Can I also say my abortion cost me 568 dollars,I had no insurance no job and planned parent hood will not do it for free. Its been awhile so things could have changed but that seems like a really expensive form of BC. Also ive known a few girls that have had them as well and they all paid too.

I would never kill my child. Of course, you see it as a child from the moment of conception and I just don't see an 8 week embryo that way.

Agreed.....therein lies our differences. But, let's pretend there is proof that a fetus is a child/life at the moment of conception......could you then understand my position? Religion aside even.

Well of course it's a life. Just as an acorn is a life. I understand your position even without some sort of proof that a zygote is a child (which would really be like saying that we should pretend that a 2yo is an adult or an acorn is an oak tree) I just don't agree with trying to force that position onto someone who doesn't agree.

Let me try this again. If a fetus was considered a human being with rights and aborting was considered murder, then would you agree that it's okay for people to speak up and take a stand on abortions? Or, even then, would you just let a woman commit murder and deal with the consequences?

I also wouldn't agree that it's OK for people to speak up and take a stand against abortions anymore than I think it's OK to speak up and take a stand against gay marriage.

But the issue of "speaking up" in regards to abortion is being the voice for the unborn. Protecting the innocent. I don't think anyone needs to "speak up" for someone wanting to marry someone of the same sex.

Let me put it to you in a different way. PETA thinks animals are equal to people. If they managed to pass laws stating that animals are people too and killing them was murder then would you agree that it's OK for people to speak up and take a stand on eating meat? Or, even then, would you just let a woman commit murder by eating a burger and deal with the consequences? OR, like me, would you still disagree with that law and fight to get it changed?

If I witnessed an animal being treated in an inhumane way, I would absolutely speak up. I may not believe that animals have souls nor that they are queal to people, but I don't think they should be mistreated.

I also wouldn't agree that it's OK for people to speak up and take a stand against abortions anymore than I think it's OK to speak up and take a stand against gay marriage.

But the issue of "speaking up" in regards to abortion is being the voice for the unborn. Protecting the innocent. I don't think anyone needs to "speak up" for someone wanting to marry someone of the same sex.

If nobody needs to speak up for them then why is it still illegal? It's because people spoke up against them.

I also don't consider an embryo to be an innocent who needs to be protected. I think the mother needs to e protected more. If she has no health care, no job, no home, can't afford her own bills, etc how is she supposed to handle a pregnancy? What about kids she already has? I know you see it as a baby and you want to protect it the same as you would a born child but unless and until we as a society can protect born people and take care of those who can't take care of themselves we have no business trying to make sure there are more born people who we as a society will scorn and ignore.

Let me put it to you in a different way. PETA thinks animals are equal to people. If they managed to pass laws stating that animals are people too and killing them was murder then would you agree that it's OK for people to speak up and take a stand on eating meat? Or, even then, would you just let a woman commit murder by eating a burger and deal with the consequences? OR, like me, would you still disagree with that law and fight to get it changed?

If I witnessed an animal being treated in an inhumane way, I would absolutely speak up. I may not believe that animals have souls nor that they are queal to people, but I don't think they should be mistreated.

I'm not talking about abuse. I'm talking about any sort of killing of animals. Slaughtering a cow for beef is the same as murdering a child to them the same as aborting an 8 week embryo is the same as murdering a child to you. Tat cow and that embryo are complete equals when comparing your opinion with PETA's.

By the way.......I hope you know I'm really interested in your points of view. Not so I can pick them apart or ridicule them, but because I'm sincerely intersted.

Thank you! and ditto. I must say, I think this is by far the most civil conversation we've ever had. :laugh:

Damn the time difference, I've missed a really interesting conversation, again! Just a word about the 'abortion as birth control' thing, which a few people have mentioned. I don't believe this is as frequent a choice as many would have us believe - certainly there are some women who take this route, despite the costs, difficulties and personal issues involved, but for the majority, this is unlikely to be the case. I do believe that using abortion as your primary form of BC is irresponsible, essentially because of the strain pregnancy, and any sort of surgery puts on your body, and because alternative, less-invasive forms of BC are so readily available in the developed world. I would hope that for most people abortion was the fail-safe, last-resort route, rather than the first option.

That said, it is my belief that it is essential that safe, legal abortion is available to women in their home countries. In the UK, we have a steady stream of women seeking abortions from Ireland, where the procedure is still illegal. These women more often than not travel alone, without the support and comfort of a family member or friend, and the trauma many of them endure is made more severe as a result. I have not personally experienced abortion, but I have many friends who have, including friends in stable, long-term relationships whose financial situation made them feel that the most irresponsible thing they could do at that moment would be to bring into the world a child they, and their partners/husbands wanted very much, but would not have been able to support at this point in their lives. The comfort and emotional support they needed was immense, and to have been without it, had they been forced to travel to another country to make the decision they felt was most responsible, would have made the whole process infinitely harder, and their grief less bearable. As another poster said, not all women are traumatised by abortion, but many are, and to be without support at such a vulnerable moment would be adding to the devastation (please note I am not saying regret) they felt.

