eliminate the need for an abortion in the first place.

Anonymous wrote:In a thread on terminating beause of severe maternal illness, a poster noted that while she was 100% against abortion, she considered it when she had the same illness. This sentiment is why we call it "anti-choice" when you are against abortion rights and access. The fact that the poster ahs the opportunity to even consider ending her misery is because of activism keeping access to abortion safe and legal. That she could not morally make that decision is fine, the fact is she had a decision to make. So just something for anti-choicers to think about- when you are participating in removing women's access to abortion (by voting for crazies, etc.) No one wants you to have an abortion if you don't want one, but your moral choices should not dictate the choices for everyone.

Exactly.

I'm extremely pro-choice, but feel very strongly that I couldn't have an abortion myself. Suffice it to say that this belief has been tested more than once in my life. I am grateful that we live in a society where abortions aren't mandated or universally denied.

Anonymous wrote:In a thread on terminating beause of severe maternal illness, a poster noted that while she was 100% against abortion, she considered it when she had the same illness. This sentiment is why we call it "anti-choice" when you are against abortion rights and access. The fact that the poster ahs the opportunity to even consider ending her misery is because of activism keeping access to abortion safe and legal. That she could not morally make that decision is fine, the fact is she had a decision to make. So just something for anti-choicers to think about- when you are participating in removing women's access to abortion (by voting for crazies, etc.) No one wants you to have an abortion if you don't want one, but your moral choices should not dictate the choices for everyone.

No, the issue is not choice. The issue is abortion and whether or not it should remain a legal procedure.

Signed, someone who believes it should remain a legal procedure and is annoyed by people who obscure that very simple and powerful argument by bringing words like "anti-choice."

There's a reason the signs say "KEEP ABORTION LEGAL," you know? Don't be squishy about it.

Anonymous wrote:what the heck is inarticulate about this: "so if you have a 3 week old, why can you choose to not care for it or feed it?"

that is the meat of the issue for me - an arbitrary deadline where before that point you can kill you child, but afterwards you cannot. what is the real difference if the baby is born or not? What is the 3 week old is a 2 month preemie? does that change anything??

Yes. It is an ugly reality. I am pro choice but I do think the eventual compromise on this issue has to be an arbitrary line.

I hate abortion and wouldn't have one, in fact I had an unwanted pregnancy that had terrible consequences for me. Had the baby. Kept it. Say hello to my lovely 4 YO.

But I refuse to accept that women are not the masters of their own uteri. I will not stand for a patriarchal government that dictates to me with regard to birth control or emptying my own uterus if I feel I must. Anything else returns women to the status of slaves. A citizen has to have absolute rights to his or her own body.

If we have a referendum and only women vote, I'd consider abiding by the results of that vote.

Also, if the government would like to make it a criminal act to distribute sperm without a permit, I'd be willing to support that, too.

The deadline isn't arbitrary though. It is based on viability of the fetus except for in extreme cases. Clearly a 3 week old baby can survive outside of the womb as it has been doing so for 3 weeks. A fetus that has not reached a gestational age of at least 22-24 weeks (it gets a little murky here with medical advances moving viability up) CANNOT survive outside of the womb. Even at 24 weeks, extreme interventions are needed.

what the heck is inarticulate about this: "so if you have a 3 week old, why can you choose to not care for it or feed it?"

that is the meat of the issue for me - an arbitrary deadline where before that point you can kill you child, but afterwards you cannot. what is the real difference if the baby is born or not? What is the 3 week old is a 2 month preemie? does that change anything??

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:so if you have a 3 week old, why can you choose to not care for it or feed it?

Sigh. I knew 14:38 was an outlier.

She (or he) is not necessarily making sense, I know (I'm the 14:38 pp), but really what she/he is trying to say (in an inarticulate way) are reasons why we should agree to expand the social contract to say it's for the greater good, in our society, to say: we do not abort unborn babies. Her reasons include:

1) What is so different between an unborn baby and one who is born just a mere 3 weeks? Of course one is inside and one is out, but both are very dependent upon the mother (or another caretaker) and can in no way live independently.
2) Personal choice does not determine "the good." Just because one chooses it, does not necessarily make it right. There is a greater moral universe dictating what is "good" than mere personal choice. Just like we as a society have banded together to agree that we will all abide by certain standards of conduct ("we will not kill," "we will not steal," we will not crash our cars into one another,", etc.) and, by doing so, we cede personal choice in these matters, we can apply this to the issue of abortion as well, and stipulate an agreed upon code of behavior that says: we do not kill unborn babies. Not: we leave it up to you to decide whether you want to kill an unborn baby.

Of course. But in our society, the standard of conduct as determined by our society under our Constitution says that abortion is a right of women up until a certain gestational age.

Anonymous wrote:Carry People who snuff out a baby in the womb are worse than the colonial slave holders.

Right. Cuz males ran the slave trade. Women (currently) ultimately control abortion. Thus abortion is "more" evil. It's OK for males to dispose of humans like they are garbage. When a woman does it, now we're talking evil.

Personally I think it's more evil to inflict horrible pain and suffering on a sentient creature. A being who can feel pain - and not just physical pain, but the emotional pain of loss of family, being tortured, raped, chained together and left in human waste, forced to watch your wanted children suffer, starve, be killed or sold. To me a fetus is not a sentient being.

1) What is so different between an unborn baby and one who is born just a mere 3 weeks? Of course one is inside and one is out, but both are very dependent upon the mother (or another caretaker) and can in no way live independently.

Your parenthetical says it all. At 3 weeks gestation, my fetus is entirely dependent on me. At 3 weeks of age, he/she will be fine with another carefully selected caretaker.

Slot of people thought blacks were 3/5 of a human. So for them slavery was ok and it was wrong for others to impose their personal morality on all.

14:38, your argument is very articulate but it is missing a key component of the argument. There are many people who do not believe that abortion is "killing an unborn baby." For us to band together as a society and determine that it is wrong to "kill an unborn baby," we would first have to, as a society, come to an understanding that life begins at a certain agreed upon point. There are plenty of people who believe that killing is wrong, but don't believe that abortion is killing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:so if you have a 3 week old, why can you choose to not care for it or feed it?

Sigh. I knew 14:38 was an outlier.

She (or he) is not necessarily making sense, I know (I'm the 14:38 pp), but really what she/he is trying to say (in an inarticulate way) are reasons why we should agree to expand the social contract to say it's for the greater good, in our society, to say: we do not abort unborn babies. Her reasons include:

1) What is so different between an unborn baby and one who is born just a mere 3 weeks? Of course one is inside and one is out, but both are very dependent upon the mother (or another caretaker) and can in no way live independently.
2) Personal choice does not determine "the good." Just because one chooses it, does not necessarily make it right. There is a greater moral universe dictating what is "good" than mere personal choice. Just like we as a society have banded together to agree that we will all abide by certain standards of conduct ("we will not kill," "we will not steal," we will not crash our cars into one another,", etc.) and, by doing so, we cede personal choice in these matters, we can apply this to the issue of abortion as well, and stipulate an agreed upon code of behavior that says: we do not kill unborn babies. Not: we leave it up to you to decide whether you want to kill an unborn baby.

Anonymous wrote:so if you have a 3 week old, why can you choose to not care for it or feed it?

Sigh. I knew 14:38 was an outlier.

Anonymous wrote:Hitler chose to kill the jews, that still doesn't make it right

I chose to eat chicken salad, that doesn't make me hitler.

Hitler chose to kill the jews, that still doesn't make it right