I also don't consider an embryo to be an innocent who needs to be protected. I think the mother needs to e protected more. If she has no health care, no job, no home, can't afford her own bills, etc how is she supposed to handle a pregnancy? What about kids she already has? I know you see it as a baby and you want to protect it the same as you would a born child but unless and until we as a society can protect born people and take care of those who can't take care of themselves we have no business trying to make sure there are more born people who we as a society will scorn and ignore.

I could not have said this better myself. The unfortunate fact is that many "pro-life" people are willing to protect the fetus for just that long - until birth, and then after that it becomes "the mother's problem". There may be some exceptions, but most pro-life people are also against welfare and other government programs to help all these "children" they are supposedly saving. To me it just seems like there's no foresight involved - okay, so we make abortion illegal - then what? What happens when all those parents can't afford their children, or there is an influx of adoptees?

Also, I have to bring this point up: not everyone is cut out to be a parent. If a young person announces that they are going to get a puppy, people remind them of the high cost of vet care, the long-term commitment and the "down" days. I don't know about you, but I know a lot of people who have children who shouldn't. I'm probably biased here because I don't really think every person has a right to reproduce (but that's another thread), but I feel like there are certain people in the world who just have no business breeding. And again, with 7 billion people in the world and rising, more birth control is a good thing, be it through abstinence, oral contraception or abortions.

Sorry, but ever single pro-life person I know believes that we need to keep the safety nets we have in our society. They also support the women beyond the birth (most Catholic parishes I know have "adopted" a women's service facility and buy all the things the mothers need for their children in addition to providing spiritual support if needed and for those who are kicked out of their houses, some open their homes for the women). So, while the media and NARAL and PP would tell you we're a bunch of heartless people who don't care about the women, the reality is that we DO care for the women, way more than the likes of PP, NOW, or NARAL does.

Again, I invite any pro-choicers to go to your local clinic and askthose praying outside about the women's crisis pregnancy centers in your area, the churches, and all the support that is available for women with a crisis pregnancy situation. That is the only way you will learn the truth of the situation.

Sorry, but ever single pro-life person I know believes that we need to keep the safety nets we have in our society. They also support the women beyond the birth (most Catholic parishes I know have "adopted" a women's service facility and buy all the things the mothers need for their children in addition to providing spiritual support if needed and for those who are kicked out of their houses, some open their homes for the women). So, while the media and NARAL and PP would tell you we're a bunch of heartless people who don't care about the women, the reality is that we DO care for the women, way more than the likes of PP, NOW, or NARAL does.

Again, I invite any pro-choicers to go to your local clinic and askthose praying outside about the women's crisis pregnancy centers in your area, the churches, and all the support that is available for women with a crisis pregnancy situation. That is the only way you will learn the truth of the situation.

Like I said, I'm sure there are exceptions to what I know - I'm going off of personal experience and what I hear. Frankly though, I have trouble stomaching it when people who "care about the women more than the likes of PP, NOW or NARAL" would take away their reproductive rights in the same breath.

If I were to suddenly, unexpectedly get pregnant despite my precautionary measures, no amount of "support" would help me. For someone like me, aborting the pregnancy as soon as I am aware of it would be the most responsible action.

Thank you. I love how we pro-lifers get labeled as only caring about the fetus and not the woman. Churches around the world have programs to help women who are pregnant and don't want an abortion. We fund hot lines to help women considering abortion. We fund the Gabriel Project. We make trips to family shelters. We have food pantries. We open our homes to teenage girls who are pregnant and need a place to live during their pregnancy and adopition process. We don't just sit on our arses praying and do nothing else. I can't stand that argument. And for those of us who can't donate a dime, there is nothing wrong with only praying for the unborn. We also pray for the women.

You get this because every "Pro-life" politician, which the vast majority of you folks support, is a Republican who wants to cut-gut-dismantle-remove the social safety net. They want to make abortion illegal, and in the next breath they want to take away the food stamps/S-chip/Medicaid/Head Start/WIC etc.etc.etc. that provides what the parents can't in our current society.

Some church groups do some charity work, and there seems to be a great deal of praying, but when D and I were young and I was laid off and we needed a little help it was the USDA food stamp program that put groceries in my fridge - not some church that would give us a sandwich at the end of a sermon about what awful sinners we were.

Governmental assistance programs are not charity, they are a loan. Many of the folks getting help will later be able to be productive, and they will pay taxes and repay the larger society for the help they got. I grew up on food stamps and government cheese, and I now buy the Gov. a new Ford every year and pay a much higher % of my income in taxes than Mitt Romney does.

Your "Conservative" politicians with their YOYO (you're on your own) policies want to cancel that loan arrangement. They absolutely love fetuses and hate (poor) children,,, at least 'til they're old enough to carry a rifle (there were no rich kids in my unit, I know what I'm talking about), and the vast vast majority of pro-lifers support them.

And that's how you "get labeled as only caring about the fetus and not the woman".

I think that the problem daffodilsoup, and others, have raised is valid. I'm quite willing to agree that many anti-abortion groups do provide significant support to women in crisis. The problem is that this support rarely lasts beyond a child's early months, or occasionally years, and often is only available during the pregnancy itself. If a woman is unprepared for motherhood, or has other practical issues that will compromise the child's life, support becomes even more necessary after the child is born, and may remain necessary until the child reaches the age of majority.

I guess I just don't understand why so many people look at keeping the child or aborting the child as the only two viable options.

As a completely serious question - genuine curiosity here - what do you view as another viable option? Do you mean adoption?

Yes.

I think that the problem daffodilsoup, and others, have raised is valid. I'm quite willing to agree that many anti-abortion groups do provide significant support to women in crisis. The problem is that this support rarely lasts beyond a child's early months, or occasionally years, and often is only available during the pregnancy itself. If a woman is unprepared for motherhood, or has other practical issues that will compromise the child's life, support becomes even more necessary after the child is born, and may remain necessary until the child reaches the age of majority.

I guess I just don't understand why so many people look at keeping the child or aborting the child as the only two viable options.

I would imagine because adoption, the only other real option, is seen to be equally traumatic for both mother and child, in the long run, whether that trauma is immediate or occurs later on in life. I'm sure there are many adoptions that work out brilliantly, but these are rarely publicised, and the experience of the mother giving up the child is rarely publicly (that looks wrong!) discussed. My impression is that a woman who has carried a foetus for nine months, and given birth to a child, will almost always have forged a strong bond with it, especially in the later months of pregnancy. To sever that bond, from everything I have ever heard or read, is profoundly traumatic, and continues to be so throughout the mother's life. A woman also would have to contend with the knowledge that at some point the child she had given away would almost certainly discover that he or she was adopted, and the struggles often faced in handling this by adoptive children are widely discussed in the press. From what my mother says, most mothers would do anything to avoid hurting their child.

I imagine you would argue that abortion is a mother harming or hurting a child anyway, but then we come back to the question of perception of when life begins, and when a group of cells/zygote/foetus becomes a child.

Yes. This. I admire women/girls who choose to give birth to a child they know they're giving to another family. To me, that is one of the most selfless things a woman can do for her child. I have a friend who helps at the pregnancy hot line. A lady called in saying she was pregnant, already had 3 kids, was in her late 20's and not married. She did not want the baby, and was considering abortion. My friend talked to her and talked to her. The lady finally said the only way she'd have the baby is if my friend adopted her (a woman she did not know). My friend went through the process and took Isabella Grace home when she was 3 days old. That was a year ago and every time I see her, I tell her what a wonderful woman her birth mother is. Sorry for the rant and derail, but adoption can be a beautiful thing.

I absolutely agree here - to those who make that choice, it is beautiful. In the highly unlikely event that I one day wish to raise children, they would be adopted.

However, I think to make abortion illegal but say "you can still put the baby up for adoption!" can hardly be seen as a viable substitute. Even if you put the baby up for adoption, you are still expecting the woman to subject herself to the traumatic experience of pregnancy and childbirth.

I'm sure it can be, Patti. Your story is lovely, and I am delighted that it worked out in that particular situation. I just prefer that women have the right to choose. For some women, keeping the child is the right choice, for others, adoption is a viable option, and for others, abortion is the road they choose. At the end of the day, I think we have to trust women to make that decision for themselves.

To sever that bond, from everything I have ever heard or read, is profoundly traumatic, and continues to be so throughout the mother's life. I imagine you would argue that abortion is a mother harming or hurting a child anyway

Yes. This. I admire women/girls who choose to give birth to a child they know they're giving to another family. To me, that is one of the most selfless things a woman can do for her child. I have a friend who helps at the pregnancy hot line. A lady called in saying she was pregnant, already had 3 kids, was in her late 20's and not married. She did not want the baby, and was considering abortion. My friend talked to her and talked to her. The lady finally said the only way she'd have the baby is if my friend adopted her (a woman she did not know). My friend went through the process and took Isabella Grace home when she was 3 days old. That was a year ago and every time I see her, I tell her what a wonderful woman her birth mother is. Sorry for the rant and derail, but adoption can be a beautiful thing.

I'm sure it can be, Patti. Your story is lovely, and I am delighted that it worked out in that particular situation. I just prefer that women have the right to choose. For some women, keeping the child is the right choice, for others, adoption is a viable option, and for others, abortion is the road they choose. At the end of the day, I think we have to trust women to make that decision for themselves.

I think this has ended up as a double-post. Sorry!